Introduction
Everyone makes mistakes at work, but sometimes serious mistakes can have far-reaching consequences. This is certainly true for public officials in the judicial system, where a moment of carelessness can have a major impact on society. A recent ruling by the North Holland District Court involved two civil servants who released the wrong detainee without conducting a thorough check. Their employer transferred them. The civil servants disagreed with this decision and took the matter to court. The question was: Was the transfer justified? The court provided a clear answer.
The mistake: the wrong inmate was released
The two officials in question worked at a detention center housing various groups of detainees, such as asylum seekers who had exhausted all legal remedies, foreign nationals awaiting deportation, and drug couriers. One evening, one of the detainees was to be released. Prior to any release, a so-called biomedical check must always be conducted, in which biometric data is used to verify that the correct person is being released.
In this case, the officials failed to perform that check. They only verified the detainee’s last name and released someone who had the same last name as the person who was actually supposed to be released. The serious mistake wasn’t discovered until later, but by then it was already too late: the wrong person had already disappeared from the detention center.
The consequences: arrest warrant and transfer
The serious error had immediate consequences. The correct inmate was still in custody, but the man who had been wrongfully released could not be located. An arrest warrant was issued, but the individual has not been located to date. The risk this posed to public order and safety was given serious consideration.
The employer then decided to transfer both civil servants. They were to be assigned to a different location and position. The civil servants objected to this. They considered the measure disproportionate and believed that their working relationship with the employer had been disrupted.
The Judge: Dereliction of Duty and Responsibility
The magistrate thoroughly reviewed the case. It was acknowledged that this was a serious error with major consequences. Verifying the identity of a detainee is a core duty and requires the utmost care. The judge deemed the mere verification of a last name and the failure to conduct a biometric check to be a serious dereliction of duty.
According to the judge, the officials were expected to know the standard procedures for release. They should have taken action on their own initiative, even if they were under time pressure or if the situation was routine. Especially in an environment where diligence can be a matter of life and death, mistakes like these are unacceptable.
Transfer as an Appropriate Measure
The judge ruled that the transfer was not a disciplinary penalty, but a reasonable and proportionate measure to prevent a recurrence and restore confidence in the performance of the employee’s duties. Given the seriousness of the error, its impact, and the fact that the error resulted from negligence rather than force majeure, the employer was entitled to make this decision.
The judge dismissed the civil servants’ objection. The transfer was deemed justified, and there was no disproportionate action or negligence on the part of the employer.
What can we learn from this?
This ruling confirms that civil servants in sensitive positions bear a greater responsibility. When they make serious mistakes, this may result in organizational consequences, even if there was no intent or malice involved.
Employers in the public sector may, provided they give adequate justification, take action in cases of dereliction of duty. At the same time, the ruling shows that not every instance of poor performance need lead to dismissal: a transfer may also be an appropriate response.
Conclusion
The release of the wrong detainee is a mistake with far-reaching consequences. The court ruled that the transfer of the civil servants involved was justified, given their negligence in a crucial verification procedure. For employees in such positions, this means that diligence must always be a top priority; mistakes are human, but some mistakes can make a position untenable. For government employers, this ruling demonstrates that disciplinary measures can be taken, provided they are well-founded and proportionate.
This blog was written by Stijn Blom, Esq., an employment law attorney at Arbeidsadvocaat.nl B.V. Stijn has extensive experience in employment law and assists employers and employees on a daily basis with a wide range of employment law issues. From dismissal cases to drafting watertight agreements and policies—with his practical and personalized approach, he helps employers and employees move forward. Want to learn more? Visit Stijn’s page.
Arbeidsadvocaat.nl is happy to help you if you have any questions about transfers. Please feel free to contact us .
April 2025