Court accepts deal in prison drone smuggling case, hands suspended sentence

A court in Dordrecht has sentenced a 34-year-old man from Rijsenhout in Noord-Holland to a four-month suspended prison term and 120 hours of community service for smuggling drugs to inmates using drones and mobile phones, as well as for drug possession. He was also fined 10,000 euros, with half of the amount suspended. The court accepted procedural agreements made between the Public Prosecution Service (OM) and the defendant, Mark S., and issued its verdict immediately after the hearing.

The OM says S. conducted around 70 drone flights between April 2021 and February 2024, smuggling banned items to inmates across the Netherlands, Belgium, and Luxembourg. He allegedly made about 30,000 euros from the operation.

He was ultimately prosecuted for dropping a package containing roughly 100 grams of hashish into the prison in Veenhuizen and for using drones to deliver packages with three iPhones to prisons in Krimpen aan den IJssel and Almelo. Police later found MDMA during a search of his home following his arrest.

S. was arrested in March 2024 along with two other suspects. The investigation started after police intelligence indicated that he had provided a mobile phone to a man convicted of acting as a lookout in the 2015 killing of a spy shop employee in Huizen, a case linked to the Marengo liquidation trial. However, this alleged connection was not confirmed in the subsequent investigation.

“It can create life-threatening situations if a suspect like that has a phone,” the prosecutor said. He said drone deliveries are becoming an increasing security issue in prisons.

The OM is therefore pushing to reclassify the use of drones to smuggle phones into prisons as a criminal offence rather than a minor violation. Under criminal offence status, police would be able to use stronger investigative powers, such as phone tapping, but this would require a change in legislation.

The prosecution against one co-suspect was dropped for insufficient evidence, and another has since passed away. Under the agreement reached, S. waives the right to contest the charges and to appeal. In exchange, the OM recommended a lower sentence. These types of arrangements are used to accelerate criminal proceedings and reduce pressure on the courts.

At the hearing, S. said he agreed to the deal because he did not want to return to prison. He explained that he has a job and has recently become a father to a son. “I just want it to be over,” he said.