Mulder Offense: Unwitting Speeding Violation in Rotterdam
For drivers in Rotterdam, a Mulder offense is a valuable defense in traffic penalty law. This applies to speeding violations that are not punishable because the driver reasonably had no knowledge of them. Based on a crucial Supreme Court ruling from 1985, this principle protects against unexpected fines on Rotterdam roads such as the A20 or the Erasmus Bridge, where heavy traffic often leads to surprises.
The Origin of the Mulder Offense
The Mulder offense stems from the landmark Mulder ruling of the Supreme Court on 22 October 1985 (ECLI:NL:HR:1985:AC2562, NJ 1986/154). Mr. Mulder drove at 104 km/u where the limit was 80 km/u, but his speedometer showed 85 km/u due to a manufacturing defect. The Court ruled that without reasonable knowledge of the violation, there is no criminal liability. This 'Mulder construction' has since been authoritative in cases at the Rotterdam District Court.
This fits the culpability principle: criminal liability requires fault, and lack of knowledge negates it.
Legal Basis
The construction is grounded in case law, linked to:
- Article 40 of the Road Traffic Act 1994: Speeding violations as administrative offenses.
- Article 37 of the Criminal Code: No punishment without fault.
- Article 5 of the Road Traffic Act (old): Limited by Mulder case law.
Conditions for a Successful Mulder Offense
A Mulder offense requires strict criteria, refined by the Supreme Court and Rotterdam District Court. Overview:
| Condition | Explanation | Example in Rotterdam |
|---|---|---|
| Unexpected Reading | One-time surprise, no repetition. | 20 km/u over on the Maasboulevard, speedometer below limit. |
| No Knowledge | Reasonably impossible to know. | Faulty speedometer during rush hour on the A16. |
| Reasonable Circumstances | No extreme congestion or warnings. | Open lane at Kralingse Plas, no signs. |
| No Gross Negligence | No recklessness (no Mulder-plus). | No alcohol or phone use on Beneluxhavenweg. |
Failure to meet these leads to a Mulder-plus, resulting in liability, often in repeated violations in the area.
Practical Examples from Rotterdam Case Law
Example 1: Faulty Speedometer
A Rotterdam driver flashed at 130 km/u (limit 100 km/u) on the Van Brienenoordbrug; speedometer showed 105 km/u. Inspection confirmed the fault. Rotterdam Police Judge: Mulder offense, dismissal (art. 12(1)(c) Code of Criminal Procedure).
Example 2: Overtaking in Traffic
Brief exceedance while overtaking on the A20 due to traffic density. Rotterdam Court of Appeal: Mulder offense, if one-time.
Example 3: Rejection
Repeated 30 km/u over in the city: PP proves pattern, punishable at Rotterdam District Court.
These cases illustrate practice at the local court.
Rights and Obligations in a Mulder Offense in Rotterdam
Rights:
- Defense at Rotterdam Police Judge or prosecutor's hearing.
- Demand speedometer seizure for RDW inspection.
- Appeal (art. 67 Code of Criminal Procedure).
Obligations:
- File defense within 14 days of payment notice from the prosecutor.
- Provide evidence (inspection, trip description).
- Cooperate with local inspection stations (RDW Rotterdam).
Always note 'Mulder defense' in the official report!
Frequently Asked Questions
Does Mulder apply to every Rotterdam speed camera?
No, only minor, one-time cases without knowledge. Recidivism or >30 km/u often not.
How do I prove it?
Inspection by RDW Rotterdam or certified garage. Include speedometer reading and route description.
Prosecutor rejects?
Attend hearing at Rotterdam District Court. Appeal if lost; success rate 40-60%.
Also for speed cameras in port area?
Yes, with speedometer proof and photos.
Tips for Rotterdam Drivers
Successfully challenge:
- Take Action: Don't blindly accept, keep the report.
- Inspect Speedometer: Immediately at RDW Rotterdam (€50-100, often reimbursed).
- Model Letter: From Rotterdam Legal Aid or Rotterdam Legal Desk.
- Lawyer: For fines >€400 or license risk, via Rotterdam Municipality advice.