1

The Criminal Justice Reform and the Prison System

in Portugal and in Europe

Paulo Albuquerquepalbu@fd.ucp.pt

www.fd.lisboa.ucp.pt/~palbu

CRCC meeting, Barcelona

2

The actual situation in Portugal and Europe:

• 1. Excess of remand in detention?

• 2. Excess of prison sentences?

• 3. Excess of secrecy?

• 4. Lack of human resources?

• 5. Neglected victims?

3

Prison population total in Portugal

at 15.7.2007

12,803 (incl. 201 held in psychiatric institutions)• 16.9% untried: 2163• 5.8% tried, awaiting appeals: 742

4

• Number of establishments / institutions – Portugal: 54

• 17 central prisons

• 4 special prisons

• 32 regional prisons

• 1. support prison

• Official capacity of prison system – Portugal: 12,228

5

• Prison population rate (per 100,000 of national population at July 2007-Eurostat numbers) – Russia: 628 (141.7 m.) – Poland: 236 (38.13 m.)– England and Wales: 148 (54.11 m.)– Spain: 147 (44.90 m.)– Netherlands: 128 (16.38 m.)– Portugal: 120 (10.63 m.)– Turkey: 112 (73.96 m.) – Germany: 93 (82.38 m.)– France: 85 (61.16 m.)– Italy: 67 (59.04 m.)

6

• Pre-trial detainees / remand prisoners (percentage of prison population) – Turkey: 61.5% (1.8.2007) – Italy: 57.1% (31.12.2006) – France: 31.5% (1.9.2006) – Netherlands: 30.0% (1.7.2006) – Spain: 23.2% (27.7.2007) – Portugal: 22.7% (15.7.2007)– Russia: 16.5% (1.1.2006) – England and Wales: 16.1% (30.6.2007– Poland: 14.8% (30.6.2007) – Germany: 17.4% (30.11.2006)

7

• Female prisoners (percentage of prison population) – Netherlands: 8.7% (1.7.2006) – Spain: 8.3% (27.7.2007) – Russia: 7.1% (1.7.2007) – Portugal: 7.0% (15.7.2007) – Germany: 5.3% (30.11.2006) – England and Wales: 5.4% (27.7.2007) – Italy: 4.3% (31.12.2006) – Turkey: 3.7% (1.8.2007)– France: 3.6% (1.9.2006) – Poland: 3.1% (30.6.2007)

8

• Juveniles / minors / young prisoners (percentage of prison population) – Netherlands: 9.7% (1.7.2006 - under 18) – Germany: 4.5% (of pre-trial prisoners only, 30.11.2006 -

under 18) – Turkey: 3.4% (1.8.2007) – England and Wales: 3.0% (30.6.2007 - under 18)– Russia: 2.5% (1.9.2002 - under 18) – Poland: 1.3% (9.12.2004 - under 18) – Portugal: 1.1%  (31.12.2006 - under 19) – France: 1.1% (1.9.2006 - under 18) – Italy: 0.7% (31.12.2006 - under 18) – Spain: 0% (under 18); 2.3% (under 21)(May 2007)

9

• Foreign prisoners (percentage of prison population) – Italy: 33.9% (31.12.2006)

– Spain: 32.7% (May 2007)

– Netherlands: 31.7% (1.7.2006)

– Germany: 28.2% (31.3.2004)

– France: 21.4% (1.4.2003)

– Portugal: 20.2%  (31.12.2006)

– England and Wales: 13.9% (30.6.2007)

– Turkey: 2.3% (31.10.2005)

– Russia: 2.7% (1.1.2006)

– Poland: 0.7% (30.6.2007)

10

• Occupancy level (based on official capacity)– Italy: 138.9% (1.9.2005) – Spain: 133.7% (1.9.2005) – Poland: 119.1% (30.6.2007) – England and Wales: 112.2% (27.7.2007) – France: 109.9% (1.9.2006) – Portugal: 103.1% (15.7.2007) – Germany: 95.8% (30.11.2006) – Netherlands: 95.6% (1.7.2006) – Russia: 86.2% (1.1.2006) – Turkey: 77.4% (31.10.2005)

11

• Recent prison population trend - Portugal and Europe• Year/prison population total/prison population rate

Port. Sp. It. E/W TK D F Pol. NL R

1992  93 90 81 88 54 71 84 153 49 487

1995  124 112 87 99 82 81 89 163 66 622

1998  146 114 85 126 102 96 86 148 85 688

2001  131 117 95 127 89 98 78 183 95 638

2004  129 138 96 141 100 98 91 210 123 587

2007 120 147 67 148 112 93 85 236 128 628

12

• Human resources – Portugal

• Judges: 1840 (17 per 100,000)

• Public prosecutors: 1321 (12 per 100,000)

• Judicial officers: 9145 (86 per 100,000)

• Police forces: 47552 (449 per 100,000)

• Prison officers: 6098 (58 per 100,000)

• Social rehabilitation officers: 976 (9 per 100,000)

13

• Costs of the judicial and prison/resocialization system in Portugal- budget 2008:

• 784 m. with the judicial system – % of per capita % of average annual total per

GDP salaryinhabitant

• Portugal 0,4% 0,4% 52• Spain 0,3% (-25%) 0,2% 58• France 0,2% (-50%) 0,1% 51• UK 0,3% (-25%) 0,2% 80

• 190 m. with prison system (45/day per inmate)• 138 m. with resocialization system • Total expenditure of the MJ: 1.215 m.=0,8% GDP • Total expenditure of the MJ and MIA: 3.200 m. = 2% of

GDP=320 euros/y/person

14

• The responses of the State: The reform of the Penal Code– Extinction of criminal responsability when

restitution of property or reparation of damage• 1/4 of the prison sentences (theft, aggravated theft,

damage, fraud, aggravated fraud)

– Anticipation of parole• every person sentenced to prison can be paroled after

spending half of the prison time (ex. prison sentence 10 years, parole after 5 years)

• this time limit can even be further anticipated with one year of house arrest (ex. prison sentence 10 years, parole after 4 years)

15

– New penalties - the potential net-widening effect:

• House arrest as an alternative for prison sentences up to one/two years (pregnant women, juveniles, grave illness or deficiency, minor or orther family person at charge)

• Bar of professional activity as an alternative for prison sentences up to three years

• Community Work as an alternative to prison sentences up to two years

• Fines, weekend-prison and semi-detention as alternatives to prison sentences up to one year

• Suspension of execution of prison sentences up to five years

16

– The reform of the criminal procedure code

• New rules on remand detention:

– new maximum of total remand detention (3 y and 10 m)

– allowed only when crime punishable with more than 5 y imprisonment (with exception of certain crimes)

– no appeal against decision favorable to detainee

– no detention for interrogation without danger of escape

17

• Enlarged access to summary and abbreviated proceddings regarding crimes punishable up to 5 years imprisonement and summary proceddings even with detention by a private person

• Criminal mediation between offender and victim– Crimes whose investigaton depends on a complaint of the

victim– Crimes punishable with a penalty up to 5 y imprisonment, with

exception of sexual crimes, corruption and traffic of influence and crimes with minor victims

– All types of mediation: » Shuttle-mediation» Correspondence mediation» Face-to face mediation» Conference mediation

– Agreement corresponds to withdrawal of complaint by victim

18

• No secrecy Rule, even in the preparatory stage of the proceedings (before acusation), with exceptions determined by judge:

– No secrecy for the parties (suspected person, private prosecutor, civil parties)

– No secrecy for the general public

• No ne bis in idem Rule when new penal law in favour of convicted person: new trial even after final conviction

• No ne bis in idem Rule when convicted person invoke serious breach of procedural fairness: new trial even after final convicion

19

• The challenges of the future: The Treaty of Lisbon and the new JHA policy of the EU: target-setting policies from Brussels or more?– Initiative: Commission and a quarter of the MS (7

in 27)– Legal Instruments: directives (article 69e of the

Treaty of Lisbon)– Procedure (Community method): QMV (qualififed

majority voting) in the Council and co-decision – Normal jurisdiction of the Court of Justice (with

exception of police operations)

20

Subjects concerned by the directives:– Rules on criminal offences and sanctions related to

terrorism, trafficking in human beings, sexual exploitation of women and children, illicit drug trafficking, illicit arms trafficking, money laundering, corruption, counterfeiting of means of payment, computer crime and organised crime

– Rules on criminal offences and sanctions necessary to implement harmonised (first-pillar) policies of the EU

– Mutual admissibility of evidence between MS

– The rights of individuals in criminal procedure

– The rights of victims of crime

– Any other aspects identified by a previous unanimous decision of the Council, with the consent of the EP

21

The protection of the national identities:– “Emergency brake”: any country can object a draft

directive if it affects fundamental aspects of its criminal justice system

– the “flexibility procedure”: European Council may resolve the dispute; if not, enhanced cooperation can follow between at least 9 MS

– Extended opt-outs to the UK, Ireland and Denmark

22

– The practical instruments:

• The Eurojust with the power to initiate as well as to propose the initiation of criminal investigations, related cross-border serious crimes;

• The transformation of Eurojust in the European Public Prosecutor, by a unanimous resolution of the council with the consent of the EP; flexibility procedure foreseen, enhanced cooperation of at least 9 MS

23

– The CORPUS IURIS and the construction of an European criminal system

• A pan-European public prosecutor (EPP), with powers to investigate à decharge et à charge, question an accused, collect documents, hear witnesses

• Investigative measures such as pre-trial custodyand phone-tapping under the scrutiny of the national judge of freedoms (Ermittlungsrichter, JIP, JIC)

• A unified prosecutorial policy: under the legality principle, with the possibility of negotiating the penalty (settlement under the control of the national judge)

– A unified sentencing policy ?

• The EPP as responsible for the overseeing of the execution of penalties

24

– The extension of the EU standards through the Council of Europe human rights protection framework

• The adhesion of the EU to the Council of Europe

• Conventions of the Council of Europe which enshrine standards of the EU: the example of the MLAT

– Second additional protocol to the Council of Europe MLAT follows closely the EU MLAT and the Schengen Agreement

• The extension of the EAW to the Council of Europe MS which are not MS of the EU?

• The Schengen III system and the creation of a pan-European net of genetic databases?