DPG Media Privacy Gate
Utrecht tram shooter radicalised, but authorities didn't intervene: 'This is extremely painful.'
Police and justice haven't paid enough attention to the many problems that Utrecht tram shooter Gökmen Tanis was involved in. With more attention they could have reduced the risks for society, according to a new report. Relatives call the conclusions 'extremely painful'.
The Justice and Safety Inspectorate draws these conclusions in its report published today about the terrorist attack on 18 March 2019. On that day Gökmen Tanis shot dead four people during the attack on the 24 October Square in Utrecht, two others were seriously injured. He was arrested the same day and is now serving a life sentence.
Shortly after the attack, it became known that three weeks before his fatal deed, Tanis had abused a guard in the prison in Lelystad. He received a 'disciplinary punishment' for this, but was released a few days later. Minister Grapperhaus then announced an investigation into possible earlier signs of radicalisation of Tanis.
This investigation has now been completed. It shows that government services did not cooperate sufficiently and did not pass on signals of radicalisation from Tanis to each other. Tanis had been in prison a number of times, each time for a short period, before he committed the attack.
He had been convicted of, among other things, possession of firearms, was rated firearm dangerous by the police in 2013, displayed radical behaviour in prison in 2016 and in 2017, proved to be aggressive there several times (including in 2019) and had been designated a criminal multiple offender in both 2014 and 2018.
The Public Prosecutor's Office, the police and the Judicial Institutions Department (DJI, responsible for prisons) each knew about his problems. But they only passed on their information to a limited extent, so that a complete picture did not emerge.
In any case, the information was not shared with the municipality of Utrecht nor with the probation service. This would have been logical as the municipality and the probation service had to help him return to society after his imprisonment. As a result, his behaviour was not discussed in the Care and Safety House where the parties cooperate.
Passing on this information would have possibly made the picture of his many problems and the approach to them more complete. After all, the municipality knew him as an avoider of care.
The Inspectorate is not saying that the attack could have been prevented. Risks can never be ruled out but they must be made as small as possible. That is what the police, the Public Prosecution Service and the Judicial Institutions Department did insufficiently in this case, according to the Inspectorate.
Lawyer Sébas Diekstra, who represents the father of Roos Verschuur who was shot and killed, said in a reaction to the report: "The mere idea that through better communication there might have been a chance that the attack could have been prevented is extremely painful for the father."
The Inspectorate also concluded that on the day of the attack, the crisis organisations did not work well together and did not share their information in a timely manner. The police were confused internally about the procedure to be followed. The different police teams followed different procedures while tracking down the shooter.
Furthermore, information about the investigation was not efficiently shared internally or externally. As a result, the information about Tanis' possible whereabouts did not reach those who had to make decisions in time. Had this happened on time, then the municipality of Utrecht, among others, might have been able to advise its residents sooner and more clearly. Earlier research had already shown that the municipality should have communicated better on that day.
The advice given by the municipality of Utrecht ('stay indoors') was also not clear enough. For residents, companies and organisations it was unclear what exactly they should do. For instance, cafés closed their doors. Their guests ended up on the street, so they no longer had a safe haven. There was a lack of suggestions as to what residents, businesses and organisations could do in such a situation.
According to the Inspectorate, a few things have improved since the attack. The DJI has set up a Radicalisation Hotline. Here, prisons can report signs of radicalisation of detainees. And the police have opted for one type of investigation procedure in the event of a possible terrorist attack.
BBM
