Mulder Criterion in Tilburg: Unwitting Speeding Violations
In Tilburg and surrounding areas, the Mulder criterion serves as a crucial exception in traffic penalty law. It protects local drivers from fines for speeding violations of which they reasonably had no knowledge. Based on a Supreme Court judgment from 1985, it prevents unjust sanctions, for example from speed cameras on the Noordhoekring or A65 around Tilburg.
Origin of the Mulder Criterion
The concept stems from the Mulder judgment of the Supreme Court on 22 October 1985 (ECLI:NL:HR:1985:AC2562, NJ 1986/154). Mulder was driving at 104 km/h where the limit was 80 km/h, but his speedometer showed 85 km/h due to a fault. The Court ruled: no criminal liability without reasonable knowledge. This forms the core of Mulder case law, relevant for roads in Tilburg.
It aligns with the culpability principle: punishment requires fault, which is absent in unwitting violations.
Legal Basis
Though primarily shaped by case law, it connects to statutes such as:
- Article 40 of the Road Traffic Act 1994: Speeding as an administrative offense.
- Article 37 of the Criminal Code: No punishment without fault.
- Article 5 of the former Road Traffic Act: Basis for Mulder application.
Conditions for the Mulder Criterion in Tilburg
A successful defense requires strict criteria, refined by case law. Overview for Tilburg drivers:
| Condition | Description | Local Example |
|---|---|---|
| Unexpected Flash | Single measurement, driver caught off guard. | 20 km/h over on Westermarkt, speedometer below limit. |
| No Knowledge of Violation | Reasonably impossible to know. | Faulty speedometer during trip on A58 near Tilburg. |
| Normal Conditions | Open road, no extra risks. | Quiet Professor Dondersstraat without signs. |
| No Recklessness | No gross errors (no Mulder-plus). | No distractions or alcohol on city limits. |
Failure to meet them leads to Mulder-plus, with punishment on repetition.
Case Law Examples around Tilburg
Example 1: Faulty Speedometer
Flashed at 130 km/h (limit 100 km/h) on A65, speedometer showed 105 km/h. Inspection confirms fault: police court in Breda dismisses (Article 12(1)(c) Code of Criminal Procedure).
Example 2: Brief Overtaking
Temporarily speeding in traffic on Noordhoekring: Court of Appeal recognizes Mulder for one-off incident.
Example 3: Rejection
Repeated 30 km/h over in Tilburg center: Public Prosecutor shows pattern, punishment follows.
These cases illustrate success in local practice.
Rights and Obligations
Rights:
- Defense at hearing before District Court of Zeeland-West-Brabant (Breda).
- Seize speedometer for RDW inspection.
- Appeal (Article 67 Code of Criminal Procedure).
Obligations:
- Submit defense within 14 days of giro notification to Public Prosecution Service.
- Provide evidence (inspection, trip description).
- Cooperate with ANWB/RDW checks.
Always note 'Mulder defense' in the record of proceedings!
Frequently Asked Questions for Tilburg
Does the Mulder criterion apply to every speed camera in Tilburg?
No, only minor, one-off cases without knowledge. Recidivism or >30 km/h often futile.
How do I prove it locally?
Inspection via RDW or certified garage in Tilburg. Add speedometer photos and route.
Public Prosecution rejects, what now?
Appear at hearing in Breda. Success ~40-60% with strong evidence; otherwise appeal.
Also for mobile speed cameras in Tilburg?
Yes, with speedometer evidence and photos.
Tips for Tilburg Drivers
For success:
- Act Quickly: Do not accept, keep record of proceedings.
- Speedometer Inspection: €50-100, often refunded on win.
- Model Letters: From Legal Aid or Juridisch Loket Tilburg.
- Lawyer: For fines >€400 or license risk; consult Tilburg Municipality traffic info.