KRC Genk Fans Face Prison, Stadium Bans for Rioting

Genk (Brussels Morning) – The trial of 18 KRC Genk fans for gang formation and rioting continues, with some facing prison sentences and stadium bans for their roles in the March 13, 2022, riots. 

The trial for eighteen hardcore KRC Genk fans continued in Tongeren on Thursday. They are being prosecuted for gang formation due to riots on March 13, 2022. After losing to STVV a group of fans clashed with police two kilometers away after trying to attack Sint-Truiden’s buses as hinted at in earlier messages. The riots were intense injuring one officer with lifelong hearing damage from a Cobra bomb explosion. Last week the main defendants were discussed and the prosecutor demanded sentences. The leader might face a three-year prison sentence and an eight-year stadium ban. The bomb thrower risks two years in prison a €2,400 fine and a five-year stadium ban. Sixteen others face prison sentences between eight and eighteen months fines up to €2,400 and stadium bans between three and five years mostly for prior offenses like climbing fences or previous police confrontations.

Can café owners and curious bvstanders be held accountable for football riots they didn’t actively participate in?

The café owner a board member of Sangue Blu was among the defendants because the core group gathered at his café before the incident. His lawyer argued for acquittal noting that the owner had a cast on his leg and played a passive role even advising against violence in a WhatsApp group. Despite many rioters not being prosecuted his client who wasn’t present during the confrontation is being held accountable. The owner stated he focuses on creating a supportive atmosphere and avoids violence balancing his café and family responsibilities.

During the trial, the defense argued there was no premeditation or gang formation. Lawyer Victoria Roddi stated that her client acted impulsively out of frustration after the match and wasn’t part of any organized group. He made mistakes like throwing a pole and a stone, and kicking a police officer, but did so out of drunkenness and disappointment. He’s a member of the Casuals, but they aren’t an organized group.

Another defendant, who has autism, followed the rioters out of curiosity. His lawyer, Carine op ‘t Roodt, explained he wore a mask because others did and isn’t linked to any supporter groups. He was recognizable, had no prior stadium bans, and doesn’t have a season ticket. He admitted being present but couldn’t recall throwing anything. The Casuals sweater found at his home was from friends who sold it.

Can defendants’ claims be believed?

The last defendant admitted to bringing a balaclava after his best friend asked him via WhatsApp before the STVV match thinking he was supposed to set off fireworks. After the match he joined the crowd but fled when confronted by police hurting himself in the process. He has three prior stadium bans.

The injured officer’s lawyer found the defendants’ claims hard to believe insisting the riots were premeditated. The officer now unable to work as a spotter described ongoing harassment including strangers coming to his house and taunting his family and pleaded for the harassment to stop.