A Namur court has sentenced Grégory Lenoci to 17 years in prison for the attempted murder of a neighbor he believed had sexually abused his six-year-old stepson. The verdict, delivered on 20 August 2026, has divided public opinion in Belgium between those who see it as a necessary rejection of private vengeance and those who see a justice system that failed to act first.
Key Takeaways by Planet Today
The sentence: The Namur Criminal Court convicted Lenoci of attempted assassination with premeditation and imposed 17 years in prison plus 10 years at the disposal of the sentence-enforcement court, matching the prosecution’s request.
The background of the victim of the attack: Neighbor Marc P. had been convicted in 2020 of sexual assault on a five-year-old child and received a 37-month suspended sentence with conditions that included no contact with minors. New complaints had been filed before the July 2025 confrontation.
What the court emphasized: Judges cited planning (the neighbor was invited to Lenoci’s home), the severity of the injuries (Marc P. remains in a semi-vegetative state), Lenoci’s prior violence convictions, and the risk of reoffending.
What the defense argued: Counsel sought acquittal or a lesser charge, saying Lenoci acted under irresistible compulsion after the child described alleged abuse and after a police complaint the day before did not produce an immediate arrest.
Public reaction: The courtroom erupted in protest. A support fund later raised more than €87,000. Some politicians called the penalty disproportionate; others restated the principle that citizens may not take the law into their own hands.
What Happened in Jambes
On 24 July 2025, in Jambes, a district of Namur, 49-year-old Grégory Lenoci invited his neighbor Marc P. to his home. Two days earlier, Lenoci said, his partner’s six-year-old son had described contact with the neighbor that he interpreted as sexual abuse. On 23 July he filed a complaint with police.
According to testimony summarized in Belgian reporting, a confrontation followed. Lenoci later said the neighbor spoke about “secret games” involving the child and that he “lost control.” The court rejected the claim that the attack was a sudden, unplanned outburst. Judges found that Lenoci had arranged the meeting, that he had already spoken of harming the neighbor, and that part of the incident was filmed and posted online before he fled.
Marc P. survived but, nearly a year later, remains in a semi-vegetative or “vigil coma” state. Lenoci was later arrested and has remained in detention through trial.
Demencial. Un tribunal belga condena a 17 años de prisión a un hombre por pegar una paliza al pederasta que violó a su hijo de 6 años.
— Javier Negre (@javiernegre10) August 26, 2026
La justicia de ese país es una broma de mal gusto.
Normal que etarras y prófugos de la justicia como Puigdemont huyan a ese nido de ratas. pic.twitter.com/QtUokTILCd
Who Marc P. Was in the Eyes of the Law
Belgian outlets including RTL Info and L’Avenir reported that Marc P. was convicted in December 2020 of sexual assault and attempted rape of a five-year-old boy. He received 37 months in prison, suspended, with probation conditions: psychological follow-up and a ban on contact with minors.
Those conditions were still in force in 2025. Additional complaints concerning minors were reported in the weeks before the assault. Commentators in the Belgian press have argued that probation monitoring did not prevent the neighbor from being around children in the neighborhood. That alleged failure is central to public anger — and it is also distinct from the legal question the Namur court had to decide: whether Lenoci committed attempted murder.
 |
| Belgian child killer Marc Dutroux |
Why the Court Imposed 17 Years
The prosecution asked for 17 years plus a 10-year security period. The court granted that request. In its reasoning, as reported by Sudinfo, La Libre and VRT, the judges retained premeditation. They pointed to the invitation to the house, the number and location of blows, the filming, Lenoci’s criminal record for violence, the fact that he was already wearing an electronic bracelet, and expert descriptions of impulsivity and risk of further extreme violence.
Belgian law does not treat a parent’s rage, however understandable, as a complete defense to a planned, near-fatal beating. The defense invoked “irresistible compulsion” — a narrow doctrine that can, in theory, excuse an act if the accused had no real choice. The court said that threshold was not met.
Lenoci told the court he recognized “blows and injuries” but not attempted assassination and announced he would appeal. He has 30 days from the judgment to do so.
How Mainstream Belgian Media Framed the Case
Public broadcasters and established newspapers — RTBF, VRT, La Libre, L’Avenir, DH — reported the verdict as a criminal judgment first: attempted murder, premeditation, a victim left profoundly disabled. They also recorded the chaos in court: shouts, insults directed at the bench, supporters applauding Lenoci as he was led out.
Editorials in those same papers often held two ideas at once. One: private vengeance cannot replace the state. Two: the institutions that were supposed to keep a convicted child sex offender away from children appear to have failed, and that failure will not itself stand trial. DH’s editor put the tension in a headline: a heavy sentence for Lenoci, “impunity for the system and its flaws.”
English-language coverage, including The Brussels Times, has followed the same dual track: the legal finding and the social explosion around it.
 |
| Carles Puigdemont |
Public Anger, Politics and the Latest Development
The latest development, reported on 27 August 2026 by TV5Monde, is a support fund that has collected more than €87,000 for Lenoci. The collection itself has become part of the debate: solidarity with a father versus encouragement of extra-legal violence.
MR leader Georges-Louis Bouchez called the sentence “iniquitous and disproportionate” and said his party would propose changes on preventive detention of high-risk offenders. Jean-Denis Lejeune, father of Julie Lejeune, one of the children murdered in the 1990s Dutroux case, said he did not understand a 17-year term for a man who “defended his stepson” while a previously convicted offender had been left at liberty.
Those reactions do not change the verdict. They do explain why the case travels so quickly on social media and in opinion pages: it collides with a long Belgian memory of institutions that were too slow on child-protection files.
Dutroux as Memory, Not as Proof
The Marc Dutroux affair of the 1990s — kidnappings, rapes and murders of girls, combined with documented police and judicial delays — produced mass protests and a lasting collapse of trust. It is historically real. It is not, by itself, evidence about the Namur judges in 2026.
What the comparison does is political and emotional: many Belgians hear “the system failed the child again” and reach for that older file. A careful account has to keep the two cases separate. Dutroux was convicted after a long investigation. Lenoci was convicted for a near-fatal assault he largely admitted, while disputing intent to kill. The policy question that remains is narrower and more current: how probation and new complaints against known offenders are handled before a parent decides the state is too late.
Arguments That Cut Both Ways
Those who defend the sentence say the alternative is a license for anyone who believes a crime occurred to inflict catastrophic injury. They note Lenoci’s record, the filming, the invitation that looks like a trap, and the fact that Marc P. can no longer speak for himself. A justice system that excuses attempted homicide because the target is despised, they argue, stops being a system of law.
Those who attack the sentence say the numbers do not feel morally coherent: a man with a 2020 child-sex conviction and a ban on contact with minors was still in the neighborhood; a stepfather who reported the new allegations and then exploded receives 17 years; the disabled man in hospital is simultaneously a prior offender and a present victim. They ask whether “do not take justice into your own hands” is a complete answer when the complaint of 23 July did not produce an immediate removal of the neighbor from the child’s environment.
Neither side can, from public reporting alone, prove what would have happened if police had detained Marc P. on the 23rd. That counterfactual sits at the center of the controversy and is not resolved by the judgment.
What Is Not Yet Settled
The criminal case against Lenoci is not final if he appeals. Separate proceedings concerning the allegations against Marc P. involving the stepson — and any other recent complaints — have been complicated by his medical condition. Fundraising, political proposals on preventive detention, and commentary from victims’ families will continue regardless of the appeal calendar.
For readers outside Belgium, the useful distinction is this: the court answered a homicide question. The country is still arguing a child-protection question. Those are related. They are not the same verdict.
Related reading on Planet Today
Original article: Belgian Father Gets 17 Years After Attack on Neighbor on Planet Today 🚀
Automatically republished from the main blog.