Thursday 19 March 

Registration         

Session 1: EU fair trial standards and ‘procedural justice’.
The new EU legislation on fair trial rights in criminal proceedings aims to enhance ‘procedural justice’ or ‘procedural fairness’ in EU Member States. Is the (implicit) definition of ‘procedural fairness’ adopted in the EU instruments adequate? For instance, in view of the recent developments in national criminal procedures, contemporary societal challenges or threats (including threats to fundamental rights), or the emerging inter-disciplinary knowledge? Is the EU approach to promoting fairness in criminal proceedings sufficiently effective?

Speakers: Prof. Dr. Jackie Hodgson, Warwick University, UK  
              ​      Dr. Irene Wieczorek, Durham University, UK 
                    Prof. Dr. Ed Cape, University of the West of England, UK

Moderator: Dr. Julieta Marotta, UNU-MERIT/MGSoG, Maastricht University & Dr. Anna Pivaty, FoL, Maastricht University

Coffee break

Session 2: ‘Vulnerability’ in criminal proceedings.
The EU has recognized the need to improve the treatment of vulnerable persons in the national criminal proceedings, but struggled to adopt binding legislative instruments in this area. Instead, the European Commission adopted a recommendation on procedural safeguards for vulnerable persons suspected or accused in the criminal proceedings. Psychological research, however, points at various challenges of defining ‘vulnerability’ and the difficulties of translating these definitions into the legal field. Vulnerability must also be assessed individually with regard to the particular stage/action in the criminal proceedings. This makes the enforcement of the requirement to treat each vulnerable suspect (witness/victim) ‘fairly’ in the criminal proceedings particularly challenging. In view of this, can a ‘working definition’ of vulnerability in criminal proceedings be formulated, and how can it be enforced? What, if anything can EU realistically do to promote fair treatment of vulnerable persons in criminal proceedings?

Speakers: Dr. Roxanna Dehaghani, Cardiff University, UK
                    Ms. Lesley Laver, Independent Researcher
                    Prof. Dr. Corine de Ruiter, Maastricht University, Netherlands
                    
Moderators: Dr. Koen Geijsen, Maastricht University, FPN and Dutch Police Academy & Dr. Dorris de Vocht, FoL, Maastricht University

Book launch
A. Pivaty ‘Criminal Defence at Police Stations: A Comparative and Empirical Study’

Speakers: Dr. Yvonne Daly, Dublin City University, Ireland
                    Dr. Anneli Soo, Tartu University, Estonia 

Friday 20 March

Session 3: Standard and burden of proof in criminal proceedings.
The newly-adopted EU Directive 2016/343 on the presumption of innocence stipulates that the burden of proof for the establishing of guilt must be on the prosecution, and that any doubt concerning the accused’s guilt must lead to acquittal, with the exception inter alia of the independence of judges in the assessment of the evidence. This formulation, which may be perceived as inherently contradictory, leaves many questions open. For instance, should there be a common approach with regard to how judges in the MS should assess the sufficiency of evidence, i.e. when and how the standard of proof should be met? Another question is whether the assessment of the standard and burden of proof should or could be further regulated on the EU level, or should other measures be taken to ‘harmonise’ these processes in practice?

Speakers: Dr. Marieke Dubelaar, Radboud University, Netherlands
                    Dr. Yvonne Daly, Dublin City University, Ireland 
              ​      Dr. Nicole Adams-Quackenbush, University of Wolverhampton, UK​ 
                    Dr. Kelly Pitcher, Leiden University

Moderators: Dr. Dorris de Vocht, FoL, Maastricht University & Ms. Peggy ter Vrugt, FoL, Maastricht University

Session 4: Risk of re-offending: pre-trial detention and sentencing.
Framework Decision 2008/829 on Supervising Detention on Remand aims at reducing pre-trial detention within the EU, especially for those accused not residing in the trial state. With Framework Decisions 2008/909 and 2008/947 the EU strives for stimulating the resocialisation and integration of the offender as well as reducing the application of prison sentences. This is generally regarded as a stimulus to reduce re-offending as well. Do these instruments and tools achieve the goals set?

Speakers: Prof. Dr. Seena Fazel, Oxford University, UK 
                    Dr. Adriano Martufi, Leiden University, Netherlands 
                    Ms. Jennifer Kamorowski, Maastricht University, Netherlands

Moderators: Dr. Christina Peristeridou, FoL, Maastricht University & Dr. Anna Pivaty, FoL, Maastricht University

Session 5: Forensic expert evidence in (cross-border) criminal proceedings. 
The EU supports the exchange of forensic evidence across Member States, and takes measures aimed to facilitate such exchange. Thus, it has pledged to create a ‘European Forensic Science Area’ in 2020, which would facilitate exchange of forensic knowledge among MS and develop quality standards for forensic investigations. There are also calls to develop EU-wide minimum standards on the admissibility of expert evidence in criminal proceedings. However, the assessment of forensic evidence and expert reports in the framework of legal proceedings is a very challenging task for legal actors. These challenges are likely to be amplified where evidence originates from a different Member State.

Speakers: Prof. Dr. Paul Roberts, Nottingham University, UK
                    Prof. Dr. Ton Broeders, Leiden University, Netherlands 
                    Prof. Dr. Marijke Malsch, Open University, Netherlands Institute for the
                    Study of Crime and Law Enforcement, Netherlands

Moderators: Dr. Melanie Sauerland, FPN, Maastricht University & Prof. André Klip, FoL, Maastricht University