A court in Utrecht has ruled that Het Jagerhuis in Veenendaal is not liable for the 2020 death of client Joffrey, despite failing to provide adequate care. The ruling concluded that while the institution's care was insufficient, it could not have foreseen the death.

A court in Utrecht has determined that Het Jagerhuis, a care institution in Veenendaal, is not liable for the death of a 40-year-old client named Joffrey in 2020. According to the ruling, while the institution did not provide adequate care, it could not be held responsible for Joffrey's death.

Joffrey had lived independently since 2010, supported by Het Jagerhuis in an apartment in Veenendaal. He was described as having a mild intellectual disability and suffering from a psychological and behavioural disorder. On 12 August 2020, Joffrey's brother visited him after their mother had been unable to reach him by phone for several days. Upon arrival, the brother discovered Joffrey's body in a severely unkempt home, where temperatures were high due to a heatwave.

The judges acknowledged the distress faced by Joffrey's family upon finding him in such conditions, stating that it must have been "terrible for the bereaved to have found their loved one this way and that his life ended under these circumstances." However, they concluded that Het Jagerhuis incorrectly assumed that the care provided was satisfactory and could not have foreseen that Joffrey would die.

Since 2013, Joffrey had not allowed anyone into his home, which meant that care providers were unable to enter and render assistance without his permission. The Public Prosecution Service had stated that Joffrey required 24-hour care, yet the institution lacked a heat protocol. An autopsy indicated that Joffrey died of natural causes, though the exact cause was unknown.

The court also noted that it could not be determined whether Joffrey would have survived had he received proper care from Het Jagerhuis. Previously, the Public Prosecution Service had sought a €25,000 fine against the institution for negligent homicide, but the court did not reach that conclusion and acquitted the care provider, imposing no penalty.

The ruling has been closely watched, given the implications for care institutions in similar circumstances.

For further details, visit the original article on NOS.