ex-moorder na 47 jaar vrij: justitie vreest 'tikkende tijdbom'
Brussel, donderdag, 4 juni 2026.
Freddy Horion komt na 47 jaar gevangenschap vrij onder elektronisch toezicht. De Gentse strafuitvoeringsrechtbank keurde zijn overplaatsing goed naar een forensisch zorgcentrum. Het Belgisch Openbaar Ministerie protesteerde hevig. Het noemt Horion een ‘tikkende tijdbom’ met ‘zeer hoog’ risico op herhaling. Justitie zag zijn risicobeoordeling genegeerd, ondanks ernstige twijfels over veiligheid. Psychiaters oordeelden eerder dat het gevaar matig is. Desondanks stelt het OM zich zorgen bij de korte behandelperiode en de beperkte beveiliging in de zorginstelling. Horion, nu 78, werd in 1980 veroordeeld voor zesvoudige moord. In 1979 pleegde hij met een medeverdachte de collectieve moord op het gezin Steyaert. Ook pleegde hij de moord op een Poolse winkelierster. Zijn vrijlating raakt gevoelige snaren in België en daarbuiten.
belgium faces backlash over horion’s release
The release of Freddy Horion after nearly five decades in prison has sparked national debate in Belgium. Authorities approved his transfer to a forensic care facility under electronic monitoring. The decision followed a ruling by the Ghent Sentence Enforcement Court despite strong opposition from the Belgian Public Prosecution Service [1]. Critics argue the move undermines public safety. Supporters cite human rights obligations. The case highlights tensions between justice, rehabilitation, and societal protection.
prosecutors warn of extreme danger
The Belgian Public Prosecution Service labeled Horion a ‘ticking time bomb’ with a ‘very high’ risk of recidivism [1]. Their formal advisory opinion to the court expressed serious concerns about releasing someone convicted of six murders. They questioned the adequacy of safeguards in the proposed forensic care setting. The prosecution emphasized that Horion’s treatment period would last only about seven months, far shorter than the typical two years [1]. These warnings were ultimately disregarded by the sentencing authority [1].
violent past haunts present decisions
In June 1979, Freddy Horion and accomplice Roland Feneulle murdered five members of the Steyaert family in Sint-Amandsberg [1]. Initially planning a robbery targeting the father, the attack escalated into mass murder [2]. Later in 1979, Horion was also convicted of killing Polish shopkeeper Hélène Lichachevski [2]. For these crimes, he received a death sentence in 1980, later commuted to life imprisonment [1]. His criminal history includes two escape attempts, one resulting in arrest in the Netherlands after roughly six weeks [2].
conflicting assessments fuel controversy
While prosecutors see imminent threat, psychiatric evaluations paint a different picture. Experts previously concluded that Horion no longer belonged in regular prison but should transition to specialized psychiatric care [3]. In 2018, judicial psychiatrists assessed him as posing a moderate risk of committing new offenses [2]. This divergence in assessment lies at the heart of the dispute. The court based its decision on these medical opinions rather than the prosecution’s security concerns [2]. Such conflicting judgments complicate risk management in long-term incarceration cases.
legal pressures shaped path to freedom
Years of legal challenges preceded Horion’s eventual release approval. Since 1993, repeated early release bids failed due to perceived risks [2]. However, in 2023, Belgium faced criticism from the European Court of Human Rights for denying Horion a realistic chance of release [3]. The court stressed ongoing detention without review violated fundamental rights. This international pressure influenced domestic proceedings. By 2026, conditions shifted enough for the Ghent Sentence Enforcement Court to approve supervised release into a secure treatment environment [3].
strict conditions govern supervised freedom
Horion’s release comes with stringent restrictions designed to limit potential harm. He must reside in a specialized forensic care center equipped with electronic surveillance [1]. Direct contact with victims’ families is prohibited, as is communication with media outlets [1]. Alcohol and drug use are banned, and he cannot enter East or West Flanders province [1]. Movement outside the facility remains restricted even though the unit operates with lower security protocols where exterior doors may remain unlocked during daytime hours [1]. Compliance is mandatory to maintain conditional liberty.