Dutch prosecutors seek 250-euro fine in appeal of former Groningen mayor Koen Schuiling

Appeal hearing in Zwolle

The Court of Appeal in Zwolle heard the appeal case of former Groningen mayor Koen Schuiling on Wednesday. Dutch prosecutors maintained their stance, demanding a 250-euro fine against the 67-year-old former administrator for alleged public indecency. The proceedings took place under strict privacy measures, with the court prohibiting court sketch artists, including sketch artist Petra Urban, from depicting Schuiling during the session. Audio recordings of Schuiling's voice were also barred by the judicial panel. Prosecutors argued that public officials must adhere to the law, while Schuiling maintained that the accusations stem from a misunderstanding.

I have to this day not found the words to explain what this process has done to me and my loved ones. But I fight back. Because I did not do this.

The 2024 highway incident

The legal dispute originated on the evening of 25 March 2024 along the A7 motorway between Hoogezand and Groningen. A milk truck driver driving alongside Schuiling's vehicle reported seeing him perform masturbatory movements after Schuiling turned on his interior cabin light. Following the report, the Public Prosecution Service issued a 250-euro penalty order against Schuiling in June 2024. Schuiling contested the penalty, leading to a hearing before a police judge in Zwolle on 12 March 2025, where he was convicted and ordered to pay the 250-euro fine. Schuiling, who is trained as a jurist, appealed that verdict to clear his name.

Defense arguments and medical claims

Defense lawyers Sven Brinkhoff and Peter Koops argued that the single witness statement is insufficient and unreliable. Brinkhoff cited medical records and Schuiling's prior open-heart surgery, appendectomy, and chronic prostate issues, asserting that physical impotence made the alleged act medically impossible. The defense stated that Schuiling had unbuttoned his trousers solely to massage his lower abdomen to relieve sharp abdominal spasms. During witness questioning leading up to the appeal, the truck driver acknowledged he was less certain about the speed of the movements, though prosecutors argued the hand motions were unambiguous.

A witness can be sincere in his statement, but have seen it completely wrong.

Confrontation recording and fallout

During Wednesday's hearing, judges discussed an audio recording made by the truck driver during a confrontation with Schuiling at a roadside parking area. A member of the court noted that Schuiling sounded relaxed on the tape and questioned why he did not explain his medical pain during that interaction. Schuiling responded that he was in severe pain and sought only to end the confrontation and find a quiet place. Schuiling also criticized regional police and prosecution leadership for what he termed investigative tunnel vision, noting that the ongoing two-and-a-half-year proceedings have left him excluded from public administration roles and limited to volunteer work. The Court of Appeal scheduled its verdict for two weeks from Wednesday.