Summary of the Justice Committee’s visit to Finland and the Netherlands, June 2023 (OUS0026)
Monday 11 June 2023
Meeting with the Deputy Head of Mission, British Embassy
The Committee met with Kirsti Bourret, the Deputy Head of Mission and other British Embassy staff for a briefing on Finnish politics. The briefing covered the recent election in Finland and the ongoing formation of the new Government.
The Committee heard that criminal justice issues were a topic of interest during the election period but not a major focus relative to issues such as climate change, immigration and the economy. Different approaches to crime are advocated by different political parties, with some parties advocating for tougher sentences and others advocating for more initiatives to address the root causes of crime. Levels of crime are low in Finland but have grown. The media’s criminal justice reporting in the run up to the election focused on teen gang-related and violent crime in urban areas.
Embassy staff shared that there are high levels of political trust in Finland, including high approval ratings for politicians.
Meeting with Dr Paulina Tallroth, Government Counsellor, Ministry of Justice and Professor Emeritus Tapio Lappi-Seppälä, University of Helsinki
The Committee met with Dr Paulina Tallroth, Government Counsellor, Ministry of Justice and Professor Emeritus Tapio Lappi-Seppälä, University of Helsinki for a briefing on the criminal justice system in Finland. The briefing covered the sentencing system and changes to the prison population over time. The briefing also included a comparative analysis of public opinion on sentencing in Finland and that in England and Wales.
Dr Tallroth told the Committee that there are approximately 2,800 prisoners in Finland, of which between 500-600 are on remand. 17% of prisoners in Finland are foreign national offenders. Approximately 50% of offenders in Finland receive a community sentence. Finland has the second lowest prison and probation rate in Europe.
Each type of offence has either a minimum or maximum sentence or other penalty associated with it, and these are set out in the penal code. For example, the offence of manslaughter has a minimum sentence of eight years and a maximum of 12 years. Many prisoners are serving a sentence that is less than two years. In Finland, a life sentence can be handed down for the offences of murder and terrorism. There are approximately 200 life-sentenced prisoners.
Aggravating and mitigating factors are accounted for when sentences are determined. Recently, gender was included as an aggravating factor. Age can be a mitigating factor for those under 18; the criminal age of responsibility is 15. A guilty plea can lead to a reduction in the sentence; those who plead guilty serve between the minimum sentence up to two-thirds of the maximum sentence.
Professor Lappi-Seppälä provided a briefing on how the prison population in Finland has changed over time. The prison population has reduced considerably since 1960, when there were issues with overcrowding in prisons. The reduction in the prison population over time was in part due to a decline in crime, but also due to a series of measures taken by successive governments.
Groups within the prison population were identified and targeted for reduction. For example, to reduce the number of repeat low-level offenders entering prison, the relevance of previous convictions in sentencing decisions was reduced. To reduce the recall population, consideration was given to licence conditions and whether they were too onerous.
The basic sentencing options available in Finland are:
Early release on licence can occur 4-6 months prior to a conditional release date. The recidivism rate has been found to be lower amongst those released early on licence. Conditions of early release include abstaining from substances. Where licence conditions are breached, this does not lead to recall to prison unless an offence is committed which would incur a prison sentence. Electronic monitoring is used to monitor those released on licence.
The Committee heard that the youth justice system is centred on child protection and social welfare. Children below the age of 15 are managed within the child welfare system. Children aged 15-17 are managed within both the child welfare and the criminal justice system. Custodial sentences are very rarely used for youth offenders (there are currently only 5 children and young people in juvenile detention.) Fines and suspended sentences are more commonly used.
Mediation (similar to a restorative justice approach) was introduced in the 1980s and has expanded over the last 20 years. It is a discretionary process. Mediation is used in over 10,000 cases a year in Finland, relative to the 5,000 prison sentences imposed per year.
Where a prison sentence is imposed, open conditions are widely used (30-40% of prisoners are held in open conditions.) Prisons are smaller than those in England and Wales: on average a prison holds around 100 prisoners; the largest prison holds 400. Professor Emeritus Lappi-Seppälä explained that it is difficult to assess the impact of open conditions on recidivism because prisoners are transferred between prisons; however, there are lower re-offending rates amongst those released from open conditions.
The briefing then moved onto trends over time and a comparative analysis between Finland and England and Wales. The Committee heard that reported in crime in Finland is increasing, but data suggests that the changing rate of imprisonment is not a factor in this.
The Committee heard that high-profile individual cases can have a big impact on criminal justice policy in England and Wales. Professor Lappi-Seppälä explained that individual cases can also have an effect in Nordic countries, but they do not necessarily lead to changes in sentencing policy which increase sentence lengths. For example, in Norway, the murder of a five-year-old girl by two six-year-old boys in 1994 led to improvements in the child welfare system. In Finland, individual families do contact policymakers to request changes to sentencing law, but often such campaigns do not lead to change.
In Finland, high levels of trust in the criminal justice and political systems play an important role in the approach to criminal justice issues. Additionally, there is more consensus amongst political parties on criminal justice matters.
In terms of ascertaining and measuring public opinion on sentencing, Professor Lappi-Seppälä said policymakers in England and Wales were more responsive to public opinion than is the case in Finland. He shared that, ten years ago, the Finnish Government wanted to conduct research to ascertain whether sentences were reflective of public perceptions of justice. This research was carefully planned; it included face-to-face interviews with detailed case studies for consideration. More general, abstract questions were avoided. Similarly, in Denmark, research into public opinion included mock trial exercises. The research found that members of the public who took part came to similar sentencing decisions as judges.
Professor Lappi-Seppälä compared results from a public survey on sentencing conducted in Finland with the survey commissioned by the Justice Committee in England and Wales. He noted that, when asked about the aims of sentencing, members of the public in both jurisdictions ranked justice for victims of crime as a high priority: number one in Finland, number two in England and Wales (second only to protection of the public).
The Committee posed a number of questions to Dr Tollroth and Professor Lappi-Seppälä. Members were interested to know how the public responded to the shift in approach to the criminal justice system, including the reduction of the prison population. The Committee heard that no systematic opinion polling on the shift was conducted, and there was also no high-level political discussion of the changes. Rather, there was general political agreement on the issues which was sustained over a long period of time (25 years). Policymakers focused on research into effective sentencing and recidivism, and looked to neighbouring countries that were considered as having a more effective approach. Public discourse on the issues focused on poor conditions in what were then crowded prisons.
The Committee heard that the media landscape in Finland is different to that in England and Wales. Tabloid media is not widely consumed in Finland; the leading newspapers are regarded as having a high-quality and responsible approach to criminal justice reporting. Dr Tollroth and Professor Lappi-Seppälä emphasised the importance of public trust in the criminal justice system. They believed that trust could be built by communicating how the system protects the public, with references to research and the reality of life in prison.
Dr Tollroth and Professor Lappi-Seppälä shared that social media can influence public opinion and understanding of sentencing as content focuses on headlines rather than explanations. They noted that there is currently not much research into the influence of social media. They added that conducting thorough research into public opinion is costly, and that they believed that it was better to not conduct public polls at all rather than to conduct opinion polls that are not well designed.
The Committee heard that the number of women in prison has increased in Finland. The main categories of crime amongst women are drug offences and violent domestic offences. Where a woman receives a custodial sentence, this is often either due to a long history of offending behaviour or because a serious offence has been committed.
Meeting with District Court Judge Petra Spring, Helsinki District Court
Members met with District Court Judge Petra Spring for a briefing on the court system in Finland and a tour of the court building.
The Helsinki District Court is the largest court in Finland. It has 35 court rooms and 350 members of staff (of which 71% are female). There are 21 trainee judges based at the court and the training lasts for 12 months. The average age of the trainee judges is 41; for qualified judges the average age is 48. The court handles around 8,400 criminal cases each year.
Judge Spring explained the court’s relationship with the media and how it keeps the public informed of its work. She described an open and wide provision of information. Documentation and information about trials are openly available. The court cooperates closely with key criminal justice journalists. They meet once a year in order to better understand each other’s work and discuss any issues. Judge Spring explained that this improves the accuracy of reporting.
‘Media judges’ have been in place in Finland for ten years, and their introduction was influenced by the use of media judges in the Netherlands and Sweden. Judges are encouraged to write their own press notices following the passing of a sentence to ‘take the news into their own hands’. The judge’s press notice, which is written in plain language, is often used as the first report by the media and this ensures that initial reporting on sentencing decisions is accurate. Judges do not produce a press notice for every case; they focus on cases that are unusual in some way. Journalists also check draft articles with judges for accuracy. Judge Spring shared that it is difficult to improve public understanding of some aspects of sentencing, such as the principle of totality.
The Committee asked how much discretion judges have in their sentencing decisions. Judge Spring explained that the Supreme Court provides a lot of guidance on sentencing levels. The judiciary has broad discretion; however, judges are mindful that sentences may be referred back by the Court of Appeal.
In contrast to England and Wales, in Finland the prosecution can express its view on what sentence should be passed. The level of detail in prosecution requests on sentencing has increased over time. Additionally, victims of crime are party to proceedings. They can provide statements and also express their view on what sanction should be given. Victims can press criminal charges without an advocate.
Judge Spring outlined some recent trends in sentencing. She explained that sentence lengths for violent crime have been increasing over the last 20 years. Drug-related crime is an emerging issue. The sentencing guideline for drug offences was developed in conjunction with doctors to ensure that levels of harm for different substances were taken into account. For the offence of possession of drugs, the quantity of drugs involved in cases has been increasing which has led to longer sentence lengths. This has led to a situation where sentences for drug offences are stronger than those for other serious offences, such as rape and sexual assault.
The Committee asked how the open justice principle applies to the Family Court. Judge Spring explained that all sittings are open. Children do not attend court, and judges speak with social workers rather than directly to children. Where children and young people have committed an offence, a social worker attends the trial with them and feeds into consideration on the sentence.
Members asked about the impact of the pandemic on the court system. The Committee heard that the courts did not entirely shut down. Civil matters were postponed but criminal matters proceeded. There are some issues with court backlogs, and remote hearings are still encouraged.
Judge Spring explained that levels of judicial recruitment in Finland are good. However, changes to the recruitment system 10-15 years ago have made it more difficult to recruit younger judges. Judge Spring noted that new judges need support.
Tuesday 12 June 2023
Meeting with the Finnish Legal Affairs Committee
The Committee met with Pihla Keto-Huovinen MP, member of the Legal Affairs Committee, and the Committee Clerks. They discussed ways of working across their respective committees.
Members heard that the Legal Affairs Committee is responsible for scrutinising criminal justice bills. The Legal Affairs Committee has the powers to recommend approval of a bill, recommend amendments, or recommend that the bill is rejected. In recent times the Committee has stressed the need to adequately resource the criminal justice system. It issues statements twice a year to the Finance Committee with recommendations on funding allocations. In Finland, a state budget is issued every year, but the Government operates on a four-year flexible expenditure framework.
Since 2012, members of the public in Finland have been able to propose legislation to Parliament through what is known as a Citizens’ Initiative Bill. The Legal Affairs Committee has scrutinised eight such bills and expressed approval for three. In order for a Citizens’ Initiative Bill to be considered, it must receive 50,000 signatures. The Committee then has discretion over which bills it examines. Examination of a Citizens’ Initiative Bill can take one to two years and hearings are public. Topics of Citizens Initiative Bills’ have included same sex marriage.
The Committee heard that members of the public in Finland sometimes think sentences are too lenient. For example, the minimum sentence for rape is 18 months. The media is a significant source of information about sentencing for the public. Some sentencing issues attract a lot of public attention and can become a topic of interest in the run up to elections. Some political parties advocate for harsher sentences but equally believe custodial sentences are not always the answer.
Members heard that there have been some changes to sentencing law owing to public opinion. For example, surveys carried out by the Government around eight years ago led to stronger penalties for sexual offences. The public in Finland are generally supportive of community sentences, though this depends on the type of offence.
Meeting with the Assistant Director of Suomenlinna Prison and the Prison and Probation Service of Finland
The Committee met with Virva Rautio, International Relations Director and Elina Toijanaho, Assistant Director of Suomenlinna Prison, to receive an overview of the prison and probation systems. It also visited Suomenlinna Prison, an open prison just off the coast of Helsinki, and received a briefing about prison life.
There are 28 prisons in Finland and 12 probation offices. The annual prison system budget is 275 million euros. There are currently approximately 3,000 prisoners and a further 3,500 offenders on probation. There are 2,600 members of staff of which 250 work in probation.
Members heard that, in Finland, it costs 207 euros per day to keep an individual in prison as opposed to 14 euros per day for an individual to serve a community sentence. Amongst those who serve a custodial sentence, 52.8% reoffend within five years. Amongst those who serve a community sentence, 30% reoffend within five years.
At Suomenlinna Prison, up to 90 male prisoners are held and placements are arranged by the Client Assessment Unit. 40 staff work at the prison and there are typically four prison guards supervising at any one time.
Prisoners at Suomenlinna are electronically monitored and have supervised probationary freedoms. They are required to undertake typical daily tasks such as cooking and cleaning. Basic mobile phones are provided but smart phones are kept securely by staff. The Suomenlinna Governing Body commissions employment tasks, such as restoring walls on the island, and prisoners receive payment which is close to the national minimum wage. In addition to this, they receive a monthly allowance of 50 euros. Prisoners have a personalised sentence plan. If they do not cooperate with their tasks, they can be transferred to closed conditions.
The Committee heard that Suomenlinna provides a high volume of prison leaves: 2,100 over the last year. Violation of the rules on prison leaves is low, at 1.2%. Violations are often related to being late (for example, by taking an indirect route to a location rather than going straight there). Some violations are drug and alcohol related.
Substance abuse and mental health issues are common amongst prisoners in Finland; however, there are less substance abuse issues in open prisons such as Suomenlinna. Drug and alcohol rehabilitation is available outside of the prison.
Prisoners at Suomenlinna are aged from 19 to 70 years old. Typically, they will spend between six months to two years at the prison.
The Committee heard that the general public in Finland understand that a life sentence does not mean life in prison custody. The minimum term for a life sentence in Finland is 12 years for an adult and ten years for under-21s. The average time served is 14.5 years. Following release from prison custody, a three-year licence period is served.
Meeting with the Prison and Probation Service of Finland
The Committee met with Dr Paulina Tallroth, Government Counsellor and Pia Andersson, Senior Adviser, from the Prison and Probation Service of Finland and received a briefing on the probation system. The briefing covered the theory that underpins the Probation Service’s work, key statistics and how policy is developed.
Members heard that the Finnish Probation Service is the fourth oldest probation service in Europe; it was formed 152 years ago. The system is influenced by Council of Europe recommendations and is based on social work practices. The service is underpinned by theory on desistance; risk, need and responsivity; and ‘Good Lives Models’.
Senior officials shared that they are proud of the policy and legislation development process. Policy development is research-led and evidence-based. Consideration is given to the political context; however, the issues are often not politicised and this enables stability within the criminal justice professions. When new governments are formed, senior officials explain their processes to ministers.
The briefing then covered the current operation of the Probation Service. The service’s workload is increasing. It currently has 200 probation officers and manages 10,000 cases. Probation officers must have an undergraduate degree, but many also have a masters. Internal training is also available.
Officials described community sanctions as a ‘success story’ in Finland. A restorative justice approach is embedded within community service. The Probation Service considers sanction obligations and provides information to the prosecution and the sentencing judge. Both the prosecution and the defence can make requests for pre-sentence reports. Consideration must be given as to whether a community rather than a custodial sentence should be handed down.
24/7 electronic monitoring of offenders (referred to by the service as ‘clients’) means warnings can be given before a return to prison custody is considered. The majority of offenders have drug and/or alcohol addiction issues and are therefore often enrolled in rehabilitation programmes. Finland has piloted alcohol monitoring tags but does not want tags to replace rehabilitative interventions. In addition to electronic monitoring, the Probation Service conducts unannounced home visits.
The Committee heard that the Probation Service has examined the particular needs of female offenders and has undertaken pilots to grow its evidence base on what works for women. A personalised approach is adopted by the service when managing female offenders or young offenders who have little employment experience. Such individuals are engaged in social support programmes led by NGOs.
Senior officials explained that working with partners was very important: cross-agency cooperation is a legal requirement. The service is obliged to give consideration to how a handover from a sentence is managed, for example, whether to refer an individual to relevant NGOs. Currently, judges do not monitor individuals’ progress through the sentences handed down, though there has previously been some discussion as to whether this should be introduced.
Wednesday 14 June 2023
Meeting with the Political Counsellor, British Embassy
The Committee met with Charlotte Jago, Political Counsellor, and other British Embassy staff for a briefing on the Netherlands. The briefing covered areas of cooperation between the UK and the Netherlands and criminal justice issues.
Embassy staff shared that justice and home affairs are significant areas of cooperation. Drug-related crime was a topic of interest in recent elections in the Netherlands, but it was not considered a high priority issue for the majority of the public.
Meeting with Professor Michiel van der Wolf and Dr Lucas Noyon, University of Leiden
The Committee met with legal and academics from the University of Leiden for a briefing on the Dutch criminal justice system and sentencing law. Professor van der Wolf specialises in forensic psychiatry. Dr Noyon is also a judge.
Professor van der Wolf and Dr Noyon explained that there is a dualistic design to the Dutch sentencing system:
The punishment and measures aspects of sentencing enable the consideration of intended versus unintended harm. Punishment is only handed down if someone is found guilty, and is limited to the extent of guilt (i.e. consideration is given to diminished responsibility). The Committee heard that the distinction between the punishment and measures elements of sentencing has become increasingly blurred.
The academics explained that, in the Netherlands, the aims of sentencing are not set out in statute; there is general consensus as to the purposes of sentencing but there is no hierarchy or instruction as to how these should be balanced. Additionally, there is broad judicial discretion in the Netherlands. There are no offence-specific minimum sentences (the minimum custodial sentence across all offences is one day.) There are some maximum sentences, for example:
Prescriptive sentencing guidelines are produced by the Public Prosecution Service. Descriptive sentencing standards are produced by the judiciary (sentencing standards examine average sentence lengths and case law.)
Victim Impact Statements were introduced in 2005 and expanded in 2016; their use is set to be further expanded.
The briefing provided an overview of the accessibility of information in criminal justice proceedings. The police and the Public Prosecution Service have discretion over what information is provided regarding criminal investigations. A more open approach to information access has been adopted over the last 20 years in response to growing media interest. Following a period of custodial remand (up to a maximum of 110 days), court hearings are open to the public and the media. Recently, an obligation has been introduced on the courts to communicate hearing schedules to interested parties (though this obligation is not yet settled in law). A small proportion of verdicts is published online.
The Committee heard that there is a tradition of ‘self-restraint’ amongst the media in the Netherlands. There is not much of a tabloid media culture.
Professor van der Wolf and Dr Noyon then briefed the Committee on how defendants and detainees with mental health disturbances are treated within the criminal justice system. They explained that the Netherlands is often thought of as having a very low prison population, and that this is in part because many of those given a custodial sentence are held in forensic care rather than in a prison setting.
In the Netherlands, vulnerable defendants are assessed during the prosecution process to determine any mental disorders and the extent of criminal responsibility, and to consider what advice to provide sentencers on risk and treatment options. Forensic care is paid for by the Ministry of Justice, which buys beds in appropriate secure settings within the civil mental health system. The Committee heard that there are issues with capacity and staffing levels.
The briefing then covered the different forensic care options:
The briefing then covered the role of public opinion in sentencing. Dr Noyon shared findings from his research on public opinion on sentencing across different jurisdictions. He explained what he refers to as ‘the inevitable 70%’: that is, that across many jurisdictions he has examined, approximately 70% of the public believes that sentences are too lenient. Dr Noyon illustrated this by highlighting the similarity between the results of the Justice Committee’s public polling and a similar survey conducted in the Netherlands, in which respondents were asked their view of sentences handed down by the courts.
Dr Noyon outlined several pieces of research which demonstrated that public opinion on sentencing is ‘malleable’. One such example was a 2008 study which saw members of the public shadow a judge. Following the proceedings, the sentences they proposed were either similar or more lenient than that of the judge. His broad conclusion was that, the more knowledge the public has about sentencing, the more supportive they become of alternatives to prison custody.
Dr Noyon explained that, as in England and Wales, sentence lengths have been increasing in the Netherlands. To ascertain and measure public opinion on sentencing, the Dutch Government conducts an annual survey. Dr Noyon told the Committee that he believes public understanding of sentencing is ‘not high’ in the Netherlands.
The briefing then covered the extent to which public opinion influences sentencing policy and practice. The Committee heard that sentencing legislation is highly incident driven, and that the sentencing framework is becoming increasingly punitive and complex.
The Committee heard that members of the public are consulted on sentencing guidelines by the Public Prosecution Service, though the academics questioned the robustness of the consultation methodology. Between 2010-2018, a Citizens Forum was consulted; however, this has yet to be resumed. The Committee heard that there were issues with resource and maintaining public interest in taking part.
The briefing covered a number of initiatives in the Netherlands to improve public understanding of sentencing and the accuracy of reporting:
Dr Noyon shared his broad conclusions with the Committee. He believes that, due to the ‘inevitable 70%’, there is a risk that sentences become increasingly punitive over time. Changes to sentencing stemming from individual incidents may lead to increasing complexity within the system. Dr Noyon suggested that, taken together, this may risk reinforcing public disillusionment with sentencing. This may be balanced against initiatives within the criminal justice system to simplify communications on sentencing.
Thursday 15 June 2023
Meeting with the Permanent Committee for Justice & Security
The Committee met with Ulysse Ellian MP, Joost Sneller MP and Songül Mutluer MP, members of the Dutch Permanent Committee for Justice & Security. They discussed public opinion on criminal justice issues and the extent to which this influences the development of sentencing policy and practice.
The discussion focused on the TBS system. The Committee heard that this is a sensitive topic, as some members of the public have concerns about the system, particular since 2018 when a young woman was murdered by an individual who was on probation and in treatment at the time.
Some political parties in the Netherlands want to abolish the TBS system. Members of the Permanent Committee for Justice & Security said it can be difficult to defend the system when something goes wrong or a mistake is made. They shared that, generally speaking, members of moderate political parties opt not to comment on individual cases or incidents until the facts have been established. They noted that the number of incidents relating to the TBS system was very small.
In 2007, a cross-party inquiry was conducted into the TBS system and improvements were recommended. Members of the Permanent Committee for Justice & Security believed that such a review enabled policymakers to ‘take a step back’ and review the system in a broad sense rather than in response to an individual case.
The Committee heard that the Netherlands’ approach to embedding psychiatry within the criminal justice system is unique. Members of the Permanent Committee for Justice & Security believed the TBS system to be effective but noted that effectiveness was dependent on adequate resource. They added that the system was not perfect, and that not all prisoners with a mental illness were held in therapeutic settings.
Members heard that the TBS budget sits within the remit of the Dutch Ministry of Justice, and there is support for retaining this arrangement. A prison place costs 300 euros per day, whilst a place in a therapeutic setting costs 700 euros per day.
Discussion also focused on sentence lengths. In the Netherlands, 75% of custodial sentences are shorter than three months: 50% of custodial sentences are for a period of less than one month. The remand population is high: 29% of prisoners have been sentenced to custody whilst 71% are being held on remand.
A significant proportion of the prison population are fine defaulters, and the use of custodial sentences for such offences is under consideration.
Meeting with the Public Prosecution Service
The Committee met with Hester de Koning, Deputy Director of the Public Prosecution Service (PPS) and received a briefing on both the work of the PPS and the work of the Sentencing Guidelines Commission.
The Deputy Director explained that the PPS supervises police investigations of criminal offences. The test that must be met in order for a prosecution to be brought is that the evidence is ‘legal and persuasive’. As well as bringing prosecutions, the PPS can also deal with criminal cases without involving the courts; for example, the PPS can sentence individuals for offences such as bike theft. However, only a judge can pass a custodial sentence. Where the PPS refers cases to the courts, the prosecution provides advice to the judge on the sentence.
The Committee heard that there is sometimes public debate around the introduction of minimum sentences for offences, particularly in light of individual cases.
Types of sentence available in the Netherlands include:
The Committee heard that custodial sentences can be (and frequently are) suspended, and that members of public in the Netherlands generally understand the conditions that are attached to a suspended sentence.
The Sentencing Guidelines Commission provides and reviews sentencing guidelines for the PPS. Not every offence has a guideline, only those offences that occur often and which are regarded as comparable with other offences. Sentencing guidelines are very prescriptive and are presented in a detailed grid format. Digital copies of sentencing guidelines are available.
The Sentencing Guidelines Commission undertakes public consultation on guidelines. Members of the public can express their views on guidelines through online questionnaires. Until 2020, a ‘civic forum’ was consulted. The civic forum was discontinued during the pandemic and has yet to be resumed. School children are also consulted on sentencing guidelines. In the Netherlands, learning about the criminal justice system is a compulsory part of the national curriculum and students are taken on a visit to a court as part of this learning.
The Deputy Director provided an example of how public opinion influences guidelines. Members of the public were consulted on the sentencing guideline for domestic burglary. It became apparent that the offence of domestic burglary was considered to be more serious when it was committed whilst the victim was at home, and this led to a change in the sentencing guideline.
The Deputy Director explained that questionnaires on sentencing guidelines are open to all members of the public and are very accessible. A recent questionnaire on sentencing guidelines for offences involving fireworks received just under 1,800 responses from the general public and 700 responses from schools. Sentencing guideline questionnaires include questions on the deterrent effect of sentences.
Meeting with senior officials at the Ministry of Justice (Sanctions and Victim Protection, the Custodial Institutions Agency and the European and International Affairs Directorate)
The Committee met with senior officials at the Dutch Ministry of Justice: Justus Kox (Director), Emiel Reck, Ritske Zuidema and Sairoong Huisman, Sanctions and Victim Protection; Jacqueline Dankloff and Anne Zendman, Custodial institutions Agency; Rob Huijser, Director of the European & International Affairs Directorate; and Vivian Sanders and Lianna Sarkisian, European & International Affairs Directorate. The briefing covered a range of topics, including the Dutch sanctions system, custodial sentences, the TBS system, community service and conditional sentences.
Officials outlined the mission that underpins the execution of sanctions: certain, fast, person-orientated and alertness for victims. They explained that the role of victims in the criminal justice system has been increasing over the last 10-15 years, and that protection of victims is now more of a focus. Victims can claim compensation as part of a criminal proceeding in addition to damages.
Officials from the Custodial Institutions Agency explained that their mission is ‘safety and care’. They provided a statistical overview of custodial settings in the Netherlands:
Approximately 1,500 patients a year are treated within the TBS system. TBS patients are regularly evaluated to support their reintegration into society. The average length of time in the TBS system is 9 years. The recidivism rate within 2 years of release is 19%. Officials explained that the TBS population has complex needs: One third have a psychiatric disorder and two thirds have a personality disorder.
Officials provided the average time individuals spend in custody across different settings:
The Minister’s vision for the sanctions system is ‘do justice, offer chances’. The Committee heard that punishment is the main focus of sentencing, but behaviour and rehabilitation are also areas of focus. Officials outlined that delivering on the ‘care’ aspect of the Minister’s vision can be challenging because many offenders are serving very short sentences. 75% of offenders have issues with debt, 50% have a drug addiction and 45% have poor mental health. It is difficult to address these needs over the course of a short sentence.
The briefing also covered how prisoners are prepared for release. Individuals have a personalised sentence plan with a focus on planning for resettlement. Five conditions for resettlement are evaluated and worked towards:
Almost all prisons have workshops on site and deliver education programmes. For example, cell furniture is produced by prisoners.
Senior officials then provided an overview of community service. The average length of community service is 60 hours. There are limitations on when a community rather than a custodial sentence can be imposed. For example, community service may not be imposed as a sanction for more serious offences, or in cases where an offender has received a community sentence for a similar offence within the last five years.
A popular community service task is charity shop work. The needs of the offender are considered when allocating tasks for community service. There are consequences for failing to undertake community service tasks:
The failure rate of community sentences is 25%.
An opinion poll conducted by the probation service found that 67% of members of the public are in favour of community sentences; however, the media perception can be quite negative.
Senior officials explained that conditional sentences can have general or specific conditions attached to them. General conditions are monitored by the police. Specific conditions can include location bans, sobriety, partaking in training or therapy requirements, and mental institution orders.
The Committee was provided with a breakdown of custodial sentences. Of those custodial sentences handed down:
The Committee heard that that the Dutch parliamentary majority has requested the increasing exploration of alternative sanctions to custody, in particular alternatives to short prison sentences.
Friday 16 June 2023
Visit to the New Amsterdam Court House
The Committee visited the New Amsterdam Court House. As well as having a tour of the building and observing a case proceeded over by Judge Geert Janssen, Members had meetings with Bastiaan van Merwijk, Vice-president of the Court House, Judge Elvira Devis, Judge Paul Waarts and Judge Meta Vaandrager.
The Vice-President explained that the court deals with both criminal and civil cases. Over 200 judges sit at the court and 120,000 cases are heard a year, the majority of which are small civil cases.
The court rooms are equipped with modern technology, including capability to display digital dossiers. Seven of the court rooms are digitally linked, meaning that (when necessary) parties can be separated whilst attending proceedings. Online hearings are possible but have not become standard practice: approximately 5% of hearings are held online.
Judges at the court are generalists; they work across two to three areas and switch areas every five to six years. There have been some demands for judges to specialise more in particular areas.
Criminal cases are heard by up to three judges who sit on a panel. 80-90% of civil cases are heard by a single judge.
In the Netherlands, there are investigative judges. An investigative judge can oversee police investigations and searches. They make decisions on pre-trial detention and speak with witnesses involved in the case.
The Committee then met with Judge Elvira Devis, who provided a briefing on a problem-solving court pilot in Amsterdam. She explained that five community judges sit at the court, and that this pilot was inspired by the Red Hook Community Centre in Boston, USA.
The problem-solving court is designed so as not to look like a typical court. The building looks very much like a community centre. Inside, the court rooms include a large round table. Everyone, including the judge, sits at the table together to create a less adversarial environment. Court sittings are open to the public and journalists. The court has been well-received by the community, and other communities in Amsterdam have expressed that they would like a community court in their area.
Judge Devis explained that the court hears small criminal cases. It also holds sessions to assist people with debts, including health insurance-related debts. The aim of such sessions is to find a workable arrangement for the individual. There is good continuity across cases, so individuals meet with the same judge.
The court is also piloting problem-solving sessions. Formal legal advice is not provided during such sessions, and topics include family conflicts and school attendance. In the Netherlands, children can be held legally responsible for non-attendance at school.
One of the aims of the community court is to make the law more accessible and visible. Cases are allocated by post code. Where a community sentence is given, unpaid work is undertaken within the individual’s community wherever possible.
In the Netherlands, youth courts have been introduced into schools. The courts are run by the children themselves. Dealing with issues in these courts is an alternative to involving the police, and thus avoids children and young people acquiring a criminal record. Youth courts can pass sentences that require individuals to, for example, clean the playground or pay damages.
Family mediation is also undertaken at the community court, though Judge Devis explained that not all cases are suitable. The setting and the design of the rooms helps parents to relax and adopt a less confrontational approach. The Child Protection Board is invited to sessions. Its staff are able to investigate cases and provide advice.
The Committee then met with Judge Paul Waarts and Judge Meta Vaandrager. They provided a briefing on how information about sentencing is communicated to the public, including an overview of ‘Project Plain Language’.
Judge Waarts explained that where a criminal case is heard by a panel of judges, they must reach consensus on the sentence. A verdict is typically given two weeks after the final hearing. Most verdicts are open to the public; however, the verdicts given in family, youth and particularly sensitive cases are closed to the public.
Members heard that the court has a good relationship with the press. Public discourse tends to focus on serious crime, including serious drug-related crime, and cases involving celebrities. When the media want to attend court, they have to contact the court to arrange this and request a media (also referred to as ‘press’ judge).
The sentencing judge does not talk through their verdict with the media; communication is managed by a press judge. A guideline for the press has been in place since 2013. This sets out rules on what information the media can access before, during and after a trial. Judges issue a summary statement rather than full sentencing remarks.
Judge Waarts told the Committee that there are some criminal justice journalists in the Netherlands that are keen to ensure the accuracy and accessibility of reporting on sentencing. One journalist has been known to request that judges further clarify their explanation of a sentence to improve public understanding. The journalist has also been seen to address misunderstandings about sentencing, for example on social media.
In the Netherlands, it is rare for defendants, even following conviction, to be fully named in public. The press are only given an individual’s first name and the first initial of their surname. This is done by convention rather than as a statutory arrangement. Verdicts are published online (after being anonymised by communications staff at the court). For serious cases (those that are considered by a panel of three judges), embargoed copies of the verdict are provided to the press. Requests can be made for court papers. Sometimes summaries are provided, or individuals are invited to read the papers at a police station.
The briefing then covered the press judge role. Judge Waarts explained that press judges undertake their media duties in addition to their role as a judge. There are two, soon to be three, press judges at the New Amsterdam Court House. Press judges regularly take part in TV interviews. Judge Waarts described press judges as reactive to media and public interest. In addition to the press judges, the court has a communications team which produces content for social media.
Judge Meta Vaandrager then provided a briefing on ‘Project Plain Language’. She explained that the filming of proceedings had led to a greater focus on social and communications skills amongst judges. It was important that justice was seen to be done and that it was seen to be done by an independent judiciary.
Judge Vaandrager explained that verdicts were written both with people involved in the case and the wider public in mind. Previously, verdicts were very long and included a lot of legal jargon. There was initially some resistance to changing the language and structure of verdicts.
Project Plain Language encouraged judges to consider the question ‘What do I mean?’. Communication specialists watched verdicts and provided advice and training to judges on how to improve the clarity and accessibility of their explanations.
Advice was not limited to addressing technical language; judges were also asked to consider the overall structure of their remarks and given advice on ensuring that a clear argument was threaded throughout. Judge Vaandrager explained that arguments were presented in a more formulaic fashion. The Committee heard that judges are comfortable with not answering a question if they are unable to. For example, people often want to understand the motive of a crime, but the judge is not always able to discern this. Judge Vaandrager explained that some judges adopt a plain language approach more than others, and suggested that communications training should be incorporated into university legal education.
The Committee was interested in how Project Plain Language interacted with sentencing guidelines, where use of language was important and the judiciary may be mindful of appeals. Judge Vaandrager explained that they monitor the effect of judges’ verdicts on public understanding to ensure that they are legally correct as well as clear. She believed that where a sentencing decision is clear and well understood, this helps to reduce the number of appeals. She added that work is also being undertaken by the Dutch Supreme Court to improve the clarity of its decisions.
June 2023
[1] TBS stands for terbeschikkingstelling, which translates approximately to “making available [for psychiatric provisions]”.