Criminal case and coronavirus

Weening Criminal Lawyers also deals with criminal case and coronavirus

As I write this column, the country is in turmoil because of the coronavirus outbreak. It is also evident in the houses of detention and in the courts. Releases have been revoked, self-reporters do not have to report for the time being to serve a prison sentence and visits have been postponed. Also at the Courts and Courts the consequences are huge. The Judiciary has decided that all non-urgent cases will be postponed. In criminal law, only those cases in which the defendant is in pretrial detention will continue. In these cases, whenever possible, ways will be sought to hear the parties by telephone or video link.

The law includes a provision for an interrogation to take place by video link. The judge or an interrogating official may decide that in all cases in which the hearing, interrogation or questioning of persons is discussed, this may take place by video conference. This arrangement therefore makes it possible for hearings to proceed without a defendant, witness or expert being present in the courtroom themselves. In these times, when you could contract the virus while being transported to and from court, staying in a holding cell or while in contact with prosecutor's police not an unpleasant thought.

A video link would allow a hearing that would otherwise have been adjourned to proceed anyway. This is especially important for defendants who are in pretrial detention and awaiting the substantive hearing of their case.

Also read: Coronavirus - Violation of "corona ban"? Cell sentence possible!

There are also some cases where videoconferencing is not used. This is in any case the case of a minor suspect or convicted person. Also if it is suspected that a suspect is suffering from a pathological disorder or development of the mental faculties, video conferencing is not used. This also applies to suspects of sex crimes or offenses involving a fatality. Finally, videoconferencing is not used if the victim exercises the right to speak at the hearing.

In some cases, the accused may actually want to be present in person when his case is heard and not use a videoconference. For example, because he wants the judges, who have to judge his guilt or innocence, to be able to look him straight in the eye. It is also conceivable that the accused wants to consult confidentially with his lawyer during the hearing. This is somewhat more complicated with videoconferencing than during a hearing where the accused sits together with his lawyer in the courtroom. Therefore, it is good to know that the substantive hearing of the case at the hearing of the three-judge panel can only take place by video link if the accused agrees.

During these times it is important to discuss with your lawyer what is important to you, avoiding contamination, the possible delay of the criminal case, being present at the hearing yourself. Together you can then make a proposal to arrive at the best possible solution for you in which your interests are best safeguarded. This also applies, of course, if you have an interest in having your case delayed as long as possible.

Witness interviews in criminal cases have also been postponed for the foreseeable future. These, too, could theoretically take place by video link. As with criminal case hearings, the question is whether this is in the best interest of the defense. It may be to the defendant's advantage for the interrogation to take place as soon as possible. For example, if the outcome of the interrogation is crucial to the continuation of pretrial detention. What I personally find a major disadvantage to hearing witnesses by video link is that I am less able to see how a witness reacts non-verbally during the interrogation. Precisely the non-verbal reaction of a witness can be crucial in assessing the reliability of a witness. For this reason, the European Court of Human Rights considers an interrogation by audio link to be in violation of the right to a fair trial. Delays in the video and audio connection can also result in the hearing being less effective than one in which the witness and lawyer are in the same room. In short, there is plenty of food for thought. How will you and your attorney ensure that you can make the best use of your defense rights in these times?

Written by: