Effective Police Station Legal Advice-Country Report 4: The Netherlands (original) (raw)
Related papers
Effective Police Station Legal Advice - Country Report 1: Belgium
2018
This Country Report for Belgium has arisen out of a comparative study into police station legal advice, led by Dr Vicky Kemp, University of Nottingham. She received a small grant from the British Academy/Leverhulme to undertake semi-structured interviews with defence lawyers and policy officers responsible for criminal legal aid in six jurisdictions: Belgium, England and Wales, Ireland, the Netherlands, Northern Ireland and Scotland. Dr Miet Vanderhallen was the consultant responsible for the research undertaken in Belgium and the Netherlands, assisted by Enide Maegherman, both from the University of Maastricht.
Effective police station legal advice - Country Report 5: Northern Ireland
2018
This Country Report for Northern Ireland has arisen out of a comparative study into police station legal advice, led by Dr Vicky Kemp, University of Nottingham. She received a small grant from the British Academy/Leverhulme to undertake semi-structured interviews with defence lawyers and policy officers responsible for criminal legal aid in six jurisdictions
Effective Police Station Legal Advice - Country Report 3: Ireland
2018
This Country Report for Ireland has arisen out of a comparative study into police station legal advice, led by Dr Vicky Kemp, University of Nottingham. She received a small grant from the British Academy/Leverhulme to undertake semi-structured interviews with defence lawyers and policy officers responsible for criminal legal aid in six jurisdictions.
Effective Police Station Legal Advice - Country Report 2: England and Wales
2018
The criminal law in Scotland is largely statutory, although it is rooted in a common law, an adversarial tradition that has historically been more influenced by the Romanocanonical and French systems than the rest of the UK. 1 There are similarities in relation to procedure and substantive law between Scotland and England and Wales but, as Blackstock et al. (2014: 118) note, the applicable laws are quite different. There are two routes of trial procedure in Scotland, solemn and summary. The solemn procedure deals with trials on indictment before a jury, which takes place in the sheriff or High Court. Summary procedure applies to all other offences, with trials being conducted by the sheriff, stipendiary magistrate or justices of the peace. Following the Salduz decision in 2008, there was significant change for suspects in accessing legal advice brought about by the judgment of the UK Supreme Court in Cadder v HM Advocate (Cadder). 2 The Cadder ruling prohibited the police from questioning a suspect without giving them the option of having legal advice. The case was to have an immediate impact on suspects' legal rights, as hundreds of cases had to be abandoned as they did not comply with the decision. Within three days, the Scottish Parliament had implemented emergency legislation, in the form of the Criminal Procedure (Legal Assistance, Detention and Appeals) (Scotland) Act 2010. This gave all suspects detained under Section 14 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1995, or attending voluntary at a police station, the right to 'a private consultation with a solicitor' prior to, and at any time during, questioning at a police station, which could include advice given over the telephone. The 2010 Act also extended the period of detention in police custody from six to twelve hours, with a possible extension of a further twelve hours. The Cadder decision led to an extensive review of the criminal justice system, undertaken by Lord Carloway (2011), and the consequent Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2016. The review included recommendations to modernise and enhance the efficiency of the Scottish criminal justice system and these provisions were implemented on 25 January, 2018. Prior to the 2016 Act, there had been a system of investigative detention, 1 For further details see Blackstock et al. (2014:118-136). 2 [2010] UKSC 43. Country Report: Scotland 2 arrest and then charge. People were also arrested for a charging decision without an investigative detention, which was to enable an interview to take place. The Act now consolidates arrest and investigative detention and imports a test of necessity and proportionality to the requirement to detain following arrest. The 2016 Act is far-reaching in that it gives all suspects the right to consult with a solicitor and for suspects to decide whether or not they want a solicitor to be present during the police interview. The rationale for the right to have a solicitor present would seem to be largely based on the need to ensure respect for the right of the suspect not to incriminate himself (Jackson, 2016: 1003, 1007). Without changes being made to the organisation of criminal defence solicitors, however, such changes will be difficult to achieve. There are logistical issues to be overcome, therefore, in increasing the role of solicitors in police stations and in funding such changes. It is timely, therefore, to explore such developments with policy makers and practitioners in this study, although it is important over the coming months to examine empirically what changes were actually brought about by the 2016 Act.
Effective Police Station Legal Advice - Country Report 6: Scotland
2018
This Country Report for Scotland has arisen out of a comparative study into police station legal advice, led by Dr Vicky Kemp, University of Nottingham. She received a small grant from the British Academy/Leverhulme to undertake semi-structured interviews with defence lawyers and policy officers responsible for criminal legal aid in six jurisdictions.
Legal Advice in Police Custody: From Europe to a Local Police Station
In October 2013, the European Union adopted a Directive, which guarantees, inter alia, the right of access to a lawyer to suspects of criminal offences from the outset of police custody and during police interrogation. However, adoption of the relevant legislation is not sufficient to ensure that this right becomes effective in practice. A range of practical measures will have to be taken by the Member States' authorities and the legal profession to effectuate the implementation of the right to custodial legal advice. This article aims to identify the practical factors that may influence the implementation of the Directive, based on the findings of a recent normative and empirical study conducted by the authors. The research was carried out in four European jurisdictions (England and Wales, France, the Netherlands and Scotland), and it consisted of analysis of regulations, observations of daily practice in police stations, accompanying lawyers who provided custodial legal advice, and interviews with criminal justice practitioners. The article provides a range of recommendations on the practical measures to be undertaken by the EU Member States and national Bar associations aiming at improving the protection of suspects' rights in police custody in practice.
Legal Assistance and Police Interrogation
Erasmus Law Review, 2014
This paper discusses the rise of a fundamental issue in Dutch criminal proceedings. The presence of a lawyer prior to and during police interrogations has for a long time been a matter open for debate in the Netherlands. Allowing legal assistance during and prior to police interrogations has been researched on several occasions in the previous century and the beginning of this century. In the Netherlands, one of the most important reasons for not admitting legal assistance was and is founded in the confident reliance on the professionalism and integrity of police officers and justice officials in dealing with the interests of suspects. However, after the Salduz case (ECHR 27 November 2008, Appl. No. 36391 / 02, Salduz v. Turkey), the Dutch government was compelled to draft legal provisions in order to facilitate legal assistance during and prior to police interrogations. The initial * Paul Mevis is Professor of Criminal Law and Criminal Procedure at the Faculty of Law of the Erasmus. He has been a visiting professor at the universities of Münster, Mmabato (South Africa) and in Moldavia, the Ukrain and in Frankfurt an der Oder. Besides his academic activities, Paul Mevis is Honorary Judge at the Criminal Court of Rotterdam and Honorary Judge at the Court of Appeal in Amsterdam, since 1994 and 1998 respectively. He has been parttime Judge at the Court of Arnhem (1990-1994) and is member of the Commission of Supervision of prisons (2006-2008). Paul Mevis is also member of the board of editors of several journals in the field of criminal law and human rights law and commentator for the journal 'Nederlandse Jurisprudentie' on criminal cases. He was chairman of the 'Commissie Strafvordelijke gegevensvergaring in de informatiemaatschappij' (2000-2001), of which the report has lead to the Bill of the same name. He is a member of the School of Human Rights Research and the Research School on Safety and Security in Society. Mr. J.H.J. (Joost) Verbaan is an assistant-professor at the Erasmus School of Law of the Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam. He teaches Criminal Law and Criminal Procedure law. Mr. Verbaan is the Managing Director of the Erasmus Center for Police Studies (ECPS). The ECPS organises courses on criminal and criminal procedure law for law enforcement agencies as well as the prosecution. Mr. Verbaan has been involved in many researches in the practical field of investigation. He has taken part in the research for the Governmental Institute of Scientific Research and Documentation on the effects of the presence of an attorney during the first police interrogation. For the same institute together with professor Mevis he researched the Modalities of Serving in comparative law perspective. He served the secretary of the Committee to draft a new Dutch Antillean Criminal Code and served the secretary of the Committee to draft a new Criminal Code for Aruba, Sint Maarten and Curacao. He served the secretary of the Committee to Draft a common Criminal Procedure Code in the Caribbean regions of Aruba, Curacao , Sint Maarten and the BES-territories. In the republic of Surinam Mr. Verbaan has worked in the legal advisory board of the Committee founded in order to codify a new Criminal Code for the republic of Surinam. drafts still contained a hesitant approach on admitting the lawyer to the actual interrogation. The EU-Directive of November 2013 (Pb EU 2013, L249) set out further reaching standards compelling the Dutch government to create new drafts. In a ruling of April 2014, the Dutch Supreme Court (ECLI:NL:2014:770) argued that the judgements of the ECtHR were too casuistic to derive an absolute right to have a lawyer present during police interrogation. However, they urged the legislator to draft legislation on this matter and warned that its judgement in this could be altered in future caused by legal developments. The Dutch legislator already proposed new draft legislation in February. In this paper it is examined whether the provisions of the new drafts meet the standards as set out in the EU-Directive as well as by the ECtHR.
New Journal of European Criminal Law, 2014
Recent EU Directives provide for a range of procedural protections for suspects and accused persons, going beyond the more broadly articulated standards set out in the European Convention of Human Rights. These reforms are to be welcomed, but their implementation poses a range of challenges for Member States. Drawing on recent empirical research, this article focuses on one measure, the right to legal assistance during police custody. It discusses the range of complex and often inter-related factors that operate to help or to hinder the process of ensuring that the right is ‘practical and effective’ and not merely ‘theoretical and illusory’. Member States do not share a common procedural tradition and alongside ensuring sufficient financial and human resources, effective implementation will require shifts in the legal and occupational cultures of police, prosecutors and the criminal bar.