The College of Attorneys General is very grateful to the Attorney General at the Supreme Court (PGHR) for the report Aside from prosecution published today. The investigation that the PGHR conducted in its role as supervisor of the Public Prosecution Service focused on the dismissal policy of the PPS.
The PPS can decide not to prosecute a criminal offense further by dismissing it. When the PPS dismisses a case, it means that the case will not be further investigated. For example, because there is not enough evidence. Decisions made about whether or not to prosecute have an impact on both the victim and the suspect. They are entitled to well-considered choices from the PPS, which are well-motivated and well-communicated regarding the dismissal and its consequences.
Unfortunately, the PGHRs investigation shows that this does not always happen. ‘We are driven to improve ourselves in this regard. The College gladly takes the conclusions and recommendations of the prosecutor to heart. They provide concrete starting points for improvements and we will promptly get to work on this,’ said Rinus Otte, chairman of the College of Attorneys General.
Some areas for improvement are already being addressed, either because they relate to recommendations from previous supervisory reports by the PGHR, or because the PPS itself has identified a need for improvement during the investigation period.
An important part of the conclusions and recommendations concerns the qualitative aspect of the dismissal decision: an incorrect or incomprehensible choice of dismissal grounds and insufficient motivation. The different reasons for a dismissal have their own code. The PGHR advises reducing the number of dismissal codes. This makes it more workable and also clearer for practice. The PPS shares this view of the PGHR and will reduce the number of dismissal grounds. Additionally, more attention will be paid within the PPS to better motivation and communication, so that suspects and victims understand why and on what grounds a case is dismissed.
Otte: ‘The PGHR holds up a good mirror to us. The legal terms that we, prosecutors, use are second nature to us. For a suspect and victim, it is very different and can deeply affect someones life. The decisions we make and that are expressed in the letters we send must therefore be clear and understandable. We will focus heavily on this.’