Introduction
Introduction
After the annexation by France in 1811, a national prosecution service modelled like the French ministère public was introduced in the Netherlands. The service was maintained when in 1813 the Netherlands became an independent Kingdom.
Although considerable changes in the organisation and powers of the prosecution service took place since then, the basic concepts of the prosecution service are still intact: the service is a nation-wide, hierarchically structured organisation, whose officers’ main task is to prosecute cases in court.
Although prosecution of criminal offences is still the main task of the prosecution service, it became obvious over the last decades that prosecution of all crimes registered is not advisable. Priorities in prosecution policy have to be set. Priority setting includes the utilisation of discretionary prosecutorial power to either prosecute, or waive, a prosecution. In a majority of cases an official reaction to criminal behaviour is highly advisable and a waiver therefore not always the appropriate prosecutorial decision. Therefore, in 1983, the prosecution service has been vested with the power to settle almost all criminal offences out of court.
The power to waive a prosecution and to settle cases out of court brought changes in the relation between the prosecution service and the Minister of Justice, who is political responsible for the decisions taken by individual prosecutors.
Since the early 1990s, the task of the prosecution service, again, has been changed considerably. The service’s role in directing the police to apply criminal law more broadly as an instrument to control and reduce undesired societal behaviour, has increasingly led to a pressure on the prosecution service. Furthermore, the role of the prosecution service in pre-trial investigation as well as in the field of autonomous dealing with criminal cases, e.g. through a settlement out of court, has gained weight.
These changes have consequences for the functioning and organisation of the prosecution service. The prosecution service must be capable to deal with large amounts of standard cases, but also with tailor-made cases. Furthermore, the vulnerability of small prosecutors offices must be reduced by scaling up the size of the offices through amalgamation. The large scale standard criminal cases shall be dealt with by specialised prosecutorial units, and tailor-made cases by individual prosecutors. Therefore, a major reorganisation of the prosecution service will take place in the near future. The outline of the reorganisation is presently under discussion and shows a reduction of the number of regional prosecution services from 19 to 10.
After the annexation by France in 1811, a national prosecution service modelled like the French ministère public was introduced in the Netherlands. The service was maintained when in 1813 the Netherlands became an independent Kingdom.
Although considerable changes in the organisation and powers of the prosecution service took place since then, the basic concepts of the prosecution service are still intact: the service is a nation-wide, hierarchically structured organisation, whose officers’ main task is to prosecute cases in court.
Although prosecution of criminal offences is still the main task of the prosecution service, it became obvious over the last decades that prosecution of all crimes registered is not advisable. Priorities in prosecution policy have to be set. Priority setting includes the utilisation of discretionary prosecutorial power to either prosecute, or waive, a prosecution. In a majority of cases an official reaction to criminal behaviour is highly advisable and a waiver therefore not always the appropriate prosecutorial decision. Therefore, in 1983, the prosecution service has been vested with the power to settle almost all criminal offences out of court.
The power to waive a prosecution and to settle cases out of court brought changes in the relation between the prosecution service and the Minister of Justice, who is political responsible for the decisions taken by individual prosecutors.
Since the early 1990s, the task of the prosecution service, again, has been changed considerably. The service’s role in directing the police to apply criminal law more broadly as an instrument to control and reduce undesired societal behaviour, has increasingly led to a pressure on the prosecution service. Furthermore, the role of the prosecution service in pre-trial investigation as well as in the field of autonomous dealing with criminal cases, e.g. through a settlement out of court, has gained weight.
These changes have consequences for the functioning and organisation of the prosecution service. The prosecution service must be capable to deal with large amounts of standard cases, but also with tailor-made cases. Furthermore, the vulnerability of small prosecutors offices must be reduced by scaling up the size of the offices through amalgamation. The large scale standard criminal cases shall be dealt with by specialised prosecutorial units, and tailor-made cases by individual prosecutors. Therefore, a major reorganisation of the prosecution service will take place in the near future. The outline of the reorganisation is presently under discussion and shows a reduction of the number of regional prosecution services from 19 to 10.
