Pre-trial detention in Belgium: looking for solutions to

Nationaal Instituut voor Criminalistiek en Criminologie

Pre-trial detention in Belgium: looking for solutions to overcrowded prisons

Eric Maes

Research seminar VUB –1 December 2011

P 2

Pre-trial detention: legal framework

� Criteria for the application of remand custody (art. 16 Pre-Trial Detention Act, 20st

of July1990)

� Serious indications of guilt

� Absolute necessity for public security

� Criminal act punishable with prison sentence of one year or more

� In case of a maximum prison sentence of 15 years or less (additional grounds):

� Risk of recidivism

� Risk of absconding

� Risk of embezzlement of proof

� Risk of collusion

� Alternatives (cf. freedom/release under conditions - bail): same criteria as for remand custody

� Duration of remand custody detention/alternatives

� Arrest warrant (remand custody): valid for one month (renewable), in some cases 3 months ---no absolute maximum length of remand custody

� Freedom/release under conditions: max. 3 months, renewable

P 3

Pre-trial detention: procedure

Police arrest

(public prosecution)

24 hours

(hearing + decision)

Investigating judge (onderzoeksrechter )

arrest warrant freedom/release bail

on conditions

first hearing: within 5 days

following hearings: every month or every 3 months

Judicial council (Raadkamer ) Chamber of Indictment

(Kamer van Inbeschuldigingstelling )

APPEAL (formal)

Court of cassation

(Hof van Cassatie )

APPEAL

P 4

Prison population and pre-trial detention: some figures

� Evolution of the prison population in Belgium:

Overall

� Between 1951 – 2010: from 4,300 in 1951 to more than 10,500 in 2010 (average daily population)

� Belgium in a European perspective: prisoner rate per 100,000 inhabitants (101.4) or 93.1 (without EM)

Remand prisonersRemand prisonersRemand prisoners

�� Between 1980Between 1980Between 1980---2009: more than doubled (but 2009: more than doubled (but 2009: more than doubled (but stabilisationstabilisationstabilisation during the last years: during the last years: during the last years: ±±± 3,500)3,500)3,500)

�� Belgium in a European perspectiveBelgium in a European perspectiveBelgium in a European perspective

�� Prison overcrowdingPrison overcrowdingPrison overcrowding

�� Average daily prison population in 2010 (10,536) Average daily prison population in 2010 (10,536) Average daily prison population in 2010 (10,536) ↔↔↔ average prison capacity (8,950)average prison capacity (8,950)average prison capacity (8,950)

⇒⇒⇒ overoverover---occupancy rate 17%occupancy rate 17%occupancy rate 17%

�� Prison densityPrison densityPrison density: : : 128.4 prisoners128.4 prisoners128.4 prisoners per 100 places (one of the highest in Europe)per 100 places (one of the highest in Europe)per 100 places (one of the highest in Europe)

�� But not all prisons (mainly largest remand But not all prisons (mainly largest remand But not all prisons (mainly largest remand centrescentrescentres, with some of them more than 50%) , with some of them more than 50%) , with some of them more than 50%)

�� Evolution of Evolution of Evolution of alternatives to prealternatives to prealternatives to pre---trial detentiontrial detentiontrial detention: : : increase of incarcerations (arrest warrant) increase of incarcerations (arrest warrant) increase of incarcerations (arrest warrant)

and alternatives for preand alternatives for preand alternatives for pre---trial detention (freedom/release on conditions, 1995trial detention (freedom/release on conditions, 1995trial detention (freedom/release on conditions, 1995---2009)2009)2009)

P 5

Prison population (total): some figures (Belgium)

Evolution of the average daily prison population

(total, 1951-2010)

4313

55495975 6095

6506 6510

5677

6454 6549

7693

9293

10536

8543

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

Year

N

P 6

Prison population (total): some figures (Europe)

Prison population per 100,000 inhabitants on 1st September 2009 (SPACE I)

6,4 1

9,7

36

,9 56

,8

67

,0

67

,2

67

,4

67

,5

68

,4

74

,2

77

,2

79

,0

80

,5

81

,4

88

,1

89

,3

98

,4

98

,8

10

0,8

10

1,4

10

3,1

10

4,4

10

6,6

11

0,3

11

0,8

11

9,4

12

0,1

12

3,2

12

5,7

13

1,8

13

7,6

13

8,5

13

9,9

14

0,7

15

2,3

15

6,2

15

6,5

16

1,6

16

4,1

16

9,4

17

3,1

18

9,7

21

0,4

22

0,3

23

0,1

24

7,6

26

5,2 3

09

,5

31

8,5

45

2,1

62

0,6

0,0

100,0

200,0

300,0

400,0

500,0

600,0

700,0

Sa

n M

ari

no

Lie

chte

nst

ein

Ice

lan

d

BH

: F

ed

. B

iH

BH

: R

ep

. S

rpsk

a

Slo

ve

nia

Fin

lan

d

De

nm

ark

No

rwa

y

Mo

na

co

Sw

ed

en

Sw

itze

rla

nd

An

do

rra

UK

: N

ort

he

rn I

rela

nd

Ire

lan

d

Ge

rma

ny

Gre

ece

Ne

the

rla

nd

s

Au

stri

a

Be

lgiu

m

Fra

nce

Po

rtu

ga

l

Ita

ly

Cro

ati

a

Cy

pru

s

Ma

lta

Th

e F

YR

O M

ace

do

nia

Arm

en

ia

Ro

ma

nia

Bu

lga

ria

Luxe

mb

ou

rg

Sp

ain

(C

ata

lon

ia)

Se

rbia

Alb

an

ia

UK

: E

ng

lan

d a

nd

Wa

les

UK

: S

cotl

an

d

Mo

nte

ne

gro

Tu

rke

y

Hu

ng

ary

Slo

va

k R

ep

ub

lic

Sp

ain

(S

tate

Ad

m.)

Mo

ldo

va

Cze

ch R

ep

ub

lic

Po

lan

d

Aze

rba

ija

n

Lith

ua

nia

Est

on

ia

Latv

ia

Uk

rain

e

Ge

org

ia

Ru

ssia

n F

ed

era

tio

n

Country

Pri

son

po

pu

lati

on

ra

te

P 7


�� Evolution of the prison populationEvolution of the prison populationEvolution of the prison population in Belgium: in Belgium: in Belgium:

OverallOverallOverall

�� Between 1951 Between 1951 Between 1951 ––– 2009: from 4,300 in 1951 to more than 10,500 in 2010 (average d2009: from 4,300 in 1951 to more than 10,500 in 2010 (average d2009: from 4,300 in 1951 to more than 10,500 in 2010 (average daily population)aily population)aily population)

�� Belgium in a European perspective: prisoner rate per 100,000 inhBelgium in a European perspective: prisoner rate per 100,000 inhBelgium in a European perspective: prisoner rate per 100,000 inhabitants (101.4) or 93.1 (without abitants (101.4) or 93.1 (without abitants (101.4) or 93.1 (without

EM)EM)EM)

Remand prisoners

� Between 1980-2009: more than doubled (but stabilisation during the last years: ± 3,500)

� Belgium in a European perspective


�� Average prison population in 2010 (10,536) Average prison population in 2010 (10,536) Average prison population in 2010 (10,536) ↔↔↔ average prison capacity (8,950)average prison capacity (8,950)average prison capacity (8,950)


�� Prison densityPrison densityPrison density: : : 128.4 prisoners128.4 prisoners128.4 prisoners per 100 places (one of the highest in Europe)per 100 places (one of the highest in Europe)per 100 places (one of the highest in Europe)




P 8

Prison population and pre-trial detention (remand prisoners): some figures (Belgium)

Evolution of the average daily prison population,

according to legal status (1980-2005, and 1st of March 2010)

and the EM-population (on the 1st of March, 1999-2010)

1438

3712

2544

5606

529

10891005

154928

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

19

80

19

85

19

90

19

95

20

00

20

05

20

10

Year

N

Remand prisoners Sentenced prisoners

Mentally disordered offenders Other

EM

P 9

Prison population and pre-trial detention (remand prisoners): some figures (Europe)

Rate of prisoners not serving a final sentence per 100,000 inhabitants (excl. 'other cases') on 1st

September 2009 (SPACE I)

3,2

8,7 1

0,3

10

,8

11

,0

11

,2

12

,8

13

,0

13

,9 16

,3

16

,7

18

,4

18

,8

20

,1

21

,9

23

,2

24

,3

24

,6

25

,9

25

,9

27

,3

29

,2

29

,5

30

,0

30

,6

30

,7

31

,1

32

,9

33

,2

34

,7

35

,5

36

,0 39

,0 41

,3 45

,2

46

,8

47

,3 50

,0

50

,9 53

,3

59

,7 62

,4

72

,2 76

,4

83

,5

0,0

10,0

20,0

30,0

40,0

50,0

60,0

70,0

80,0

90,0

100,0

Sa

n M

ari

no

BH

: F

ed

. B

iH

Th

e F

YR

O M

ac

ed

on

ia

Fin

lan

d

Ice

lan

d

Lie

ch

ten

ste

in

Ire

lan

d

BH

: R

ep

. S

rpsk

a

Ge

rma

ny

No

rwa

y

Sw

ed

en

Ro

ma

nia

Slo

ve

nia

Po

rtu

ga

l

Bu

lga

ria

Mo

ldo

va

Fra

nc

e

UK

: E

ng

lan

d a

nd

Wa

les

De

nm

ark

Po

lan

d

Cro

ati

a

Sp

ain

(C

ata

lon

ia)

Be

lgiu

m

Slo

va

k R

ep

ub

lic

UK

: S

co

tla

nd

UK

: N

ort

he

rn I

rela

nd

Aze

rba

ija

n

Arm

en

ia

Ne

the

rla

nd

s

Se

rbia

An

do

rra

Sp

ain

(S

tate

Ad

m.)

Sw

itze

rla

nd

Lith

ua

nia

Mo

na

co

Cy

pru

s

Alb

an

ia

Hu

ng

ary

Ita

ly

Lux

em

bo

urg

Latv

ia

Est

on

ia

Uk

rain

e

Ma

lta

Tu

rke

y

Country

Ra

te p

er

10

0,0

00

in

ha

bit

an

ts

P 10

Prison population and prison overcrowding: some figures





EM)EM)EM)




� Prison overcrowding

� Average prison population in 2010 (10,536) ↔ average prison capacity (8,950): ⇒⇒⇒⇒ over-occupancy rate 17%

� Prison density: 128.4 prisoners per 100 places (one of the highest in Europe)

� But not all prisons (mainly largest remand centres, with some of them more than 50% overcrowding)



P 11

Prison population and prison overcrowding: some figures (Europe)

Prison density per 100 places on 1st September 2009 (SPACE I)

15

7,9

15

3,0

14

8,2

14

7,9

13

9,7

13

3,4

12

9,7

12

8,4

12

4,3

12

3,3

11

3,6

11

0,4

10

6,8

10

3,4

10

3,3

10

2,9

10

2,8

10

1,2

99

,4

98

,2

97

,8

97

,2

96

,9

96

,4

94

,9

94

,3

93

,1

92

,7

92

,2

91

,7

91

,5

91

,1

91

,0

90

,7

88

,6

87

,8

85

,7

82

,0

79

,2

79

,0

77

,7

73

,2

54

,4

35

,0

28

,4

16

,7

0,0

20,0

40,0

60,0

80,0

100,0

120,0

140,0

160,0

180,0

Se

rbia

Sp

ain

(S

tate

Ad

m.)

Ita

ly

Cy

pru

s

Cro

ati

a

Hu

ng

ary

Ice

lan

d

Be

lgiu

m

Slo

ve

nia

Fra

nc

e

Cze

ch

Re

pu

bli

c

Tu

rke

y

UK

: S

co

tla

nd

Sw

ed

en

Alb

an

ia

Ma

lta

Th

e F

YR

O M

ac

ed

on

ia

Fin

lan

d

Po

lan

d

UK

: E

ng

lan

d a

nd

Wa

les

Ire

lan

d

Est

on

ia

Lux

em

bo

urg

BH

: F

ed

. B

iH

Bu

lga

ria

Sp

ain

(C

ata

lon

ia)

Po

rtu

ga

l

Uk

rain

e

Ge

rma

ny

No

rwa

y

Lith

ua

nia

De

nm

ark

Sw

itze

rla

nd

Arm

en

ia

Slo

va

k R

ep

ub

lic

Latv

ia

BH

: R

ep

. S

rpsk

a

UK

: N

ort

he

rn I

rela

nd

Ne

the

rla

nd

s

Ro

ma

nia

Aze

rba

ija

n

Mo

ldo

va

An

do

rra

Lie

ch

ten

ste

in

Mo

na

co

Sa

n M

ari

no

Au

stri

a

Ge

org

ia

Gre

ec

e

Mo

nte

ne

gro

Ru

ssia

n F

ed

era

tio

n

Country

Pri

son

de

nsi

ty p

er

10

0 p

lace

s

P 12

Prison population and prison overcrowding: some figures (Belgium)

Over-occupancy rate of Belgian prisons (year 2010)

(average daily prison population <> average capacity)

-20,0%

-10,0%

0,0%

10,0%

20,0%

30,0%

40,0%

50,0%

60,0%

70,0%

Iep

er

Din

an

t

An

twe

rpe

n

Fo

rest

/Vo

rst

Jam

iou

xl

Nam

ur

Me

ch

ele

n

Ve

rvie

rs

Lan

tin

Ge

nt

Mo

ns

Le

uve

n H

ulp

Bru

gge

St.

Gil

les/

St.G

illi

s

De

nd

erm

on

de

Be

rke

nd

ae

l

Niv

ell

es

Hu

y

Tu

rnh

ou

t

Ha

sse

lt N

ieu

w

Arl

on

Ou

de

na

ard

e

To

urn

ai

Ru

ise

led

e

Le

uv

en

Ce

ntr

aal

Ho

ogs

trat

en

Ittr

e

Pai

fve

An

de

nn

e

Wo

rte

l-T

ilb

urg

Ma

rne

ffe

Me

rksp

las

St.

Hu

be

rt

Prison

%

P 13






EM)EM)EM)





�� Average prison population in 2010 (10,536) Average prison population in 2010 (10,536) Average prison population in 2010 (10,536) ↔↔↔ average prison capacity (8,950)average prison capacity (8,950)average prison capacity (8,950)


�� Prison densityPrison densityPrison density: 128.4 prisoners per 100 places (one of the highest in Europe): 128.4 prisoners per 100 places (one of the highest in Europe): 128.4 prisoners per 100 places (one of the highest in Europe)


� Evolution of alternatives to pre-trial detention: increasing numbers of incarcerations (arrest

warrant) AND of alternatives for pre-trial detention (freedom/release on conditions, 1995-2009)

P 14

Pre-trial detention and alternatives: some figures (Belgium)

Evolution of freedom/release on conditions,

in relation to the number of incarcerations (remand custody) and the prison

population (on the 1st of March) in remand custody (1995-2009)

10616 10469

8997 9212

99929608

10865 10805 11053 11194

11954 11916 12042 12240

609

887

1952

2405

2263

2898

3181

3460

3713

4107

4563

4917

4949

2863 2862 2773 25543023 2951

32383680 3614 3550 3530 3473 3527 3557 3712

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Year

N

Incarcerations freedom/release on conditions (flow)

Prison pop. RC Linear (Incarcerations)

Linear (freedom/release on conditions (flow))

P 15

Pre-trial detention and alternatives: some recent research topics

1. Threshold for application of pre-trial detention (Marc Verwilghen, 2001)

2. Exhaustive lists of offences (‘positive’ vs. ‘negative’ list) (Laurette Onkelinx,

2004-2005)

3. Duration of pre-trial detention (Marc Verwilghen, 2001, Laurette Onkelinx, 2004-

2005)

4. Electronic monitoring as an alternative to pre-trial detention (Jo Vandeurzen/Stefaan De Clerck, 2009)


1. Increasing the threshold for the application of pre-trial detention

P 17

1. Threshold: research question and methodology

� Threshold for the application of pre-trial detention (possible sentence length)

� Actual situation: ≥ 1 year of imprisonment

� Simulation research (≥ 3 years)

� Data: pre-trial detention 1998 (source: database SIDIS)

� Unit of analysis: number of incarcerations (as pre-trial detainee)

P 18

1. Threshold: methodology

INCARCERATIONS ARREST WARRANTS(remand custody)

UNITS OF ANALYSIS PRISONER

Title 1

DETENTION 1 Title 2

Title n

Title 1

DETENTION 2 Title 2

Title n

Title 1

DETENTION n Title 2

Title n

P 19

1. Threshold: evaluation

� Hypothetical reduction of the number of incarcerations with 3% (year 1998)→ thus, almost no effect on the prison population (remand custody)

� Automatism that risks to conflict with other interests protected by the legislator (cf. ‘assault and battery’ <> avoiding recidivism/protection of victims)

� Possible ‘perverse’ effect: increasing the maximum penalty for certain offences

=> Differentiated ‘thresholds’?


2. Construction of (positive/negative) lists of offenses

P 21

2. List of offences: research question and methodology

� Introduction of lists of offenses:

� ‘Positive’ list (pre-trial detention possible)

� ‘Negative’ list (pre-trial detention NOT possible)

�Methodology:

� Literature review + interviews

� Quantitative analysis (extraction database):

� Data: pre-trial detention year 2003 (source: database SIDIS-GRIFFIE)

� Unit of analysis: number of arrest warrants executed in prison during the year

concerned

P 22

2. List of offences: methodology

INCARCERATIONS ARREST WARRANTS(remand custody)

UNITS OF ANALYSIS PRISONER

Title 1

DETENTION 1 Title 2

Title n

Title 1

DETENTION 2 Title 2

Title n

Title 1

DETENTION n Title 2

Title n

P 23

2. List of offences: some results

Hypothetical reduction of the number of arrest warrants with 60%

(if non-violent offenses excluded from the application of pre-trial detention)= -55% average daily population PTD (or appr. 1,000 prisoners)

N arrest warrants

Judicial district

% non-violent offences

% violent offences

Brussel 63,0% 37,0%

Leuven 72,8% 27,2%

Nijvel 30,8% 69,2%

Antwerpen 56,6% 43,4%

Charleroi 48,8% 51,2%

Doornik 49,0% 51,0%

Gent 64,1% 35,9%

Dendermonde 75,4% 24,6%

Brugge 72,3% 27,7%

Veurne 74,7% 25,3%

Ieper 74,5% 25,5%

Luik 53,9% 46,1%

Verviers 45,9% 54,1%

Hasselt 71,3% 28,7%

Dinant 40,7% 59,3%

Total 59,9% 40,1%

P 24

2. List of offences: evaluation

� In general:

� Possible impact on the size of the prison population

BUT: only a real effect in case of a RADICAL selection (of offenses)

→ SOCIALLY DESIRABLE AND POLITICALLY ACHIEVABLE ??

� Some observations:

� Technique already in use in other Belgian legal frameworks

(cf. telephone tap, pro-active police investigation, DNA-database “sentenced offenders”,…)

→ risk to adopt indiscriminately already existing lists (cf. ‘légiférer par référence’)

� In any case: necessary to evaluate the effect of the techniques used (lists of offences and/or threshold)

� Construction of lists requires meticulous research + continued consideration


3. Limiting the length of pre-trial detention

P 26

3a. Length PTD:methodology research I (2001)

� Data: pre-trial detention 1996-2000 (source: database SIDIS)

� Unit of analysis: number of incarcerations (as pre-trial detainee)

� Calculation of the length of pre-trial detention� Concluded vs. non-concluded (date of analysis)

� Concluded terms: release from prison or transition to a definitive legal status

� Criminal offenses: ‘violent-’ vs. ‘other’ (non-violent) offenses

� Simulation study: scenarios limitation to 3, 4 or 6 months for non-violent offenses

P 27

3a. Length PTD:results simulation - research I (2001)

Table: Possible “saving” in detention capacity according to three scenarios of limiting the length of pre-trial detention for the category ‘other’ criminal offences

Scenario Average length of time the

period was exceeded (in days)*

Number of detentions

above threshold

(avg./year)

Saving with respect to

average daily

population

> 3 months 84.4 1,452.0 340.4

> 4 months 87.5 985.4 239.5

> 6 months 104.7 433.8 126.2

* To obtain the real average length of pre-trial detention for these protracted detentions (> 3, 4 or 6 months), the average length of time the period was exceeded must be increased by the respective maximum limit, in other words, by 90 days (3 months), 120 days (4 months) or 180 days (6 months).

P 28

3b. Length PTD:methodology research II (2004-2005)

� Literature review + interviews

� Quantitative analysis data-extraction:

� Data: pre-trial detention year 2003 (source: database SIDIS-GRIFFIE)

� Unit of analysis: arrest warrants executed in the year 2003

� Calculation length of pre-trial detention:

� Length: date of execution arrest warrant → date of lifting arrest warrant/release or date of final judicial decision during pre-trial detention (internment, suspension)

� Underestimation: max. till the moment of dispensation of justice (‘regelingrechtspleging’) + some periods of PTD still running at the time of data-extraction / sometimes no registration of the last decision taken

� Criminal offenses: simulations according the different scenarios

P 29

3b. Length PTD:results simulation - research II (2004-2005)

Table: Possible ‘saving’ in detention capacity according to different scenarios of limiting the length of pre-trial detention (year 2003)

Scenarios N arrest warrants POP. 'saved' % POP 'saved'**

For all offences 3,724 610.2 34.1

Only for non-violent offences 2,098 311.7 17.4

All, except 4 types of violent offences *** 7,012 345.5 19.3

Only drugs, without any other criminal offence 599 79.1 4.4

Only theft, without any other criminal offense 333 39.8 2.2

Scenarios N arrest warrants POP. 'saved' % POP 'saved'**

For all offences 2,246 354.5 19.8

Only for non-violent offences 1,212 169.3 9.5

All, except 4 types of violent offences *** 1,339 187.7 10.5

Only drugs, without any other criminal offence 326 39.4 2.2

Only theft, without any other criminal offense 140 19.4 1.1

* Maximally till the moment of dispensation of justice (by the judicial council)

** Percentages calculated on the basis of an estimated total prison population (pre-trial detention) of 1,791.1

*** Homicide, rape, violent theft and hostage

Limitation PTD to 67 days* (3rd

appearance before the judicial council)

Limitation PTD to 98 days* (4th

appearance before the judicial council)

P 30

3a/b. Length PTD: general evaluation� Advantages:

� Possible impact on the size of prison population

(BUT only in case of an observable effect on the (length of the) final sentence, in case of acquittal, or

if the date of parole eligibility is not exceeded)

� Stimulus for a faster conclusion of the criminal (investigation) procedure

� Protection of the suspect (avoiding unnecessary periods of PTD + more legal security)

� Some observations:� ‘Real’ effect (cf. supra) OR simply a displacement (‘saved’ detention time to be served

after the pronouncement of the final (prison) sentence)?

� Tension between abstract legal norms – concrete cases (→ introduction of ‘exceptions’)

� Risk of automatic release without any further judicial appreciation of the case

� Risk to fully exploit the maximum term (legitimation for a continuation of PTD)

� Situation of illegal aliens in pre-trial detention?

� Only guaranteed in case of very low maximum lengths for PTD

(cf. average length of PTD + small % > 3 months --- cf. situation in other European countries)

► Legal reform OR transforming the use of PTD/criminal investigation procedures in practice?


4. Introducing electronic monitoring as an alternative to pre-trial detention

P 32

4. EM: object and context of the research

� Research object : Explorative study on the possibility of application of EM within the framework of remand custody (duration: March-December 2009)

� General policy note of the Minister of Justice (Parl. Doc., Chamber of Representatives, 2008-2009, n°52 1529/016, p. 71): “(…) the use of electronic monitoring, the introduction of modern techniques like GPS-tracking, as an alternative for remand custody”.

� Current application of EM in the Belgian penal landscape (exclusively in the domain of the execution of prison sentences)

� (a total of) prison sentences up to 3 years: prison service (EM as ‘front door’-strategy)

� prison sentences of more than 3 years: courts for the execution of sentences (EM as ‘back door’-strategy)

→ ? EM within others stages of the penal system, i.c. remand custody ?

P 33

4. EM: research questions

� Quantitative:

→ To what extent EM would be applied in the context of remand custody

(within a perspective, for example, of reducing the current prison population)?

� Qualitative:

→ In which type of cases EM would be applied?

→Which model of EM would be preferred?

→What are the kind of contra-indications preventing to choose EM?

→What are the other aspects to be taken into account (legal framework and practical modalities)?

P 34

4. EM: research methodology

� International literature review + visits abroad

� Round table discussions (Dutch + French: investigating judges, judicial councils,

chambers of indictment, public prosecutors, lawyers)

� Analysis of judicial files/questionnaires

→ Judicial districts: Antwerp (53 Dutch files), Brussels (24 Dutch files + 86 French files)

and Liege (42 French files)

→ Judicial authorities: investigating judges (41 Dutch files + 57 French files), judicial councils

(14 Dutch files + 22 French files), chambers of indictment (22 Dutch files + 49 French files)

→ Total: 205 files (77 Dutch files + 128 French files)

� Analysis of the current application of remand custody (2008) according to certain characteristics, based on a data-extraction from the prison service’s database (SIDIS/GRIFFIE)

P 35

4. EM: research methodology

Table: Overview of judicial files (number of cases) screened with respect to legal instance, district/jurisdiction and linguistic register

District IJ JC CI Total French/Dutch*

Liege 19 - 23 42

Brussels (French) 38 22 26 86 128

Brussels (Dutch) 24 - (24)** 24

Antwerp 17 14 22 53 77

Total 98 36 71 205

98 107

* The difference in the number of Dutch and French language judicial files is explained by diverse

factors such as the willingness to participate in the research, urgent deadlines in the context of the research phases, and incomplete detailed information concerning a number of cases.

** With all the participating judicial actors there was a face-to-face contact in order to fill out the registration form, except with a member of the Dutch-speaking chamber of indictment of the judicial district of Brussels who requested to fill out the registration form himself. However, due to a lack of sufficient detailed information on certain aspects we were asking for, these cases were not used in further analyses.

P 36

4. EM: general conclusions

A possible policy decision to introduce EM in the context of remand custody has to be defined as “a political measure requiring (without any doubt) an important additional budgetary effort, which:

-) will probably have a relatively low impact – certainly not substantial – on the number of pre-trial detainees in our prisons, and

–––) moreover raises important) moreover raises important) moreover raises important legal, practical and organizational legal, practical and organizational legal, practical and organizational

questions.questions.questions.”””

However, in certain cases EM can be considered However, in certain cases EM can be considered However, in certain cases EM can be considered “““[[[………] as a potentially ] as a potentially ] as a potentially

valuable initiative from a humane, ethical and human rights poinvaluable initiative from a humane, ethical and human rights poinvaluable initiative from a humane, ethical and human rights point of view, t of view, t of view,

in the sense of ain the sense of ain the sense of a limitation of the harmful effects of detentionlimitation of the harmful effects of detentionlimitation of the harmful effects of detention and aand aand a

better respect of the legal principle of the presumption of better respect of the legal principle of the presumption of better respect of the legal principle of the presumption of

innocence.innocence.innocence.”””

P 37

4. EM: general conclusionEffect of EM on the size of the population on remand custody?

Relatively low impact (?), because:

Estimated application rate of EM within the framework of remand custody (25%, investigating judges) does not necessarily lead to an equivalent reduction of the population on remand custody (stock):

o investigating judges participating in the reasearch may be more prepared to apply EM than others

o possible use of EM in cases of ‘freedom/release under conditions’ (alternatives), or even freedom without any condition (= additional technique of control) + probably more revocations due to a more effective control

o duration of remand custody ‘saved’ by EM = unclear

o sometimes, release from remand custody is not possible because of other detention titles present (e.g. execution of former convictions to prison sentence)

o in some cases EM will only be applied if other, specific conditions are satisfied (e.g. detention in asylum, application of GPS-technology, …)

o the opinion of the investigating judges might be a projection of possible future decisions to be taken (decision to release, with or without conditions)

o If the term under EM does not have an impact on the length of the final prison sentence, EM will only have some effect on the size of the prison population when EM is considered as ‘detention time served’ (in remand custody)

P 38

4. EM: general conclusionEffect of EM on the size of the population on remand custody?

Table: Overview of the justifications for the warrant of detention and not making use of

electronic monitoring (Dutch-speaking cases in which electronic monitoring was not considered)

Criteria

Justification for warrant of

detention Justification for not applying EM

Severity of the offence --- 33.9%

Risk of collusion 41.3% 33.9%

Risk of embezzlement 9.5% 12.9%

Risk of escaping 74.6% 75.8%

Risk of recidivism 66.7% 56.5%

Illegal residency 58.7% 61.3%

* N=62 (justification for arrest warrants)

** N=63 (justification for not applying electronic monitoring)

Table: Overview of the justifications for the warrant of detention and not making use of

electronic monitoring (French-speaking cases in which electronic monitoring was not considered)

Criteria

Justification for warrant of

detention*

Justification for not applying

EM*

Severity of the offence --- 53.6%

Risk of collusion 41.2% 38.1%

Risk of embezzlement 21.6% 20.6%

Risk of escaping 40.2% 40.2%

Risk of recidivism 73.2% 73.2%

Illegal residency 24.7% 24.7%

* Percentages calculated on 97 cases, because of the fact that in 10 cases information on the justification for

the warrant of detention was not available.

P 39

4. EM: General conclusionEM as an alternative to pre-trial detention would require an additional budgetary effort

Possible financial savings (in case of a reduced prison population in remand custody):

� Variable costs: food, clothing, wages for prison labour

� BUT: stable costs (prison infrastructure and personnel)

� Cf. probably low impact on the size of the prison population

� Cf. dispersion of prisoners in remand custody all over the country

ADDITIONAL costs (for the application of EM):

� EM-infrastructure (technology)

� Personnel (probation staff)

P 40


A possible policy decision to introduce EM in the context of remA possible policy decision to introduce EM in the context of remA possible policy decision to introduce EM in the context of remand and and

custody has to be defined ascustody has to be defined ascustody has to be defined as “a political measure requiring (without any requiring (without any requiring (without any

doubt) an importantdoubt) an importantdoubt) an important additional budgetary effortadditional budgetary effortadditional budgetary effort,,, which:

---) will probably have a) will probably have a) will probably have a relatively low impact relatively low impact relatively low impact ––– certainly not substantial certainly not substantial certainly not substantial

––– on the number of preon the number of preon the number of pre---trial detainees trial detainees trial detainees in our prisons, andin our prisons, andin our prisons, and

–––) moreover) moreover) moreover raises important legal, practical and organizational questions.”

However, in certain cases EM can be considered However, in certain cases EM can be considered However, in certain cases EM can be considered “““[[[………] as a potentially ] as a potentially ] as a potentially

valuable initiative from a humane, ethical and human rights poinvaluable initiative from a humane, ethical and human rights poinvaluable initiative from a humane, ethical and human rights point of view, t of view, t of view,

in the sense of ain the sense of ain the sense of a limitation of the harmful effects of detentionlimitation of the harmful effects of detentionlimitation of the harmful effects of detention and aand aand a

better respect of the legal principle of the presumption of better respect of the legal principle of the presumption of better respect of the legal principle of the presumption of

innocence.innocence.innocence.”””

P 41

4. EM: three models of EM

1) The "traditional" model

(cf. the regime is applied in the context of the execution of prison sentences)

2) The "house arrest" model

3) The "GPS" model

→Which model of EM would be preferred?

Each model has the potential to be applied

BUT the legal consequences vary according to the chosen EM model

P 42

4. EM: legal consequences

� EM as a specific modality of the execution of remand custody

� The "house arrest" model

� The "traditional" model (?)

→ EM = deprivation of liberty (so, the legal framework is modeled upon the system of remand custody)

� EM as a particular form of freedom under conditions or release under conditions

� The « GPS » model

→ EM = restricted liberty (so, the legal framework is modeled upon the system of freedom under conditions or release under conditions)

P 43


A possible policy decision to introduce EM in the context of remA possible policy decision to introduce EM in the context of remA possible policy decision to introduce EM in the context of remand and and

custody has to be defined as custody has to be defined as custody has to be defined as “““a political measure requiring (without any a political measure requiring (without any a political measure requiring (without any

doubt) an importantdoubt) an importantdoubt) an important additional budgetary effortadditional budgetary effortadditional budgetary effort, which:, which:, which:

---) will probably have a) will probably have a) will probably have a relatively low impact relatively low impact relatively low impact ––– certainly not substantial certainly not substantial certainly not substantial

––– on the number of preon the number of preon the number of pre---trial detainees trial detainees trial detainees in our prisons, andin our prisons, andin our prisons, and

–––) moreover raises important) moreover raises important) moreover raises important legal, practical and organizational legal, practical and organizational legal, practical and organizational

questions.questions.questions.”””

However, in certain cases EM can be considered “[…] as a potentially valuable initiative from a humane, ethical and human rights point of view, in the sense of a limitation of the harmful effects of detention and abetter respect of the legal principle of the presumption of innocence.”

Documents

Pre-trial detention in Belgium: looking for solutions to