Dutch police to strip victim and witness data from crime reports to curb intimidation
Police and prosecutors in the Netherlands will begin shielding the personal details of crime victims and witnesses more strictly, aiming to prevent intimidation and fear among those who report offenses, according to De Volkskrant. The new approach takes effect Tuesday, coinciding with a law that sharply limits which personal data can appear in official reports.
Under the updated law, police reports must include only the victim’s name and date of birth, the minimum necessary to verify their identity reliably. Information such as addresses, places of residence or stay, phone numbers, email addresses, places and countries of birth, and citizen service numbers will be omitted from indictments, claims, and other legal documents. An exception applies if prosecutors deem those details “reasonably relevant” for a judge’s decision—for example, in burglary cases where the location itself is part of the crime.
The Public Prosecution Service confirmed that witnesses will also receive broader privacy protections. A spokesperson said sharing personal information could damage witnesses’ right to privacy. This measure follows consultations among the police, the prosecution service, and the Council for the Judiciary.
Until now, the privacy of suspects has been relatively well safeguarded, but victims’ and witnesses’ personal data frequently appeared in reports accessible to defendants and their lawyers. Slachtofferhulp Nederland, the national victim support organization, has advocated for stricter rules for five years. “We are very happy that this is finally happening; it’s extremely important for our clients,” Charlotte Bijl, legal policy adviser for the organization, told de Volkskrant. “We have had long discussions about this with our partners in the justice system.”
Slachtofferhulp Nederland documented numerous cases. In one example, someone’s bag containing house keys was stolen, and the police later informed the victim that their private address had been included in the report seen by the suspect. The victim was alarmed, especially because the locks had not been changed. Another case involved a woman who reported seeing a man masturbating on a bench near a playground. After her report, a car repeatedly drove past her home—the same vehicle she had seen at the playground. She feared the suspect would confront her.
Police have provided victims with information leaflets stating they could list only a postal address in their report, such as their lawyer’s office. But victims do not always read the material, often because they are in shock. Slachtofferhulp Nederland believes officers should always give verbal explanations, a step they say frequently does not occur. In one case, a boy reported a severe assault, only for the attackers to gain access to his personal information. “We know where to find you—we’ll finish you off,” they threatened.
Victim lawyer Richard Korver said clients regularly express fear of retaliation. “Usually it doesn’t escalate,” he told de Volkskrant. “Any suspect with more than two brain cells realizes it’s stupid to act on threats. But the fear exists. Perhaps this law, which has been a long-held wish, will give victims some peace.” He noted that the measure is especially important for victims attacked, robbed, or raped by strangers. When the perpetrator is an acquaintance, he said, the added protection is often less critical.
Korver described a case where his client’s private information ended up in the suspect’s file without her knowledge. She had been raped, and her phone number and other details were attached to a detailed description of the crime. When the suspect received a USB stick containing the file in his cell, the device disappeared. Soon after, she began receiving calls from unknown men making lewd comments. “That USB stick was never recovered,” Korver said. “It made the ordeal even worse.”
Victim lawyer Sébas Diekstra called the changes “a step in the right direction” but warned that even limited details can be enough to identify a victim. “With only a name and date of birth, it’s still quite easy these days to find where someone lives,” he told de Volkskrant. “Almost everyone leaves traces online.”
Diekstra urged further measures outside the legal documents themselves. “I often work hard to keep a victim’s identity out of the media, but some outlets publish the name anyway without consent. Or a judge reads the name aloud in court. That strips the victim of control over their privacy, contrary to the principle that they should not be forced to suffer again.”
Slachtofferhulp Nederland also wants to see birth dates removed from records unless strictly necessary. “You should only include them if it’s truly relevant,” Bijl told de Volkskrant. “In sex crime cases involving minors, for example, including the full birth date can influence the sentencing. In other cases, simply stating the victim’s age would reveal less personal information.”
