The Public Prosecution Service may make agreements with suspects in criminal cases through lawyers. That was decided by the Supreme Court on Tuesday. Last summer, the Attorney General at the Supreme Court asked the legal institute to rule on this, because nothing has been laid down in the law about these so-called ‘procedural agreements’. According to the Supreme Court, the conclusion of procedural agreements does not affect the independent position of the judge.
Procedural agreements are agreements between the Public Prosecution Service and lawyers about the course of the criminal proceedings. Both parties give up something when making such an agreement. An example is a case in Haarlem, in which the judiciary suspects a man of cocaine trafficking. The Public Prosecution Service and the suspect reach an agreement on a four-year prison sentence via a process agreement. It has been agreed that the suspect will not defend himself and will not appeal.
Also read: More and more courts are rejecting ‘revolutionary’ process agreements
Among proponents – mostly lawyers and public prosecutors – process agreements are especially popular because certain criminal cases can be settled faster and more efficiently and thus the overloaded criminal justice chain can be somewhat relieved. Judges who rejected procedural agreements in the past year did so for reasons of principle, among other things. They wanted to ensure that the court “becomes a kind of stamping machine” by being drawn into a deal.
In order to create more clarity, the Supreme Court has set out a framework within which the court can reach a decision that is in line with procedural agreements made. Among other things, it is required that the suspect has received legal aid. The public prosecutor must also take the interests of the victim into account when making procedural agreements and the agreements must be summarized or read out in a public hearing. According to the Supreme Court, the judge still retains responsibility for a fair trial and intervenes if this is jeopardized by the agreements made.
Also read: More and more courts are rejecting ‘revolutionary’ process agreements