Agenda

THE NETHERLANDS : DECREE OF 20 MARCH 2020 AMENDING THE VIDEOCONFERENCE DECREE IN CONNECTION WITH THE DELETION OF THE CATEGORICAL EXCEPTIONAL SITUATIONS

26/03/2020

 

Published at 24 March 2020, Official Gazette 2020, number 101

This amendment to the Videoconference Decree (hereinafter: the Decree) aims to make videoconference possible in more situations within the criminal proceedings. In the old Article 2, first paragraph, of the Decree, five exceptional situations were included in which the use of video conference was categorically excluded. These grounds for exception were found to hinder the further development of the instrument of video conference in criminal law. The categorical exclusions blocked the use of video conferencing in situations where using video conference would have been highly desirable. The categorical exclusion of certain cases was therefore increasingly perceived as objectionable by legal practice.

In the context of the ongoing modernization of the Dutch Code of Criminal Procedure, it is proposed to amend the current video conference procedure (Article 131a Dutch Code of Criminal Procedure). There are no any categorical exceptions included in the draft bill.  In legal practice, however, there is already a desire to be able to use video conference in more cases than before. Therefore, the categorical exceptions with this amendment decision have already been deleted at an earlier time.

The basic premise of the statutory regulation on video conference in criminal law is that video conference can be applied in all cases where there is a hearing or questioning in the criminal proceedings (Article 131a DCCP) . The organizations in the criminal justice chain can decide themselves whether - and if so, in which situations video conference is used. In addition, Article 131a DCCP provides that the final decision on the use of video conference in an individual case always lies with the hearing (judicial) official. If the (judicial) official concerned sees no reason to make use of video conference, or if there is a contraindication that argues against the use of video conference, then the use of video conference is omitted. The present amendment decision does not change this system.

This amendment decision is also in line with the increased use of video conference in criminal law. It is therefore plausible that more and more video conferencing will be used in the near future. The deletion of the categorical exceptions in the present Decree contributes to this further development of videoconference within criminal law and thereby also to a more flexible and efficient way of working within the criminal justice chain.