On 4 February 2024 Alberto Stegeman stood up for members of the public once more. In this episode of his show ‘Stegeman Stands Up For’ he devoted attention to families who fell victim to a construction company. One family had paid over 200,000 Euro for a prefab timber frame house, which was eventually never built. Except for the supply of retaining walls and driving a few piles into the soil, nothing was realised.
After an elaborate reconstruction of the family’s situation, Stegeman confronted the former owners of the now dissolved construction company on camera. Also, there was a talk after the recordings between the families, Stegeman and one of the owners.
Even before the broadcast the former owner expressed his discontent with the show. He argued that his interests were seriously damaged “if he were to be portrayed as a conman in a TV broadcast”. After some email exchanges in which production asked him to substantiate his arguments with documents, he demanded that Noordkaap refrain from airing the episode. Next, production still asked additional questions to hear both sides of the argument, which the former owner replied to by e-mail.
Eventually Noordkaap decided to air the episode on 4 February 2024. The owner then brought summary proceedings, because he believed the broadcast to be unlawful. He argued that he was accused of fraud without a thorough investigation into this, and that both sides of the argument had not been heard sufficiently. He demanded that the broadcast be taken offline, a rectification be published, and both material and immaterial damage be compensated.
The Court concluded otherwise. As usual, it weighed the producer's – Noordkaap’s – interest against the claimant’s. The Court emphasized that Noordkaap has an interest in expressing itself, not only in an informative and critical capacity, but also to express an opinion and warning on situations of abuse that affect society. The media are therefore allowed to report that a person at issue has made a report to the police. Because it is only the words of the person at issue that are represented, there is no accusation of a criminal offence. Making such a statement is not an unlawful act as such.
The Court also held that the statements in the broadcast are substantiated with thorough journalistic research and are sufficiently supported by the available facts. Furthermore, the Court held that both sides of the argument were heard adequately, because the claimant was twice given the opportunity to show documents and was asked supplementary questions by e-mail. It is his risk that the claimant has been reticent in his response. Besides, Noordkaap took measures to protect the claimant’s identity, including by not mentioning his full surname in the broadcast and rendering his face unrecognisable.
Finally, the Court emphasized why Noordkaap has an interest in airing this episode:
“What is more, at Noordkaap […] several victims […] have come forward who claimed to have paid big sums of money for the construction of their houses, while those houses were actually never delivered. The persons concerned could no longer recover their damage from [the company] now that the company had been dissolved and offered no more recourse. In light thereof, Noordkaap had an interest in informing the public about this.“
The Court held that the broadcast is lawful and that the claimant’s claims will be denied.
