Protecting victims while ensuring that the administration of justice remains accountable. Judges must balance these two interests when the safety or privacy of those involved is at stake. Research by criminal law scholars and criminologists at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam shows that holding a trial behind closed doors is not the only solution. There are various ways to protect victims and participants in the proceedings without immediately sacrificing the public nature of a hearing.
In the Netherlands, court proceedings are, in principle, open to the public. This is important because it allows everyone to see how judges reach their decisions. Openness helps prevent arbitrariness and bias, contributes to a fair trial, and fosters trust in the judicial system.
At the same time, this openness can sometimes cause headaches for those involved. Victims may need protection of their privacy or safety. Judges, prosecutors, and other professionals may also face security risks, for example, in cases involving organized crime.
Closing the doors is a last resort
Commissioned by the WODC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam investigated how these conflicting interests are addressed in practice. The study was prompted by questions from the House of Representatives regarding the possibilities of better protecting victims by conducting criminal trials behind closed doors. At the same time, there are concerns about the pressure on public access to information in cases involving organized crime.
The study makes it clear why there is no simple choice between “open” and “closed.” “A hearing behind closed doors is considered a last resort. First, it must be determined whether protection can be provided in another way,” says Sonja Meijer, professor of Criminal Law and Criminal Procedure.
For victims, for example, the disclosure of personal information can be prevented, including by filing a report or being interviewed under a code number. Contact between a victim and a defendant during the hearing can also be limited or prevented. There are also ways for legal professionals to reduce risks, although these vary by role. For example, multiple prosecutors can work on a single case.
Better Balancing of Interests in Individual Cases
The most important finding of the study is therefore not a call for more or fewer closed trials. “It offers starting points to better equip judges for the assessments they must make on a case-by-case basis. This involves, for example, determining what protection a victim needs and whether less far-reaching measures are sufficient,” said Joke Harte, professor of Criminal Law and Criminology.
Greater knowledge of the existing legal options can assist judges in this decision-making process. The legal framework is in place, but understanding of its application and interpretation can be strengthened.
Whether requests for closed-door proceedings are granted more often as a result remains up to the judge. The judge must assess for each individual case whether it is truly necessary to restrict public access.
Even a closed-door hearing requires transparency
When a judge decides that a hearing will be held in whole or in part behind closed doors, transparency remains important. It must be clear why the doors are being closed. That decision must therefore be well-reasoned and subject to scrutiny.
The VU study underscores the tension that is becoming increasingly significant in legal practice: providing protection where necessary, but maintaining openness where possible.