Evaluation of the pilots Code of Criminal Procedure (Untranslated)

Since 2014, preparations have been made to establish a new Code of Criminal Procedure. As part of this process, five pilots have been carried out over the past two years within the police, the Public Prosecution Service (OM), and the Judiciary based on the Criminal Procedure Innovation Act. These pilots provided practical experience with new legal regulations. Dialogic, in collaboration with De Strafzaak, evaluated three of these pilots for the Research and Documentation Centre (WODC). For each pilot, the main question was whether the method tested in the pilot was effective and efficient, and whether adjustments to the new legal regulations were necessary. The results of the evaluation research will help shape the renewal of the legal code. What were the pilots focused on?

• Investigating data after the seizure of a device such as a smartphone. This includes data captured on the device after seizure and data stored on a server elsewhere that can be examined through network searches.
• Using a combination of audio and/or video recordings (AVR) with a summarized report. The pilot involved using camera footage for evidence, recordings of suspect interrogations, and recordings of court sessions.
• Granting certain powers to deputy prosecutors that, under current law, are exclusive to prosecutors, namely, the requisition of specific types of data and decisions regarding the return of seized items to the individual from whom the object was seized.

Main outcomes The powers to conduct investigations into data after seizure have improved criminal proceedings. Applying these powers has provided crucial data in a significant number of cases for clarifying criminal acts. Standard inclusion of camera footage in the case file also adds value, but it is essential that the camera footage is described comprehensively in a report. It is not recommended by the researchers to routinely include recordings of suspect interrogations and court sessions in the case file, as this significantly increases workload. Granting powers to deputy prosecutors is positively evaluated. The speed of decision-making increases, with no indications of an overall decline in decision quality.