EN
EN NL FR
Contact us
Focus
Labor Law
Mediation
Cryptofraud
Family and family property law
Food law
Commercial law and contracts
Rent, real estate & construction law
Collection
Insolvency and restructuring
Intellectual rights
Corporate Law
Sports law & counseling
Criminal law / Social criminal law
Transportation Law
Corporate Law
Traffic Law
Insurance and liability law
Sex crimes
Get in touch
EN
EN NL FR
E: info@bannister.beT: 03/369.28.00
KBO: 0543.311.054
Home News The Mahi case: tension between criminal justice and psychiatry
Table of contents

The Mahi case: tension between criminal justice and psychiatry

The Mahi case: tension between criminal justice and psychiatry

Introduction

On Nov. 10, 2022, 29-year-old police officer Thomas M. died after a stabbing in Schaerbeek. Another officer, Jason P., was injured in the incident.

The suspect could be identified as Y. Mahi; a 32-year-old man from Evere, known to OCAD as a "potentially violent extremist.

The death of the young police officer, sent shock waves through our society. Especially since Mahi had reported to the police headquarters earlier that day saying that he felt aggressive thoughts and hatred toward the police and needed psychiatric counseling.

Nevertheless, the attack on these two officers is not an exceptional case. Indeed, police officers are exposed to risks of violence several times in the performance of their duties. In 2021, 10,095 acts of violence against police officers were recorded. That was as many as 28 per day.

The mission of police officers is essentially to protect society. For this very reason Violence against police officers punished extra severely. The Minister of Justice makes combating violence against the police a priority. Upon taking office, Minister Van Quickenborne proclaimed a policy of "zero tolerance for violence against the police" in a circular letter. The circular emphasizes that violence against the police is unacceptable and that impunity must be avoided. In concrete terms, this implies that as soon as there is at least one day of incapacitation, police violence will be systematically prosecuted. Consequently, a discretionary dismissal (this means that the public prosecutor decides not to prosecute because of, for example, capacity problems or other priorities) will no longer be possible. The circular also advocates that the case should be dealt with through summary justice, so that a verdict is rendered within two months.

Violence and defamation against police officers in general

Given the special authority status of police officers, our criminal code has specific provisions for violence or harm to a police officer. The two main ones, defamation and violence, will be briefly discussed below.

Defamation 

'Defamation' means inflicting harm on a protected person (e.g., a police officer) in the performance of his or her duties (Sw. 275-277). 'Defamation' is punishable by imprisonment from eight days to one month and a fine from 26 to 200 euros.

For "defamation" to exist, several components must be present.

  • First, the "defamation" must be done by words, actions, gestures or threats. 'Acts' are certain acts that may affect the honor or dignity of the protected person. 'Words' include insults, slander and defamation of honor, ridicule, etc. 'Behaviors', in turn, are acts specifically aimed at demeaning the authority of the protected person. Finally, 'threats' imply a lack of respect for the police officer.
  • Second, the "defamation" must be directed against a protected person (in this case, a police officer) in the exercise or on the occasion of his or her ministry. For a police officer, this is the case when he or she performs a task within his or her authority as a police officer (such as patrolling a particular neighborhood, for example).

Every crime also requires a moral component. For "libel," this is the particular intent to ridicule or disobey the police officer.

Violence

In addition to "defamation," violence against police officers is also criminalized (Sw. 278-282). By violence one understands 'inflicting blows'. This requires a blow or shock against the police officer's body, putting it in abrupt contact with another object of a hard nature. Moreover, the perpetrator must have done so knowingly and willingly.

For punishment, the consequences of the violence are considered. If one intentionally strikes or injures a police officer, without concrete consequence, one is punished with a prison sentence of one month to one year and a fine of 50 to 300 euros. This penalty is increased to a prison term of two months to two years and a fine of 50 to 300 euros, if one acted with premeditation. If the blows or injuries result in illness or incapacitation, one is punishable by imprisonment for four months to four years and a fine of 100 to 500 euros. This penalty is increased to a prison term of one year to five years and a fine of 100 to 500 euros if one acted with premeditation. If the blows result in an incurable disease, incapacity to work for more than four months, the loss of an organ, or severe mutilation, the prison sentence is increased to five to 10 years. If premeditated, the sentence increases to ten to fifteen years' incarceration. When the blows or injuries are - finally - inflicted, without intent to kill but still cause death, the punishment is an incarceration of ten to fifteen years. In case of premeditation fifteen to twenty years.

Mahi's case: the intersection between criminal justice and psychiatry

An extreme form of violence against the police....

Mahi's case is perhaps one of the most extreme examples of violence against police officers. Indeed, the violence goes far beyond mere beatings or "defamation. Indeed, Mahi attacked two police officers with a knife. During this attack he is also said to have 'Allahu Akbar' have shouted.

One police officer eventually died from his injuries and the other was seriously injured.

The above - combined with the fact that Mahi is on the OCAD list as a "potentially violent extremist" - mean that he was arrested by the investigating judge for murder of Thomas M. (394 Sw.) and attempted murder of Jason P. with a terrorist motive (Section 137 Sw.).

Link to mental health issues?

Especially the fact that Mahi asked for psychiatric help when he turned himself in to the police earlier in the day makes this case so controversial.

Since Mahi expressed a desire for psychological counseling, the police contacted the prosecutor's office to determine whether a forced psychiatric admission (also: collocation) was necessary.

A forced admission is a protective measure that may be imposed when a person suffers from a mental illness that seriously endangers his or her health and safety or because he or she poses a serious threat to the life or integrity of another person. In addition, no other alternative must remain available.

Normally, the procedure for forced admission starts by filing a petition with the justice of the peace. In cases of urgency, the emergency procedure can also be followed. In this case, the public prosecutor decides on the compulsory admission. The person concerned will then be observed by a physician. Based on the doctor's written advice, the justice of the peace will decide on the need for further hospitalization.

In Mahi's case, the man himself explicitly asked for help. The prosecutor therefore ruled that forced admission was not necessary, but did order the police to accompany Mahi to the hospital. The police did this, but Mahi left there on his own. He was perfectly able to do this because, according to the law, one who voluntarily admits himself to a psychiatric institution can always leave it.

Whether an error of judgment was made by police or prosecutors in this case is irrelevant here. Regardless, assessing the state of mind of a suspect is never an easy job. The issue of the attribution is, after all, always at a difficult intersection between criminal justice and psychiatry.

Mahi's state of mind, then, will undoubtedly require further judgment. In the next stages of the investigation - and certainly in view of the trial - that discussion will likely shift to the question of the need for Mahi's internment. The internment is (unlike forced admission) a security measure. Before internment can proceed, three conditions must be met.

  • First and foremost, the person must have committed a crime or wrongdoing that affects or threatens the physical or psychological integrity of third parties.
  • Furthermore, at the time of the decision, the person must be suffering from a mental disorder that destroys or seriously impairs his judgment or control over his actions.
  • Finally, there must be a risk that, as a result of the mental disorder, possibly in conjunction with other risk factors, the person might commit similar acts again.

Currently, the Belgian system is around attribution fairly black and white; either one is completely culpable and cannot be interned, or one is completely insanity and internment can. However, this way of thinking is based on a legal fiction that is untenable in practice. After all, mental illness cannot be translated into absolute terms, but is usually on a well-defined spectrum. It is therefore a good thing that the reforms of the new criminal code will provide for a system of "partial or diminished culpability. In the future, people who suffer from a particular mental health problem but do not meet the criteria for internment will be able to receive both punishment and treatment.

Need more information on this particular matter? Our criminal law specialists are ready to assist you. Contact us at info@bannister.be or by calling 03/369.28.00.

 

Sources:

Also read