1. Judicial Behavior And The War On Drugs In The Dutch Real Estate Sector
A quantitative analysis of Dutch litigation regarding drug-related closures
Michelle Bruijn

2. Overview Dutch drug policy Research questions Methodology Results
Discussion and conclusion

4. Homebased cannabis growers
Problems
Illegal production
Organized crime
Homebased cannabis growers
Stashes

5. Article 13b Opium Act Closure power mayor: Sold Delivered Supplied
Present for one of these purposes

6. Research questions
1. Which drug-related activities are determinative in the mayor’s decision to close down a premises?
2. What are the characteristics of the cases brought before court?
3. Which factors determine the success of the interested party (e.g. owner, shopkeeper or tenant) in his or her appeal against the lock-down of a premises?

7. Quantitative analysis
Methodology
Quantitative analysis
fixed research terms
Homes
November 2007 – December 2014
65 court decisions
Coffeeshops
January 2010 – August 2015
31 court decisions
Other (public) premises
57 court decisions
Fisher exact test p<0.05

8. Results - Reasons for closure
AHOJGI-criteria:
A) No advertisement
H) No hard drugs
0) No public disturbance
J) No minors
G) max 5 grams; 500 grams
I) Only Dutch residents
AHOJGI-criteria: A) No advertisement
H) No hard drugs
0) No public disturbance
J) No minors
G) max 5 grams; 500 grams
I) Only Dutch residents

9. Results - Type of drug
P=0.06
In percentages

10. Results - Court decisions
***

11. Results – Defenses
In percentages

12. Results - Reasons appeal denied

13. Discussion & conclusion
1. Drug-related activities
Trading stock (>5 grams soft drugs; 5 plants; >0,5 grams hard drugs)
Violation of the AHOJGI-criteria
Selling drugs
Growing cannabis

14. Discussion & conclusion
2. Characteristics case:
3. Determining factors:
Presence of drugs
Cannabis cultivation in homes
Dealing drugs in other buildings
‘One strike you are out’-policy
Type of drugs
Type of premises
Defense
Amount of drugs

15. References
De Jong, M.A.D.W. “The Dutch Mayor as crimefighter: lifebuoy of false guide?,” in: L.J.J. Rogier & M.A.D.W. de Jong (red.), Administrative approach of crime and terrorism. Den Haag: Boom Juridische uitgevers, 2007.
Lawless, R.M., Robbennolt, J.K. and Ulen, T.S. Empirical Methods in Law. Austin: Kluwer, 2010.
Spong, G., Smeets, S. and Vis, T. The hypocrisy of the “backdoor” . Zutphen: Balans, 2012.
Teurlings, M. and Cohen, P. “Regulating the “backdoor” of the coffeeshop.” NJB, 6 (2005),
“Kamerstukken II [Parliamentary Papers],” 30515, 3 (2005/2006), 2 and 6-8.
“Kamerstukken II [Parliamentary Papers],” , 1 (1996/1997).
“Opium Act Instructions” Staatscourant, (2015), 5391.