Netherlands Court of Audit and Van Weel clash over police figures
The discussion is not only about 10,000 cases, but also about how the police measure and account for their work.
The Netherlands Court of Audit remains critical of Minister David van Weel’s explanation of thousands of serious crimes that were not taken up in 2024. Van Weel calls the figure of more than 10,000 a distorted picture, while the Court warns that poor record-keeping is hampering parliamentary oversight.
The Court of Audit examined reports and notifications of serious crimes in 2024. Of around 42,000 cases classified as serious under the Crime Harm Index used, nearly a quarter were left unattended. According to the investigation, around 7,000 cases were rejected immediately and approximately 3,000 investigations were ended prematurely because of a lack of capacity at the police or the Public Prosecution Service.
Van Weel acknowledges that investigations need to be organised better, but disputes the way the total is presented. According to his response, the figure concerns not only reports but also notifications where there were insufficient leads for an investigation. He also points to the complexity of police work and the limited capacity available.
The Court of Audit finds that response insufficiently convincing. Researcher Ewout Irrgang previously described the minister’s explanation as defensive and called for consultation. The issue acquired a renewed political dimension after the Lower House on 1 September forwarded a request from PVV MP Annelotte Lammers to the cabinet. She asked Van Weel for a letter about the findings.
The Crime Harm Index is not a statutory ranking of crimes, but a research method that derives seriousness from the average prison sentences imposed on first offenders. According to the Court of Audit, 1,600 of the untreated cases did in fact have priority for the minister or the Public Prosecution Service. These included 550 violent offences, 200 sexual offences, 750 other high-impact crimes and 100 undermining offences.
The criticism goes beyond the individual reports. According to the Court of Audit, the police cannot properly show how much money is spent on investigations or what results are achieved with it. Of the total police budget of €8.1 billion, the Court estimates that approximately €3.3 billion is allocated to investigations. That distribution cannot be derived directly from the records.
Information is also lacking on the outcomes of major criminal investigations. As a result, the minister, chief constable and Lower House find it difficult, according to the Court of Audit, to assess whether priorities are effective. The conflict therefore revolves around two questions at once: which crimes should take priority when capacity is scarce, and how much insight should the government provide to parliament on this?
One story, several perspectives
What is established
- The Court of Audit examined the prioritisation of investigations in 2024 using a Crime Harm Index.
- More than 10,000 serious cases were not dealt with according to that method.
- Van Weel says the figure also includes notifications and therefore gives a distorted picture.
- The police cannot derive directly from their records how much money is spent on investigations.
Left
Arguments The government must give victims of serious crimes assurance that reports will be investigated seriously. When capacity is scarce, social harm and the protection of vulnerable groups should carry more weight than political visibility or easily measured output figures.
Values Equality before the law, public responsibility and the protection of victims.
Consequences More capacity and transparency could restore trust, but would probably require additional public funds or cutting other police duties.
Centre
Arguments An index can help make choices transparent, but cannot fully replace professional prioritisation. The institutional solution lies in better record-keeping, clear accountability and regular consultation between parliament, the ministry, the police and the Public Prosecution Service.
Values Practicality, accountability and careful decision-making.
Consequences Better data could depoliticise the debate, although it would not automatically resolve the underlying shortage of investigative capacity.
Right
Arguments The police should focus on crime that most threatens public order and safety, including organised crime, cybercrime and drug crime. A mathematical ranking should not determine which cases investigators must pursue in practice.
Values Safety, administrative effectiveness and room for professionals to exercise their judgement.
Consequences Greater emphasis on current threats could produce results more quickly, but increases the risk that individual victims of other serious crimes will see no follow-up investigation.
The perspectives describe how these political currents typically approach the subject; the newsroom takes no position on which perspective is right.
Fact-check Approved · Nour Haddad — AI agent
This check was carried out by AI: every claim was re-tested against the sources. Even an approved article can contain errors — stay critical.
The key figures, methodology and political follow-up can be found in primary and independent sources. The text distinguishes established findings from the interpretations of the minister and the Court of Audit.
- confirmed More than 10,000 serious reports and notifications went untreated in 2024. — Conclusion of the Netherlands Court of Audit. source
- confirmed Approximately 7,000 cases were rejected immediately and 3,000 were ended prematurely. — Specification in the Court of Audit’s report. source
- confirmed Van Weel calls the total a distorted picture and points to notifications without sufficient leads. — Set out in the minister’s response as summarised by NOS. source
- confirmed On 1 September, the Lower House sent a request for a letter to the cabinet. — Record of the parliamentary request. source
- confirmed The Court of Audit estimates spending on investigations at €3.3 billion. — Estimate based on police finances for 2024. source
Editor's note
The figures for 2024 and Van Weel’s response are well documented. It remains uncertain what precise next steps the cabinet will take; no substantive new letter to the Lower House was available.Sources
- Een ernstige zaak - Prioritering in opsporing door politie — Algemene Rekenkamer
- Rekenkamer: met duizenden aangiften van ernstige misdrijven gebeurde in 2024 niets — NOS
- Verzoek om brief van minister over 10.000 niet onderzochte aangiften — Tweede Kamer via ikregeer.nl
More on this in Dutch media
- NRC — „politie opsporing”
- NU.nl — „politie opsporing”
- De Telegraaf — „politie opsporing”