Public Prosecution Service tightens approach to violence against emergency workers
Public OM information cites tougher sentencing demands as the starting point, but the precise new guideline has not been published.
The Public Prosecution Service is again emphasising higher sentencing demands for violence against emergency workers and others with a public duty. The available public information confirms the existing starting point of a 200 per cent increase, but gives no complete picture of the new guideline reported by NOS.
The OM website states that violence against people with a public duty, such as police officers, firefighters, healthcare workers and public transport staff, is treated as a priority. In such cases, the OM says the starting point is a sanction 200 per cent higher than for comparable violence against other citizens.
That increase does not automatically mean that a suspect will be punished three times as harshly. The OM says that the public prosecutor also considers the nature and seriousness of the offence, the circumstances and the suspect’s personal situation. Moreover, the court ultimately decides the sentence.
The distinction between a sentencing demand and an imposed sentence is important. A public prosecutor may demand a higher sentence, but the court remains independent and may reach a different outcome. A case may also end with a penalty order or another form of disposal, depending on the circumstances.
The debate over how the increase is applied has been going on for some time. In June, the Lower House asked the government for more insight into how higher sentencing demands and sentences are determined. MPs had previously also called for stricter measures, including minimum sentences, while the police and judiciary warned against losing scope for individual circumstances.
The public sources do not make clear which parts of the newly reported guideline have changed. It is clear, however, that the OM wants violence against public officials to carry greater weight and that the 200-per-cent rule already exists as a policy starting point. No public figures were found showing exactly how many cases are being handled under the new guideline.
One story, several perspectives
What is established
- The OM uses a 200 per cent increase as the starting point for violence against people with a public duty.
- The court independently decides the final sentence.
- The Lower House is asking for more insight into the application of higher sentencing demands.
Left
Arguments Protecting emergency workers requires above all prevention, good working conditions and insight into the causes of aggression. Harsher sentences may be necessary, but must not conceal a lack of care, staff or support.
Values Equal legal protection, proportionality and attention to social causes.
Consequences A one-sided emphasis on punishment may burden prisons and leave problems involving addiction, mental illness and staff shortages unresolved.
Centre
Arguments Violence against emergency workers must clearly be punished more severely, but application on a case-by-case basis remains necessary. Transparent guidelines can increase trust without undermining judicial independence.
Values The rule of law, practicability and individual assessment.
Consequences Greater openness may build support, but could also create additional administrative burdens for the OM and the judiciary.
Right
Arguments Anyone who attacks emergency workers directly undermines public order and should therefore be punished more quickly and noticeably more severely. According to this approach, existing policy falls short if prosecutors often depart from the increase.
Values Authority, safety and protection of public functions.
Consequences Stricter demands may send a deterrent signal, but increase the risk of disproportionate sentences and leave less room for individual circumstances.
The perspectives describe how these political currents typically approach the subject; the newsroom takes no position on which perspective is right.
Fact-check Approved with corrections · 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 core points about the existing OM starting point and the parliamentary debate have been confirmed. The text was toned down because the full new guideline could not be checked publicly.
- confirmed The OM uses a sanction 200 per cent higher as the starting point for violence against people with a public duty. — This is stated on the public OM page. source
- confirmed A higher sentencing demand does not automatically lead to an imposed sentence three times as high. — The OM describes the increase as a starting point and mentions additional circumstances. source
- confirmed The Lower House asked for more insight into sentencing demands and sentences. — This is stated in the parliamentary document from June 2026. source
- uncertain The precise new guideline was not found in full in the public domain. — The available public sources mainly describe existing policy. source
1 correction(s) applied
- Was: A new OM guideline increases sentencing demands.Now: Public OM information cites a 200 per cent increase as an existing starting point; the precise new guideline is not fully public. (The full current guideline could not be independently checked.)
Editor's note
The existing OM policy and the parliamentary debate can be verified. The precise content of the new guideline mentioned in the headline was not found in full in freely available public sources.Sources
More on this in Dutch media
- Het Parool — „openbaar ministerie”
- Trouw — „openbaar ministerie”
- NRC — „openbaar ministerie”