Strasbourg, 20 October 2008 P-PG/CJ(2008)13rev1_en

9^th MEETING OF THE

EXPERT FORUM ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE

2-3 October 2008

Cavtat, (Croatia)

REPORT

1. Opening of the meeting, adoption of the agenda and introduction of the objective of the meeting

The Co-ordinator of the platform, Ms Lidija VUGRINEC (Croatia), opened the meeting and welcomed the participants to Cavtat (Croatia). The list of participants is set out in Appendix I.

The agenda was adopted as set out in Appendix II.

Ms Vugrinec also underlined the dual aim of the Criminal Justice meeting: Firstly, to have a presentation and debate on recidivism; further to explore the possibilities to continue work on quasi-coerced treatment and other alternatives to imprisonment and to report on the preparation of an activity on precursors. Finally, participants should reflect on future activities of the Criminal Justice platform.

2. Activities on QCT and other alternatives to imprisonment with regard to

drug-dependent offenders

The item was discussed together with the Ethics Platform members. This part of the meeting was chaired by Mr Patrick Sansoy (France, Chair of the Ethics Platform). The participants of both platforms presented themselves briefly during a tour de table.

As the Chair underlined, the aim of this interdisciplinary meeting consisted in identifying - on the basis of the work undertaken by the Criminal Justice platform - issues to be discussed in the Ethical platform.

The discussion was introduced by a presentation of Mr Tim McSweeney on the recent activities undertaken by the Criminal Justice platform on the subject of quasi-coerced treatment and other alternatives to imprisonment. He presented in particular the results of a survey he conducted - on request of the platform members – on the existing national legal framework governing QCT. The overview focuses on the following questions:

Do Member States have any legislation governing the use of QCT measures?
Do Member States have specific guidelines in relation to QCT options?
If so, what guidelines do they use and how were they developed?
What aspects of QCT provision do these guidelines address and to what extent do they adhere to established best practice principles?
Is the use and implementation of these guidelines monitored and evaluated in any way?

In his conclusions, the consultant stated that much more can be learnt about QCT practices and principles by drawing on the considerable experiences and knowledge accumulated between those countries having national legislation and/or guidelines on QCT. There is scope for further developing and refining some aspects of national guidance on QCT to ensure closer alignment with existing best practice principles – e.g. greater focus on reintegration and monitoring and evaluation.

In the ensuing debate, members of both platforms highlighted the enormous differences in the application of existing legislation and/or guidelines on QCT. These differences relate i.e. to a structural mistrust between law enforcement and public health officers. A way forward would be to determine indicators of success of QCT as alternative to imprisonment with regard to the fixed objectives (e.g. reduction of prison population, prevention of recidivism).

The following areas could be further explored:

- How to collect evidence on the effectiveness of QCT?

- How to compare the relative effectiveness of QCT to imprisonment, also with regard to successful re-integration?

- How to assess the cost-effectiveness of QCT programmes, in particular residential treatment?

- How to address the confidentiality problem?

- Which elements to be covered in the agreement between client and criminal justice system?

- How to determine the consequences of non-compliance with the treatment provisions?

Participants agreed:

- to invite 2-3 delegations (e.g. France, Cyprus, Croatia, United Kingdom) to make presentations highlighting the differences and approximation of perceptions of QCT from a law enforcement and a public health point of view; for this purpose it would be desirable to have representatives of the public health system as part of the delegations concerned present at the 10^th CJ platform meeting;

- to launch a call to member States to submit descriptions and evaluations of existing QCT-pilot projects in their countries with a view to drawing up a list of positive examples;

- to establish a database with national contact persons on QCT, possibly in cooperation with the EMCDDA.

3. Public awareness and perception with regard to QCT and other alternatives to

imprisonment

Participants agreed to create an open-ended working party on a QCT communication strategy. This working party, comprising the representatives from Romania, Norway, Cyprus, Croatia and the consultant, Tim McSweeney, would meet in the margin of the next CJ platform meeting.

4. Recidivism

The debate was introduced by a presentation of Mr Johnny Connolly on recidivism In the Republic of Ireland – lessons for international research. The consultant defined recidivism as re-entry in the criminal justice system, i.e. re-offending, re-arrest, re-conviction or re-imprisonment. The objectives of work on the subject of recidivism constitute the need to address the revolving door syndrome, the need to determine which sentences are effective, the need to measure relative cost-effectiveness of imprisonment and alternatives, the need to learn about effective re-integration, etc. Recently research has become more feasible by the automation of police, judicial and prison data collection. International research could facilitate the identification of recidivism patterns across different socio-cultural contexts and to better analyse the link between drugs and crime. Mr Connolly advocated more cooperation between the Criminal Justice platform and existing international research activities (Dutch study (ongoing) and an international working group working on a common standard for cross-national comparisons).

In the discussion, reference was made to an Australian study on recidivism. It was underlined that more information is needed on existing data on re-offending.

Participants agreed to instruct the Secretariat in cooperation with Mr. Johnny Connolly to get in touch with the persons responsible for the Dutch study and to invite them to make a presentation at the 10^th CJ platform meeting.

5. Precursors

Participants were informed about the draft programme of the conference on back-tracking, collection of evidence, sanctions and prevention in the area of precursor trafficking (see Appendix III) and took note of the need to assist the Secretariat in the identification of speakers. Participants agreed that the invitations should also be distributed to the members of the Airports Group.

Participants welcomed the invitation of Romania to host this conference, which is scheduled for 26/27 March 2009.

6. Any other business

7. Date of the next meeting of the Criminal Justice Platform

It was decided to schedule the 10^th Criminal Justice platform meeting for 23/24 April 2009 – provided that a meeting room will be available.

APPENDIX I

PROVISIONAL LIST OF PARTICIPANTS

9^th Meeting of the Expert Forum on Criminal Justice

Dubrovnik (Croatia), 2-3 October 2008

LISTE PROVISOIRE DES PARTICIPANTS REVISE

9^e Réunion du Forum d’experts sur la justice pénale

Dubrovnik (Croatie), 2-3 octobre 2008

Platform Coordinator / Coordinateur de la plate-forme

Mrs Lidija VUGRINEC

Head of National Focal Point and International Relations

Office for Combating Narcotic Drugs Abuse

Preobrazenska 4/II

10000 ZAGREB

Tel: +385 1 48 78 128

Fax: +385 1 48 78 120

14.00	Opening of the conference by ………
14.20	Introduction “Definition and the general context of trafficking in drug precursors – substances and narcotics concerned, diversion risks, rules and regulations” Presentation by Mr Cees J.W.M. Van Spierenburg, National Public Prosecutor for Synthetic Drugs & Precursors, (Netherlands) “How to address the problem of trafficking in drug precursors from INCB perspective” Presentation by Mr Rossen Popov, Chief Precursors Control Section, INCB (International Narcotics Control Board) “Prevention of diversion of drug precursors, mutual assistance and international cooperation” Presentation by………, OLAF (European Anti-Fraud Office) “The problem of drug precursor trafficking and joint operational activities in Europol framework” Presentation by ………….. , EUROPOL
15.45	Coffee break
16.15	The role of the chemical and pharmaceutical industry in preventing diversion of drug precursors: authorisation, monitoring of exports, implementation of guidelines and regulations, cooperation with national law enforcement agencies Presentation by Mr Karlheinz Schnaegelberger, Senior Director, EQ-E Export Control & Customs Regulation, CEFIC (European Chemical Industry Council) Presentations by representatives of the industry from Russia, Germany (…………….) Debate
18.00	End of day

9.30	"Legal possibilities to investigate the case of precursor trafficking, evidence collection and modalities to use the investigation results and the collected evidence for a) prevention of precursor trafficking in the future and b) the prosecution of the case" Presentation of 3 case studies from Portugal (by Mr Carlos Saraiva Gonçalves), Russia (by ………… and Turkey (by …………) Debate on the basis of a list of questions prepared by Mr Theo Krijger, (Netherlands)
11.00	Coffee break
11.30	Debate continued
12.00	"The benefits of backtracking" Presentation by …………., (Netherlands)
13.00	Lunch break
14.30	Precursor shipments, controlled deliveries and backtracking investigations Presentations by: Mr René Karstens Investigating Officer, Federal Police, (Switzerland) and Mr Joe Kipp, Drug Enforcement Administration (USA), Bern (Switzerland) Mr Werner Verbruggen, GCP, Head Unit Operations - Central Drugs Unit, Belgian Federal Police, (Belgium) Portugal/France Debate
15.45	Coffee break
16.15	Chemical markers in drug precursors Presentation by ………, (Russia)
17.00	Conclusions presented by the Rapporteur, Mr René Karstens Debate
18.00	End of day