Mulder Fact in Delft: Unwitting Speeding Violation
For residents of Delft, a Mulder fact is a valuable defense against fines for speeding violations in traffic law. This applies when you reasonably had no idea you were speeding on roads like the Rotterdamseweg or around TU Delft. Based on a landmark Supreme Court ruling from 1985, it prevents unfair penalties in unforeseen circumstances and offers protection against surprise speed cameras in the region.
Origin of the Mulder Fact
The concept stems from the Mulder ruling by the Supreme Court on 22 October 1985 (ECLI:NL:HR:1985:AC2562, NJ 1986/154). Mulder was clocked at 104 km/u where the limit was 80 km/u, but his speedometer showed 85 km/u due to a fault. The Court held: no liability without reasonable awareness. This principle now aids Delft residents facing local enforcement by Haaglanden Police.
It rests on the culpability principle: punishment requires fault. Without knowledge of the violation, there is no offense.
Legal Basis
Though primarily case-law driven, it ties to statutes such as:
- Article 40 Road Traffic Act 1994: Speeding as an administrative offense.
- Article 37 Criminal Code: No punishment without fault.
- Article 5(1) (former), now Art. 40 RTA: Mulder restricts its scope.
Conditions for Success in Delft
A Mulder defense succeeds only under strict criteria, refined by case law. Overview for local scenarios:
| Condition | Explanation | Delft Example |
|---|---|---|
| Unexpected speed camera | One-off; driver caught off guard. | 20 km/u over on A13 northbound, speedometer below limit. |
| No awareness of speeding | Did not know and could not have known. | Faulty speedometer during city-center drive. |
| Normal conditions | No chaos or signage issues. | Calm drive on Schieweg without traffic congestion. |
| No recklessness | No gross negligence (not Mulder-plus). | No distractions or alcohol in residential area. |
Failure to meet these triggers Mulder-plus: penalty despite lack of awareness, e.g., for repeat offenses in Delft.
Relevant Case Law Examples for Delft
Example 1: Faulty Speedometer
Caught at 130 km/u (limit 100 km/u) near Delft, speedometer read 105 km/u. Inspection confirmed defect. The Hague Police Court: Mulder applies, case dismissed (art. 12(1)(c) Code of Criminal Procedure).
Example 2: Overtaking in Traffic
Brief spike while overtaking in congestion on N465. Court of Appeal: Mulder for isolated incident.
Example 3: Rejection
Repeated 30 km/u over in Delft: Prosecutor shows pattern, penalty imposed.
These cases demonstrate real-world success at The Hague District Court.
Rights and Obligations in a Mulder Defense
Rights:
- Raise defense at The Hague District Court or Public Prosecution Service hearing.
- Demand speedometer seizure for RDW inspection.
- Appeal (art. 67 Code of Criminal Procedure).
Obligations:
- File defense within 14 days of Public Prosecution Service notice.
- Provide evidence (inspection report, trip description).
- Cooperate with RDW/ANWB inspection.
Always note 'Mulder defense' in the official report!
FAQs for Delft Residents
Does the Mulder fact apply to every fine in Delft?
No, only light one-off cases without awareness. Repeat offenses or >30 km/u often fail.
How do I prove it locally?
RDW or certified garage inspection. Include Delft route details and speedometer photos in your defense.
Public Prosecution Service rejects it—what next?
Attend the hearing at The Hague District Court. If convicted, appeal. Success rate ~40-60% with solid evidence.
Does it apply to speed cameras around Delft?
Yes, with speedometer proof. Photos of signs on e.g. Phoenixweg help.
Tips for Delft Residents
To successfully challenge:
- Act fast: Don't accept, keep the official report.
- Speedometer check: Get it inspected (€50-100, often refunded on win).
- Template letter: From Delft Legal Aid Office or legal aid service.
- Lawyer: For fines >€400 or driving ban, via Delft Municipality advice.