the use of touch-screens in cross border...

.

This publication has been produced with the financial support of the Criminal Justice Programme of the

European Commission.

The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of the author and can in no way be taken to

reflect the views of the European Commission.

European Union Project

Developing the use of technical tools in cross-border resettlement (DUTT)

Touch-screens in cross-border resettlement

http://english.justitie.nl/�

Touch-screens in cross-border resettlement DUTT Project

2

Contents

Page

1. Executive summary 3

2. Introduction 5

2.1 Key issues 6

2.2 The DUTT Project 6

3. Background 7

3.1 Cross-border transfer 7

3.2 e-Justice 10

4. Resettlement needs and technology 11

4.1 Touch-screens 11

4.2 Information needs of offenders 12

4.3 Methods of information delivery 12

5. Member State case-studies 15

5.1 Introduction 15

5.2 Latvia 15

5.3 Netherlands 23

5.4 United Kingdom 30

5.5 Context within the European Union 36

6. Discussion 36

6.1 Introduction 36

6.2 Information generation and updates 36

6.3 Information delivery 38

6.4 Security considerations 40

7. Conclusion 41

8. References and useful further reading 43

9. Acknowledgements 45


3

1. Executive summary

This paper is an output of the project entitled Developing Uses for Technical Tools in Cross-

border Resettlement (DUTT), an EU-funded project under the e-Justice award, 2010; comprised

of a project partnership of UK, Dutch and Latvian partners.

DUTT aims to assist policy makers and criminal justice professionals in consideration of different

technologies and innovation within criminal justice systems across the EU. In particular, it aims

to provide an insight into the use of technical tools in cross-border resettlement and in criminal

justice more widely. The project has centred its work around the Council framework decisions

on the mutual recognition of custodial sentences (2008/909/JHA) and on the encouragement of

mutual recognition of probation and alternative sanctions (2008/947/JHA).

This paper looks at touch-screen facilities and innovation within the context of cross-border

resettlement. Key areas explored are; the information needs of offenders being transferred to

another Member State; the use of touch-screens in delivering resettlement and other

information; and the current situations in the UK, the Netherlands and Latvia.

Research Insights

- Touch-screens have been demonstrated to work well in a criminal justice setting, when

thought through carefully beforehand and when sufficient funds are used to implement

such technology (as seen in the Dutch context). However, the areas in which it appears

to be a useful solution are those in which it is used as a holistic solution; for day to day

administration and empowerment of those detained, rather than merely as a non-

interactive resettlement information point.

- The use of touch-screen solutions and technology more generally across Member States

has been mainly ad hoc, bar a few states. The use of such technology is largely

dependent on particular ‘champions’, using their budgets to pilot the use of innovative

technical solutions.

-


4

- The added element of multi-lingual technological solutions could enhance the

experience of offenders who currently find procedures and resettlement highly

confusing, because sufficient information is not given in a language they can speak.

- Aiding resettlement using touch-screens or computers is likely to be highly unpalatable

in some Member States, given the financial cost; the lack of significant added benefit for

resettlement information alone to be delivered in this way; likely media perception etc.

- Some Member States are simply not far ahead enough to implement such technology in

the near future and given the spending cuts across the EU; this is not likely to change

soon.

- It is relatively simple to ascertain the information needs of offenders in cross-border

resettlement, but currently some receive insufficient information in any format. A first

step would be to ensure effective, useful information is given to transferees in paper

form, as well as orally for information relating to the individual in particular.

- The published literature on touch-screens does not often cross into the criminal justice

setting and does not reflect the current usage of touch-screens in Member States.

- Some Member States have very small numbers of foreign national offenders who are

likely to be transferred and thus the implementation of the framework decisions

discussed is not of as wide-scale an issue as for other Member States and may result in

them working on a purely case by case basis.

Touch-screens are likely to be most useful in a resettlement context where this is part of a

holistic approach; for day to day administration and empowerment of those detained, rather

than merely as a non-interactive information point. Regarding the information needs of

offenders, there should be consideration of pooling of information by each Member State to the

e-Justice portal; on resettlement information in that state, as well as information on transfer in

a form which could be given to the person detained. This may help alleviate the issues with the

translation of often-needed information and assist the person concerned in understanding more

about their transfer and resettlement.


5

2. Introduction

This paper forms part of the project entitled Developing Uses for Technical Tools in Cross-border

Resettlement (DUTT), led by London Probation Trust (UK), with the partnership of the National

Offender Management Service (UK); the State Probation Service of Latvia; CEP, the European

probation organisation; the Custodial Institutions Agency (the Netherlands) and Reclassering

Nederlands (forming part of the Dutch probation service). This is an EU-funded project under

the e-Justice award, 2010.

DUTT aims to assist policy makers and criminal justice professionals in looking at different

technological solutions and innovation within criminal justice systems across the EU. The project

aims to provide an insight into some of the potential tools, challenges and success stories of

technical tools in cross-border resettlement and in criminal justice more widely. It also aims to

provide concrete input to on-going discussions as to the future of innovation in criminal justice.

Council framework decisions on the mutual recognition of custodial sentences or those which

include the deprivation of liberty (2008/909/JHA) and on the encouragement of mutual

recognition of probation and alternative sanctions (2008/947/JHA) across the EU form the

legislative anchor of the DUTT project and anticipated increase in cross-border resettlement.

Following nearly two years of the project partnership, this paper forms one of the outputs of

DUTT. Having started as desk research, interviews of criminal justice policy-makers and

practitioners were completed in order to draw a picture of the use of touch-screen facilities in

the partner Member States represented in this project (UK, the Netherlands and Latvia) and to

explore the methods of delivering resettlement information to offenders sentenced in a

Member State they might not be familiar with.

This document covers the situation on the EU and Member State levels, innovative case-studies,

information needs of offenders and recommendations for future use. In further extension of the

original purpose of this scoping paper, wider examples of technological innovation in the

abovementioned Member States are explored.


6

2.1 Key issues

In the context of increasing cross-border criminal transfers from one Member State to

another, can touch-screens be a useful way to deliver resettlement information to

offenders;

o What are the information needs of offenders when being transferred to their

home Member State?

o Should touch-screens be of use, are they preferable to other methods of

information delivery (i.e. leaflets, standard computers, information given

orally)?

o What is currently occurring in the UK (England and Wales only), the

Netherlands and Latvia, with regard to touch-screen usage and innovation

within criminal justice sectors?

2.2 The DUTT Project

The DUTT project began in March 2011 and sought to study the potential usage of

videoconference technology and multi-lingual touch-screen facilities as a means to assist with

cross-border transfers of offenders. A separate larger report, entitled Videoconference

communication in cross-border resettlement has been drafted by Sabine Braun and Judith Taylor

of the University of Surrey. That report forms the main research output on the project, covering

the use of videoconferencing. This, smaller report aims to outline the feasibility of

implementation of touch-screens in a cross-border criminal justice setting.

Project Partners

o London Probation Trust, UK (lead partner);

o National Offender Management Service (NOMS), UK;

o Conférence Permanente Européenne de la Probation (CEP), the Netherlands ;

o Reclassering Nederland, the Netherlands ;

o State Probation Service, Latvia ;

o Custodial Institutions Agency, the Netherlands.


7

Project Outputs

o Evaluation report on the potential for videoconference technology in aiding cross-

border transfers;

o Technical report on videoconference technology;

o Scoping report on the potential of touch-screen facilities in aiding resettlement;

o Six study visits throughout the life of the project, increasing the knowledge-base of

project partners and sharing best practice;

o Multi-agency transnational launch event held in the UK;

o Final multi-agency transnational conference held in the Netherlands;

o Final narrative report, submitted to the European Commission.

Scope

In line with the project application, this particular output aims to scope the potential for multi-

lingual touch-screen outputs within prisons and probation offices as a means of providing

offenders with enhanced local, national and transnational resettlement or custodial information

in preparation for their transfer;

3. Background

3.1 Cross-border transfer

The DUTT project seeks to contribute to the understanding of Member States around the

effective transposition of Framework Decisions 2008/909/JHA and 2008/947/JHA.

Transfer of Custodial Sentences

In brief, Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA extends mutual recognition between Member

States to criminal sentences that include a custodial sentence or measure which deprives the

citizen of their liberty. It states the procedure for the recognition and enforcement of these

judgements and its aim is to facilitate social rehabilitation of those sentenced.


8

Member States must have competent authorities for both issuing judgements to the competent

authorities of other Member States and for executing judgements received from other Member

States. The competent authority of the issuing state must forward the judgement and certificate

to the competent authority of the executing state, with permission from the sentenced person

needed in some circumstances.

In order for enforcement in the executing state to occur, the issuing state must ensure the social

rehabilitation and reintegration is furthered by the sentence being transferred. The competent

authority of the executing state has a limit of 90 days in which to decide whether or not to

recognise the judgement and enforce the sentence.

Various grounds may be used to invoke the non-recognition of a judgement and sentence,

including problems associated with the certificate (which may merely result in a postponement

of recognition); the executing state not recognising the offence (with some exceptions),

enforcement being statute-barred, or immunity is provided for; contravention of ne bis in idem

(double criminality); the fact that the remaining sentence is short in length (less than six

months); there are psychiatric or other health care needs, which the executing state cannot

provide etc.

The framework decision lists offences which must be recognised and enforced without a double

criminality check (maximum of three years deprivation of liberty in the issuing state), whereas

other offences that do not constitute an offence under the national law of the executing state,

might not be recognised and enforced. If the incompatibility is with regard to the length of

sentence, it may be adapted. The same is true for the nature of the sentence. However, the

adaptation must correspond as closely as possible to the original sentence (and can never be

harsher).

The consent of the sentenced person is not required for the forwarding of a judgement and

certificate to the executing state for recognition and enforcement when they are a national or

live in that Member State; are being deported to upon release; or they have returned to

pending or following conviction in the issuing state.

If the sentenced person is still in the issuing state, they must be allowed to provide an oral or

written opinion.


9

When the sentenced person is on the territory of the issuing state, they must be transferred to

the executing state within 30 days of the recognition of the judgement by the executing state.

Transfer of Alternative Sanctions

Framework Decision 2008/947/JHA encourages the recognition and supervision of probation

measures and alternative sanctions between Member States. Its aim is also one of social re-

integration and the prevention of reoffending, as well as the improvement of the protection of

victims. It defines the rules for the supervision of the offences covered.

Member States can refuse to recognise a judgement or supervise a probation measure or

alternative sanction if they are discriminatory and can continue to apply bilateral or multilateral

arrangements should they wish to (the Council and Commission must be informed of these).

The probation measures and alternative sanctions covered by the framework decision include

those where the sentenced person must; report to the relevant authority; compensate for the

harm caused; complete community service; undergo addiction or therapeutic treatment;

cooperate with a probation or social worker; not leave the Member State or enter certain

defined geographical areas etc. Member States can inform the Council of other measures they

are willing to supervise.

Details of the competent authorities must be given to the General Secretariat of the Council.

The executing state may adapt the duration or nature of the probation measures or alternative

sanctions, should they not correspond with those applied under national law. However, the

measures need to be as consistent as possible with those imposed by the issuing state, they

cannot be more onerous than those imposed by the issuing state and they must be notified (in

writing) of any adaptation.

Verification of dual criminality is not needed for certain offences, but for others the executing

state can make recognition and supervision of the measures conditional on the judgement

relating to acts that constitute an offence under its national law.

The executing state may refuse to recognise a judgement or probation measure for various

reasons, including; problems with the certificate; the criteria for forwarding are not met; there

are double criminality issues; the action is statute-barred; supervision cannot occur because of


10

immunity; medical treatment has been ordered which the state cannot provide; the sanction is

less than six months long; the offence was committed on the executing State’s territory etc.

The executing state has 60 days after the judgement or probation decision and certificate has

been received to decide whether or not to recognise it and inform the issuing state.

Should the executing state take on the responsibility of the probation measure or judgement,

the issuing state must be informed if certain changes or problems occur in the course of the

execution - i.e. modification of the measures; revocation of part of the decision; impossibility of

supervision; and other jurisdictional obligations.

Transposition

The deadline for the transposition of Framework Decision 2008/947/JHA was 6 December 2011

and for Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA, 5 December 2011. Poland is expected to implement

the decision on custodial transfer within five years of the transposition deadline. Member States

are at varying stages with regard to actual implementation and practical application, rather than

merely making such transfers possible under national law.

3.2 e-Justice

The EU is increasing the usage of e-Justice, to further cross-border relations within Europe and

to facilitate the consequent increase in transnational procedures. The e-Justice portal is

perceived to be a future one-stop-shop in the area of justice. It aims to improve access to justice

within the EU and provides information on justice systems in twenty-two languages.

As of 2011, 12.8 million EU citizens resided in a Member State other than their own (Eurostat,

Statistics in Focus 31/2012). This is only likely to increase over the coming years and, as such, it

is perceived that access to justice and information on justice systems on a cross-border basis will

be of ever increasing use to EU citizens.

The main objective of European e-Justice is to use information communications technology (ICT)

to rationalise and simplify judicial procedures, in order to;

- Help justice to be administered more effectively throughout Europe;


11

- Improve access to justice;

- Contribute to the implementation of European legislation and gain more involvement

from Member States.

The e-Justice portal is the culmination of various EU-level policy discussions. The first main

document pertaining to this was the Commission’s ‘Towards a European e-Justice strategy’,

which was followed by the Council’s ‘European e-Justice Action Plan’ and the European

Parliament’s Resolution on the matter, in 2008. The Stockholm programme had a focus on e-

Justice and the legal basis became more developed later (see Multi-annual European e-Justice

Action Plan 2009-2013 for further information).

The main principles of e-Justice focus on being decentralised, with a modular, step-by-step,

inclusive approach. The portal first went live in 2010, with a second release in 2011 and a

subsequent updates. The portal covers information of use for citizens, as wells as criminal justice

practitioners and law-makers. It covers both civil and criminal law.

4. Resettlement needs and technology

4.1 Touch-screens

Touch-screens are electronic visual displays that detect touch within the display area. They are

widely used in everyday life in many Member States and grant the advantages of allowing the

user to interact directly with the display material, that is without a mouse or touch-pad; as well

as that no intermediate device needs to be held to use them.

Of course, touch-screens are merely part of a method for delivering information, rather than

solutions in themselves. One must consider different ways of getting the information to the

intended recipients. Indeed, in order to be a viable conduit for resettlement information needs,

touch-screens must add a new dimension to the methods already used and justify their cost.

This will be explored below.


12

4.2 Information needs of offenders

In preparation for release from prison, as well as whilst on probation, the offenders concerned

need a range of information in order to operate in day to day life. Resettlement assistance and

information is that concerning information such as training, education, work, state benefits,

healthcare access and housing. Information is also needed on the transfer process, legal rights

and on arrival in the executing state.

Information is currently delivered to offenders in varying formats. Obviously all prisoners and

those on probation need assistance, but there are additional needs when this is to occur across

state borders. Given previous use of bilateral agreements, the transfer of sentenced persons as

well as the level of information given to them has been different in each country. In addition to

this, much information previously given has been tailored to non-EU returnees, who often

require different types of information.

4.3 Methods of information delivery

Member States currently use a mixture of the following;

- Booklets and/or leaflets tailored to returnee’s country;

- Electronic format information through touch-screens, computers and video-

information screens;

- Information given by word of mouth from criminal justice staff or other sentenced

persons;

In the context of cross-border transfers, a distinction must be made between offenders

returning to their home Member State under a custodial sentence or one involving the

deprivation of liberty (framework decision 2008/909/JHA) and someone returning to complete

probation measures or subject to alternative sanctions (2008/947JHA).

Information Types

Regarding offenders who are being transferred to other institutions, it is of paramount

importance for them to have a sentence or custody plan, based on their individual risk and need


13

assessment. In contrast, those transferred under a probation order will be in the community

and require more extensive information.

Information given to offenders in general can, obviously be of use in a local, national, or

transnational basis for resettlement and the principles of information need can be transferred

across these categories. However, with the cross-border element comes added complexity,

because information will need to be given in a language the offender can converse in and, often,

will need to be given information about arrangements for the offender when he or she arrives in

the executing state of which staff in the issuing state might not have high knowledge levels.

With regard to returning an a sentenced person subject to a custodial sentence the main

information needs are as follows;

- Information about the transfer process;

- Legal information and rights of the offender;

- Information about the actual transfer journey;

- Access to information on the custodial arrangements in the issuing Member State;

- Access to information on the new custodial arrangements.

The information needs for those subject to probation or alternative sanctions are more wide-

ranging, given that an offender falling in this category will be returning to their Member State

and will not be in custody;

- Planning of the return journey;

- Arrangements on arrival;

- Details of probation arrangements and probation officer;

- Emergency accommodation;

- Accommodation for the longer-term;

- General resettlement services;

- Individual resettlement guidance;

- National documentation;

- Health services;

- Skills training and education;

- Employment;

- Family needs;

- Cultural issues.


14

It must be kept in mind that offenders will not necessarily speak the language (or speak it well

enough for full understanding) of the issuing state. Certain information must be given to the

offender in a language they can understand sufficiently and beyond this (regarding additional

useful, but not mandatory information), a decision must be made by each Member State as to

which of the twenty-three official EU languages useful information is routinely provided in.

Perceived Issues to Overcome

The legislation which this project is aiming to help assist with the smooth implementation of is

based on the rehabilitation of offenders and the reduction of reoffending.

In looking at the issues that foreign national offenders face, according to a report by Her

Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons (2006), foreign national offenders find the following issues to

be most problematic;

- Family contact;

- Immigration;

- Language.

The immigration issue should be mitigated in these cases, because the immigration of EU

nationals is far clearer than the situation regarding non-EU nationals. Further, family contact is

often facilitated by the sentence transfer. However, the issues surrounding appealing the

transferral decision remain with regard to the language barrier. Whilst certain information

needs to be given to the sentenced person – in a language in which they are familiar – it is

unlikely that all Member States will perform this to a useful level. Currently some states have

problems with budgeting for interpretation and this is unlikely to improve in the near future.

Use of Technology in Criminal Justice Systems – Touch-screen Facilities

As expanded below, there are many current uses for touch-screen facilities within criminal

justice systems. Indeed, touch-screens have become widely used within everyday life, with

mobile phones; supermarket check-out systems; town-centre information points; doctors

surgery registration and many other uses. Their benefits include being intuitive to those using

them; easy to use; space saving and allow for fewer components and thus a lower likelihood of

breakage; and are durable for public usage and high-usage situations. They can also be of


15

particular use in a multi-lingual setting, with those using them able to rely on pictures and

symbols should they be unable to comprehend text in a particular language.

In spite of all of the above, using touch-screens in a criminal justice setting obviously throws up

implications for both security and use of resources. One must keep in mind that whilst using

technology can be highly beneficial, within the context of resettlement a form of technology

other than touch-screens might be the best form. Some of the interviewees commended that a

computer with a mouse and keyboard is a better solution for those requiring more in depth

resettlement information or more interactive services. In addition, for those Member States

which are currently modernising their criminal justice systems, giving leaflets with resettlement

information might be the best that can be expected in this area for the foreseeable future.

With regard to wider technology use in criminal justice systems, the majority of those

interviewed for this exercise were of the opinion that technology and, touch-screens in

particular can be of added benefit, but that there is not a sizeable enough benefit in the

particular area of conveying cross-border resettlement information for it to be a viable choice

for most governments.

5. Member State Case-studies

5.1 Introduction

As part of the DUTT project, the project board wished to look at the Member States represented

by the project partners. The aim of this was to look at the use of touch-screens and innovation

in the criminal justice systems of Latvia, the UK (specifically England and Wales) and the

Netherlands. This was completed by both desk research and research interviews with policy

makers and criminal justice workers in each of the three Member States. Were possible

examples of innovation within the systems have been tied in with study-visits conducted by the

project board during the life-time of the project.

5.2 Latvia

Context

Latvia joined the EU in 2004 and is in the process of modernising its criminal justice system. In

2009 the Cabinet of Ministers adopted measures to ensure major changes to penal policy, with


16

the reduction of penal sanctions and the increased possibility of applying alternative sanctions.

There are currently 11 prisons and one Juvenile Correctional Institution in Latvia, with a prison

population rate of 319 per 100,000 inhabitants. The State Probation Service was established in

2003 and is now playing an increasing role, with the change in penal policy. Criminal procedure

law allows for the transposition of the legislation pertaining to cross-border transfers.

Use of technology in Criminal Justice

DUTT project funding has allowed the State Probation Service to rent one set of

videoconference equipment, which has been used for project purposes. Further, as detailed

below, the court system is now modernised, with videoconference equipment in each court and

prison, new electronic court recording and an updated IT system.

The use of touch-screen facilities in the criminal justice system is currently minimal. Touch-

screens are perceived as very advanced – the general population, according to interviewees are

not used to these technologies in Latvia and those in prison or on probation are especially are

not used to this. It is perceived that touch-screens could be useful, but that there are many

steps to complete before looking to new technologies and that there are more important goals

to meet currently.

Priorities

The consensus for those interviewed is that Latvia’s priorities are to get policy implementation

correct and that many of the new technologies used in some Member States are currently not

within criminal justice budget capabilities in Latvia. The court modernisation project was

completed through Swiss funded project-funds and without a hefty injection of capital for the

introduction of touch-screens, they are unlikely to be implemented for the medium to long

future.

An example given to enforce this idea was that of the Council of Europe’s Committee for the

Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT/Inf (2011) 22)

criticised the material conditions in Latvian prisons. Matters such as this must be more highly

prioritised. This is similar situation to those faced in some other Member States.


17

Prisons

For both Latvian and Russian speakers, information is given in written and oral forms in prison.

For foreign nationals who do not speak either of these languages there are currently problems

with interpretation and sometimes the skills of prison staff are utilised in order to explain things

in other languages. In the most difficult cases, an interpreter is paid, but this creates problems.

Prisons are generally old buildings and it is currently difficult to implement new technologies.

The poor conditions of them means these need to be updated before new technology will be

considered a priority.

With regard to the transfer of foreign national prisoners, this is seen as usual practice because it

has occurred for many years. It is not expected to cause major administrative problems.

Probation

Legislation has already been passed on the national level to enable implementation of the

relevant framework decisions and to facilitated the transfer of sentences from other Member

States. However, it is envisaged that the transfer of those under probation orders will be rather

complicated, according to interviewees.

Information given to foreign national offenders currently is not systemised. For Latvian or

Russian speaking probation clients, information is given in paper form and face to face

interviews are conducted. This information in a probation context is mainly on the probation

order itself, with the probation officer sign-posting offenders to other services orally.

Clients who do not speak Latvian or Russian are often transferred very quickly, because of the

language-barrier. Regarding information delivery, criminal justice workers with foreign language

skills are utilised, with informal use of diplomatic channels and the use of interpreters a last

resort.


18

Innovation in Latvia

Court Modernisation

Project Context

The Court Modernisation in Latvia began in

2009, with completion in summer 2012. This

was funded as part of the Latvian-Swiss

cooperation programme (8 million Swiss

Francs). The project was entered into as a

result of the increasing number and

complexity of cases faced by the judiciary in

Latvia, combined with the lack of technology to help meet this demand. The Latvian government

was keen to improve the efficiency of adjudication, make proceedings more reliable and to

improve access to the justice system. It was further hoped that civil society and the private

sector would have more direct access to information about the judiciary (via e-Justice etc.), at

completion of this project.

The need for increased efficiency was further compounded by the demand for cost-cutting

measures. Courts previously made records in written form only, which was highly costly on

resources. Further, witnesses had to travel to the court of proceedings rather than appearing in

their nearest court. Lastly, the cost of transporting detainees and convicted persons from prison

to court was very high, with 7,000 – 8,000 people transported each year.

Scope

The Court Administration, which is a direct administrative institution subordinate to the Minister

for Justice oversees management of district (city) courts (35), regional courts (6) and Land

Registry Offices (28) as wells as the Supreme Court and Constitutional Court. The Court

Administration oversaw and implemented this project.

The legal framework for videoconferencing is found in Criminal Procedure statute (Article 140),

which gives that those directing proceedings are permitted to perform investigative action by

using technical means (teleconference, videoconference etc.) if the interests of criminal


19

proceedings require such use. There are plans to make the legal framework wider so that

videoconferencing can be used in other aspects of criminal justice.

Results and benefits

Every court and prison in Latvia now has videoconferencing equipment, which was not the case

in any court or prison before the project began. Eighty sets of videoconference equipment and

295 sets of audio recording equipment have been installed:

Supply of videoconference and recording equipment for court rooms 52

Supply of videoconference and recording equipment for large court room 6

Supply of videoconference equipment for prison facilities 16

Supply of portable videoconference equipment 7

Supply of central infrastructure 1

Supply of audio recording unit for court rooms 238

Installing, tuning, mutual integration, adjustment of equipment units and tuning for

operation in a single system √

Training of users and administrators √

Providing guarantee and maintenance of all the supplied equipment and the supplied

system as a whole during 3 years √

User aid and support service √

The only difference between videoconference and recording equipment for a standard court

room and that for the large court room is the number of completion components.

1. Videoconference and recording equipment for court rooms

a. Videoconference system block ;

b. Video camera;

c. Display;

d. Videoconference remote control device;


20

e. Videoconference recording equipment;

f. Digital audio system processor;

g. Front connection board;

h. Rare connection board;

i. Six mouthpieces;

j. Active loudspeakers;

k. Audio recording equipment;

l. Volume “Mute” switch;

m. Equipment container.

2. Videoconference and recording equipment in large court room

a. Videoconference system block;

b. Two video cameras;

c. Two displays for reflecting of basic current, with the option to connect the third

display for reflecting the second video flow;

d. Remote control device;

e. Videoconference recording equipment;

f. Digital audio system processor;

g. Front connection panel;

h. Rear connection panel;

i. Ten mouthpieces;

j. Active loudspeakers;

k. Audio recording equipment;

l. “Mute” switch;

m. Equipment container.

3. Videoconference equipment in prison facilities

a. Videoconference system block;

b. Video camera;

c. Display;

d. Remote control device;

e. Audio loudspeaker;

f. Mouthpiece.


21

4. Portable Videoconference System Block

a. Portable videoconference equipment;

b. Shock- and moisture resistant transportation packing for equipment.

5. Central Infrastructure of Videoconference

a. Supports establishing and conducting of more than one videoconference

session;

b. Supports simultaneous video, audio and content transfer of more than one

videoconference site;

c. Enables displaying the pre-determined name of each videoconference site in the

appropriate window;

d. Provides the types of images of the participants of videoconference on display

corresponding with the requirements stipulated in Technical Specification;

e. For transfer of content (second video flow) by participant of videoconference,

the remote participant (other party to the meeting) shall provide corresponding

with the requirements stipulated in Technical Specification;

f. Provides automated selection of original image arrangement on the display,

with the option to change them later;

g. Supports the option to display any participant of videoconference in a larger size

window;

h. Provides integration of IP (IP telephones, smart phones, etc.) and ISDN (fixed

lines, GSM, and other subscribers) based connections in videoconference (as an

audio participant) and supports establishing audio conference between such

connections.

6. Audio Recording Equipment for Court Rooms

a. Digital audio system processor

b. Front connection panel

c. Rare connection panel

d. Five mouthpieces

e. Audio recording equipment


22

The data dissemination system (www.tiesas.lv) has been created as part of the project and now

provides individuals, companies and public authorities electronic access to court decisions and

electronic submissions in court. This serves to improve the efficiency of court proceedings and

automatically anonymises judgements.

The reduction of labour-intensive methods of written transcription on court and cutting the

need to transport some of the detainees who would have previously have had to been

transported to and from court can be seen as great successes of the project. Internet access has

also been increased within the courts and court procedures have been adapted.

Initial Findings Post-Implementation

The system has been received well and work is now going on to help determine which cases are

suited to videoconferencing. Cases involving cross-border issues are obviously prime candidates

for videoconference usage.

Challenges

Obviously this project required a comprehensive analysis of the cost of proceedings, the court

structure and the coordination of schedules for installation. The different types of court were

broken down into their categories to achieve this. Evaluation of the current processes and

feedback from the judiciary as well as other staff was highly valuable.

DUTT Project

On a smaller scale, the project for which this publication has been produced has enabled the

State Probation Service of Latvia to use videoconferencing equipment on one site, for the

purpose of testing the use of videoconferencing in cross-border resettlement. More information

on the role-plays conducted and the research results can be found in the publication

Videoconference communication in cross-border resettlement, by Sabine Braun and Judith Taylor

(University of Surrey, funded by DUTT project funds).

http://www.tiesas.lv/�


23

5.3 The Netherlands

Context

The Netherlands, a founding Member State of the EU is considered to be a forward-thinking

state, with rehabilitation high on its agenda. With regard to the implementation and thinking

behind the process of cross-border transfer of offenders and resettlement the Netherlands is

one of the Member States having planned extensively these processes. The prison population

rate is 100 people per 100,000 inhabitants. In recent years projects have taken place in order to

improve the transition from custodial institutions to the community, creating alternatives to

non-suspended prison sentences and new legislation on conditional release. The probation

service is made up of Reclassering Nederland, the Social Rehabilitation of addicted offenders

and the Salvation Army.

Use of Technology in Criminal Justice

Technology uptake in the criminal justice context of the Netherlands is very high. Utilising

computers in prisons and for those on probation is seen as usual, with touch-screens used in

cells at one institution and in common areas at another. Innovation is seen as a good thing and

is furthered by key individuals. Further, solutions are found for security issues, because of the

need for education. There is a balance between the fear of security breaches, with the need to

educate offenders to prevent re-offending. Often the computers used are only on an internal

network, without internet access and currently these are on a prison by prison basis with on-

going work to ensure national interconnectivity.

Touch-screens have been installed into prison intercom systems, on computers for detainees to

use and through staff and management usage.

Priorities

In the Netherlands there is a thirst for using new technology in the criminal justice sector. The

media influence does make everything somewhat slower, because the reaction and public

opinion does not always concur with the potential for cost savings. However, this continues to

move forward and pilots to test the safety of new technologies are and the cost saving potential

show no sign of slowing. Rather, in 2013 a budget for innovation is likely to be introduced within


24

the Dutch Custodial Institution in order to investigate potential solutions for the future. The

organisation as a whole of course, needs to move with the technology, not just a few

departments within it.

Multilingual issues are a priority for cross-border cases, as one might expect. In one of the Dutch

detention centres there are 42 languages used and innovative solutions are being created to

ensure that inmates are understood and can understand. A flexible, problem-solving approach

appears to be taken.

The Netherlands is focusing on the following countries with regard to cross-border transfer:

- Belgium;

- Germany;

- France;

- UK;

- Spain.

This is a reflection of the proportion of offenders likely to be transferred to or from the

Netherlands to or from other Member States.

Prison

Technology is generally used more in Dutch institutions than in other Member States, with

prison directors often using i-pads to do work on the move, moves towards paperless systems,

computer usage for education; and in some cases touch-screens for the use of inmates.

Juveniles, by law, have to be educated whilst in prison. Usually this is governed from outside and

delivered by the regional training centres. There is a mixture of information forms in the

Netherlands given to offenders at the moment. Further, there is a support network for Dutch

offenders abroad, who receive information from local volunteers and booklets regarding the

country in which they are imprisoned in (provided by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs). This is

seen as a potentially beneficial idea for other Member States to utilise with their own nationals.

For non-Dutch nationals incarcerated in the Netherlands there are also booklets given ( in

various languages) to explain the main services for when they arrive their home country, in

addition to explaining the systems in the Netherlands and the process they will go through.


25

Obviously there can be issues with the use of booklets which are out of date containing old,

incorrect information, but there appears to be no simple way in which to circumvent this.

There is currently internet access in some institutions for foreign nationals on a ‘whitelisting’

basis. There is work underway to open the way for this being broadened.

With regard to the transfer of custodial sentences, the competent authority is the Custodial

Institutions Agency (one central office), which is advised by the judiciary on the transposition

and adaptation to Dutch law.

Probation

Much work is done in trying to rehabilitate offenders and prevent re-offending. Part of the ethos

of the Dutch system is to get offenders to help themselves, by empowering them.

Regarding the transfer of alternative sanctions, the Netherlands’ competent authority is the

Public Prosecution Office. This is one central office, advised by the international desk of the

probation service. There is no formal role for the judiciary within this process in deciding on the

acceptance and possible adaptation to national law.

Innovation in the Netherlands

Detention Centre Rotterdam

The Detention Centre Rotterdam (DCR) is a public-private partnership initiative built recently. It

holds people who have not committed criminal offences, but who do not have the right to

remain in the Netherlands. In previously built facilities, conditions were similar to that of prisons

and gave detainees little empowerment. The DCR is designed to house over 600 detainees and

contains education rooms and playrooms.

Touch-screens are installed in communal areas of the centre and are used extensively, including

for the following;

- Booking of visits from friends and family;

- Booking medical appointments;

- E-shop purchases.


26

In ensuring that those detained are able to book visits, medical appointments and order from

the online shop themselves, the time spent by staff on these tasks diminishes greatly.

Access is gained to the touch-screens through swiping an RFID (radio-frequency identification)

card, which shows the person’s account. Use of pictograms removes some of the difficulties

associated with achieving a multi-lingual interface and items can be added and deleted from a

central point.


27

Below the interface can be seen, which is linked to the bank accounts of each user. On

purchasing goods from the e-shop, the balance

automatically reduces. Previous problems

associated with the purchase of goods included

the large amount of staff time taken to do it,

discrepancies as to what was ordered,

problems when goods were out of stock and

accounting for how much each person had in

funds. This removes many of the previous

problems.

Regarding the pictograms, the issues associated with this are being solved through trial and

error given the Netherlands is one of the first countries to operate detention centres in these

ways. For example, pictograms have previously been altered, because their order was designed

to be read from left to right. For those languages read from right to left, different meaning can

be conferred. These are not always issues which can be anticipated and flexibility in design is

crucial.


28

When booking visits in the system, detainees can choose from available seats (shown in green)

and look through different days.


29

They can then add multiple visitors to the list, asking them for their passport number in advance

and entering it into the system.

In addition to the touch-screens there are in-cell telephones (calls are recorded, but detainees

have unsupervised use), which have proven to work well in order for detainees to organise their

transport to their home countries.

Detention Centre Lelystad (DCL)

The Detention Centre Lelystad was built in 2005, as an innovative, high-tech prison. Inmates live

in six person cells, wear electronic wrist-bands to track their movements and staff members are

equipped with handheld devices to monitor the occurrence of disturbances and problems.

Each bed of the six-person cell has a touch-

screen monitor at the foot of it. This is

housed in a steel container and has an

integrated telephone. In order for inmates

to log into the system, they must use their

wristband to swipe. The wristband is used


30

for tracking and tracing and to identify the inmate. The system can be used to make calls (linked

to the bank account of the inmate, so funds are deducted), with certain numbers blacklisted so

the inmate cannot call particular numbers.

Shopping can also be done electronically, as well

as choosing activity programmes and booking in

tasks that need to be completed.

Staff have hand-held monitoring systems to

ensure safety, to get updates and to look up

information needed by inmates.

In addition to the above, aggression monitoring detectors have been installed, which notify staff

of incidents. Sound monitoring occurs, with an alarm alerting officers if there are incidents

occurring. This is done through the use of sound detection and analysis technology, which

registers characteristic sound components of aggression, anger and fear. Incidents are recorded

and can be listened to at a later time.

5.4 The United Kingdom (focusing on England and Wales)

Context

It has long been a policy objective to use technology more effectively in the criminal justice

setting. However, this is a difficult area in which to progress, because of issues such as security;

local, national and international coordination; and many different technology suppliers.

Currently the criminal justice system is rather segmented, which is an area in which work is

currently going on to enable different agencies to work together to reduce bureaucracy and

waste, maintaining performance levels whilst this is undertaken.

The UK has a prison population rate of 153 per 100,000 inhabitants, with 133 prisons and youth

offending institutions (as of September 2012), 14 of these being run by the private sector. There

are 35 probation trusts across England and Wales. Both the prison and probation services are


31

overseen by the National Offender Management Service (NOMS), which falls under the Ministry

of Justice.

Use of Technology in Criminal Justice

The political landscape in the UK means that small-scale pilots are undertaken in order to ensure

there is a substantial cost-saving before implementing a new technological solution. In the past

there has been some small-scale implementation of touch-screen facilities, to varying results.

The segmented nature of some of the previous technology-focussed projects within the sector

appears to have taken away the appetite for innovation in some staff. According to the Ministry

of Justice, much money has been wasted on IT in the criminal justice system, with slow

developments and fragmented implementation (2012). However, good use is being made of

videoconferencing with suites in many prison and probation offices, as well as some courts.

Virtual courts have also been piloted and rolled out more extensively than the original pilot

areas tested.

Priorities

According to a recent government paper entitled; ‘Swift and Sure Justice: The Government’s

Plans for Reform of the Criminal Justice System’ (2012), one of the key priorities is ‘efficient

justice through technology’. This includes the digitalisation of case files; moving to fully digital

court rooms; increasing the use of videoconferencing technology; and promoting the use of

technology to connect with communities.

The UK is likely to receive a comparatively high number of UK nationals under custodial transfer,

as well as transferring offenders to other Member States, but these transfers are not thought of

as highly problematic because similar transfers have been occurring for many years under

different legislative frameworks.

What is rather clear is that in order for a technological solution to be implemented, proof will be

needed from a pilot or other Member State which has already implemented it as to its cost-

saving merits. Even if there are savings to be made, the initial capital outlay, combined with the

media perception are still likely to stifle some good ideas.


32

Prison

Those in prison in England and Wales may have access to e-learning, but internet access is not

available due to security considerations. There are plans for newly built prisons to contain

videoconferencing equipment in order to cut the costly process of transferring inmates to court,

instead giving them the opportunity to appear by video-link. However, other technologies, bar

moving to a less paper-based system have not been included in the design of these prisons. The

expense of new technologies in old prison buildings is rather considerable, because of the

design of the buildings, thickness of the walls (for cabling purposes), how long it takes to install

technology and because of security issues.

A prison touch-screen pilot was carried out some years ago and was not seen as a success. The

‘BT prisoner information points’ used were aimed at giving prison residents information about

the prison, as well as some resettlement information. However, these information points were

not connected to the internet and each one was free-standing, rather than network connected.

In order to load new information onto the machines it was required to send the information to

BT for it to be converted into a different format and sent back. The memory stick on which the

information was contained then had to be taken to each point to make updates. Those

interviewed about this did not have favourable opinions about the system. This is especially the

case, because the lack of updates meant that often prisoners would only use the point once or

twice, preventing them being cost-effective.

Indeed, some consider that touch-screens have not been introduced to prisons at all, because of

the way in which this project was implemented. There appears to be some appetite for touch-

screen usage should it decrease the staff time needed to explain resettlement information.

However, the worry regarding breakages is high due to previous experience with television

damage by inmates.

In spite of the above worries, some private prisons in the UK are using touch-screens for inmates

to become more self-sufficient, which is now being extended to some public prisons. Inmates

log in with a pin and fingerprint and can order food, arrange visits, see notices, schedule

timetables and buy items such as phone credit and stamps.


33

Regarding information given to inmates on resettlement, the situation is different in each

prison. Often information is given orally and through using leaflets, with some back-up from

computer use. Regarding in-prison information, each institution has a prison handbook. These

are translated into various languages to reflect those the inmate population speak. The

Detention Advice Service (DAS), currently offers information to offenders and their families in

many different languages, reflecting the main offender populations at risk of deportation in the

UK.

As part of the 'Technology in Prisons' project (Lockitt, 2011), a network and resources for the

promotion of technology-use for the education and training of offenders in prisons and within

the community upon release has been created. Sharing of best-practice is continued online.

The Scottish Prison Service is currently considering a system to allow prisoners’ messages to

friends and family to be scanned in by prison staff and sent as e-mail attachments. This is

proposed as a self-funding, pay per use system.

Probation Information given to those on probation is generally through a mix of face to face meetings with

probation officers, sign-posting to other services and leaflets.

A touch-screen pilot was undertaken in London Probation Trust, as part of the ‘Model Boroughs

Project’. This met a similar fate to the pilot within prisons, because of a combination of lack of

updates and security issues (one of the machines suffered considerable damage). However,

there appears to be an appetite for using new technologies within a probation setting.

Innovation in the UK

Hertfordshire Horizons Programme

The Hertfordshire Horizons Programme is an integrated offender management (IOM)

programme, which uses satellite tracking tags to monitor the most prolific offenders in

Hertfordshire. The project won the 2012 Guardian Public Services Award for Digital Innovation.


34

It takes a holistic approach to reducing reoffending by tacking the underlying reasons for

committing crime and helping the most prolific 200 offenders in the area access various services

including drug and alcohol support, educational opportunities, accommodation services and

employment.

The pilot project involves the police, probation, private sector and voluntary organisations

working together, in an intensive manner with the offenders to prevent reoffending. The

satellite tracking tags are part of this package, which has seen burglaries in the county drop by

68 per cent and a reduction of reoffending of 42 per cent by those involved.

The learning from this project is used as best-practice learning for other areas and has helped to

shape legislation on location monitoring.

Innovation Hub, Ministry of Justice

The Ministry of Justice has created an innovation hub for staff to develop innovative ideas. This

is for all innovative ideas, but it is expected that those focusing on technology can play a

significant part in this. It offers staff the opportunity to discuss and debate the ways in which

services are delivered and propose alternative methods. Use of the hub is aimed at making the

criminal justice system more effective, lest costly and more responsive.

It is a space for up to ten people for:

- Creative thinking;

- Problem solving;

- Team building;

- Prototyping ideas;

- Continuous improvement;

- Sharing best practice.


35

Use of Touch-screens in Digitalisation of Case Files

There has been a shift from a paper-based system to one based on digital case files. This means

all Crown Prosecution Service prosecutors now have tablet devices, ensuring they can present

‘paperless’ cases in court. Annotations and bookmarks can be made on the tablet, enabling

effective presentation of the case in court. Further, navigating through case bundles is much

easier than with paper files.

It is planned that in April 2013 all police forces will prepare digital case files and that digital

working will be extended to all magistrates’ courts and the Crown courts. These will all use

national standards and guidance on case file preparation.

Videoconferencing Videoconferencing between courts and prisons has been operational for some time now, but a

new project is underway to replace old equipment and ensure all equipment is interoperable.

Previous initiatives have been independently developed and there is a move toward integration.

The latest £10 million investment will upgrade the Prison to Court Video Links (PCVL)

infrastructure to allow for more preliminary proceedings to occur via the Virtual Court, roll out

PCVL in another 47 Crown Court centres (they currently exist in 14 magistrates’ courts, 29

Crown Courts and 63 prisons) and enable further integration and interoperability through the

creation of a unified infrastructure.

Over 5,000 Virtual Court hearings were held in 2011, in which the first hearings are held by

video link between the police station and the magistrates’ court. This ensures time efficiency as

well as reducing the need to transport those detained. This system is operating in four criminal

justice areas.

Live links are now available for any witness other than the defendant to give evidence. Police

officers can give evidence in this way, allowing them to carry out other duties rather than

travelling to and from the court. Further, the use of video link for vulnerable witnesses is on the

increase.


36

5.5 Context within the European Union

In spite of the budgetary cuts in many Member States it is anticipated that the thirst for using

new technologies in a criminal justice setting will increase at a reasonable rate in Member

States. Currently e-Justice is a high priority of the EU and this does not look like it will alter in the

near future. Given the lack of funding elsewhere, it is highly likely that Member States will adapt

their practices in order to access e-Justice funds. As has been seen in the innovation of criminal

justice previously, once ‘champions’ are pushing forward with an innovative project, others see

it works well and there are cost savings associated with such work, it often becomes

mainstream.

6. Discussion

6.1 Introduction

With the increasing mobility of EU citizens, it is likely that a higher proportion of offenders will

need to be sentenced in a Member State that is not their own and subsequently transferred to

their home Member State. This poses new challenges for the whole of the EU. Technology can

be highly effective at increasing time-efficiency and lowering costs, but this must be weighed

against potential usage, initial capital outlay and whether in each case there is added value in a

solution in comparison to non-technological methods already in operation.

6.2 Information generation and updates

There is a concern regarding the resource cost of creating and updating the information which

would be provided on touch-screens for resettlement purposes. However, it is required that

certain information is given to the offender concerned for the transfer of custodial sentences

and alternative sanctions anyway (2008/909/JHA). In that sense the fears about creating

information and updating it using technology is unfounded, because vital information on the

transfer process has to be given to the transferee. The main issues associated with the

information to be given to those being transferred to a prison in another Member State

therefore, are how this information is given, what kind of information is given with regard to the

new institution and resettlement and (often) the multi-lingual issues surrounding these.

Regarding the transfer of alternative sanctions, wider information regarding resettlement is


37

needed (housing, healthcare, education etc.), but this needs to be the initial information needed

on arriving back in one’s home Member State, rather than necessarily including information for

the medium to long-term.

It seems logical that information pertaining to the transfer process must be created by the

issuing state as to how their particular process works (in addition to details that are the same for

all Member States). Of course, this must occur anyway between institutions, but the vast

amount of information on the e-Justice portal currently is for personnel and criminal justice

practitioners. Information given to offenders going through the process appears a more ad-hoc

process, with some Member States ensuring information is translated into a language the

person can understand and others doing less, due to budgetary constraints and, sometimes

because the scale is very small. This information could be collated and put onto a central

website, to be handed to offenders in that particular country, but this does not overcome the

translation issues.

Information on the particular circumstances and case, obviously must continue to be dealt with

on a case-by-case basis between the issuing and executing states and the person being

transferred. However, information on resettlement issues, such as how to get assistance on

arriving in the executing state, how to access services (in a probation context predominantly,

but also in a prison context and for the preparation of resettlement) and general sign-posting

can be prepared by each Member State for example. In a situation where Italy is the issuing

state and France is the executing state, the French authorities could, for example create a body

of information relevant to resettlement in France, for French speaking detainees being sent back

from Italy.

Were each Member State to do this and update it periodically, it could be included as part of the

resource body on the e-Justice portal. This would allow personnel to put the information on

computers (including the possibility for touch-screens), or print them in leaflet form. This would

prevent duplication and help ensure the correct resettlement information is given to offenders.

It would also circumvent the fact that some Member States are not considering wide-usage of

technologies in resettlement, because the information could be given as a booklet or leaflet in

the language of the offender. In order for each Member State to give information, there would

need to be a standardised format for the information to be given in, with central collation for


38

the e-Justice portal. This does not remove the issue of updating of information, but this is likely

to be problematic whichever solution is implemented with regard to information delivery.

6.3 Information delivery

Technological Solutions

Technology is moving very quickly and much of the population of Europe is now familiar with

touch-screens, be it through mobile phone use; visiting a doctors surgery; information points in

town centres; or using job centre points. As demonstrated above, such facilities have been

shown to be easy to use – even for those unfamiliar with computers – and amendments can be

made in order for those with literacy problems to have a successful experience using them (e.g.

pictorial representations of certain information). Touch-screens can be used to provide

information on a whole range of issues and services in several languages.

Resettlement

In the case of delivering resettlement information, it is not clear that touch-screens as an

information conduit add significantly to the process or expected experience of the user. If

technological solutions are used, it appears a standard computer (with security adaptations)

would be similarly useful. If touch-screens are already in wide usage in a particular area, the

addition of a keyboard would probably be useful, given that the information being accessed is

generally of a quite detailed nature and might require interaction, rather than mere information

gathering. Further, the potential to print information in these situations is likely to be of use for

the same reasons.

However, whilst computers can be a useful addition, the current status of some Member States

(issues with interpreting/not using interpreters/not having technological solutions) means that a

paper based solution would be a good start. If paper-based information is available it might be

all that is currently possible for those Member States.


39

Custodial Sentences

The opinion of the majority of those interviewed for this paper was that technological solutions

such as using standard computers or touch-screens as information conduits can be of great use

within the criminal justice system. However, the greatest benefit of touch-screens is as part of

an integrated solution for those in custodial institutions to perform day to day tasks (arranging

visits, legal appointments, medical appointments, snack purchases, educational sessions etc.),

which empowers those concerned and cuts the amount of time prison officers need to spend on

administration, so that they can concentrate on programmes and the reduction of reoffending.

Regarding the delivery of education and distance learning, a mixture of computer-based e-

learning programmes and paper based information is widely regarded as a good solution. The

addition of using a touch-screen in these situations is not generally necessary.

Regarding the transfer of custodial sentences, offenders are likely to continue to need a

combination of face to face meetings (often with interpreters present), paper based information

and (supervised) use of computers. The most important information in this situation is how the

process works; the persons’ rights and how they can challenge this; information on the new

prison in the executing state and sign-posting to organisations who can help in the executing

state. Those interviewed commented that many of the questions asked regard conditional

release, information on the prison the person is being sent to and what kind of programmes are

available there.

Most of the above is unlikely to be delivered through computer-based (touch-screen or not)

solutions, because it pertains to a particular, unique case. Whilst a system such as that used in

Detention Centre Lelystad could incorporate information on the individual transfer process and

case, it is highly unlikely and would not be logical to install touch-screens for the delivery of this

information solely.

Transfer of Alternative Sanctions

The information needed by the offender under the transfer of alternative sanctions is obviously

quite different, because they will not be in custody and need wider, more extensive information


40

(as discussed above). However, there is debate as to how much information needs to be given

before the offender leaves the issuing state.

The need for quite detailed information and for the offender to keep hold of such information,

again, means that touch-screens are unlikely to be of much added benefit, unless already being

used for other purposes. Indeed, the time spent in probation offices and social work offices is

not usually enough to warrant a lengthy period of time searching for computerised information.

The prospect of putting touch-screens in the reception areas of such offices also probably is not

viable for this information alone. A computer with internet access could be highly useful, but is

often used anyway with a probation officer or social worker directing the offender to services.

Further, those concerned are not in custodial institutions and therefore have the potential to

follow-up with internet usage themselves. Paper-based information is likely to be a good way

forward for information to be given in the offender’s own language, which can be used for

future reference.

Arguably, it would be useful for every Member State to create an information booklet (using a

standard template), to be available on the e-Justice portal, or another site accessible to

personnel. This could be general resettlement information, which the issuing state could give to

the person going through the transfer process, already in their own language. This does not

remove the onus on giving information to individuals on a case by case basis, but could remove

the need to duplicate information creation and interpretation to some extent.

A problem with producing resettlement information is that often cities and regions of Member

States will have many different organisations to contact regarding the various areas of

resettlement. It is unlikely that this information could be coordinated, populated and updated

on a central site, but certainly information on a national (or federal state) basis should be

possible. This information can then be used by the person concerned to access further local

services on returning to their country of residence.

6.4 Security Considerations

An often-cited reason for not using technology in a criminal justice setting is the consideration

of security. This is seen as potentially problematic in a physical sense, in that offenders might


41

break the casing/reinforced glass of the touch-screens or computers; but also in the sphere of

the potential for data protection issues were someone to breach the information security in the

software used. There are highly mixed views on this between those interviewed; some, from

experience had found problems with units being broken; a problem in a UK probation setting,

whereas others found very few problems. For example in the Detention Concept Lelystad, only

20 touch-screens were made defective over six years. Put into the context of circa 14,000

inmates over that period and the fact that the screens used are installed at the foot of each bed

in cells, this is an especially positive figure.

Regarding the IT-support possible for touch-screens, the worries regarding software hacking can

be diminished easily, Again in the Dutch context, there is centralised IT support with no software

installed on the devices and all programs are executed on the central server. The programs and

files stored centrally can be accessed across the Netherlands, the internet is accessed on a

‘whitelisting’ basis and the system is monitored.

Given the wide internet usage across the EU (and information society priorities), it is unlikely

that this would be a significant barrier to use. Rather, perceived software security issues are

often unfounded in this context and it is more likely that national legislation and/or issues

associated with criminal justice systems security requirements in each Member State will be the

biggest security barriers to uptake. In the UK context ‘the justice system has not kept up with

society generally in terms of technology’ (Jonathan Djanogly, Ministry of Justice, 2010) and this

is similar for many Member States.

7. Conclusion

Touch-screens have been demonstrated to work well in a criminal justice setting, when thought

through carefully beforehand and when sufficient funds are used to implement such technology

(as seen in the Dutch context). However, the areas in which it appears to be a useful solution are

those in which it is used as a holistic solution; for day to day administration and empowerment

of those detained, rather than merely as a non-interactive information point.


42

With regard to the information needs of those being transferred across Member States, a

pooling of information – with collation on the e-Justice portal – should be considered, as

detailed above.

In some Member States there appears to be a thirst for using new technology, to make

processes quicker and more efficient. This is to be welcomed especially when cases have a cross-

border element. However, current economic cuts occurring in many Member States, as well as

the differing positions of each state more generally are likely to make such technologies, in the

short term at least, unviable for many governments. If cost savings can be demonstrated and

there is a demonstrable improvement to the way in which resettlement needs are dealt with

currently, this could be overcome.


43

8. References and useful further reading

Arkfeld, L (2006), Life as a wired judge: Reflections on the use of technology by courts , 27 Just.

Sys. J. 243 2006.

Baxter, D, Schoeman, M and Goffin, K (2011), Innovation in justice: New delivery models and

better outcomes. School of Management, Cranfield University.

Byrne, J and Marx, G (2011), Technological Innovations in Crime Prevention and Policing. A

Review of the Research on Implementation and Impact. Cahiers Politiestudies, Jaargang 2011-3,

nr. 20, p. 17-40

Canton, R. (2009) Taking Probation Abroad. European Journal of Probation, 1(1), 66-78.

CEP Knowledgebase; http://cep-probation.org/page/58/knowledgebase

Council Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA of 27 November 2008, L 327/27 of 12.05.2008

Council Framework Decision 2008/947/JHA of 27 November 2008, 337/122 of 12.16.2008.

Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, L 81/24 of 03.27.2009.

Council Multi-Annual European e-Justice Action Plan 2009-2013, Doc 15315/08, 7 November

2008 (OJ, C75, 31.3.2009)

Detention Advice Service (2011), Foreign national prisoners – All you need to know

DG Justice, EC (2009), Videoconferencing as a part of European e-Justice

Hertfordshire County Community Safety Unit (CCSU);

http://www.hertspa.org/adobepdfs/17308330/17565275/ccsu.pdf

HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2010–11 (2011), Going the

Distance: Developing Effective Policy and Practice with Foreign National Prisoners

HM Inspectorate of Prisons (2006), Foreign national prisoners: a thematic review

HM Inspectorate of Prisons (2007), Foreign national prisoners: A follow-up report

Impact Analysis of the Mutual Recognition and Transfer of EU Criminal Judgements (2009),

(WEOS in Dutch), Ministry of Justice, the Netherlands


44

Kenis, P, Kruyen, P M, Baajens, J and Barneveld, P (2010), Design in the Netherlands the Prison

of the Future? An Evaluation of an Innovative Prison. The Prison Journal 2010 90: 313.

Lockitt, W G (2011), Technology in prisons. Winston Churchill 2010 Travelling Fellowship

Ministry of Justice UK (2011), Modernising the Criminal Justice System: The CJS Efficiency

Programme

Mitsilegas, V (2009), The third wave of third pillar law: which direction for EU criminal justice?

Queen Mary University of London, School of Law - Legal Studies Research Paper No. 33/2009

Passmore, E (2007) How can ICT enable more joined-up, efficient and citizen- focused public

services? The Work Foundation Supported by Adobe

Paterson, C (2008), Commercial crime control and the electronic monitoring of offenders in

England and Wales. Social justice: a journal of crime, conflict and world order, 34 (3-4), 98-110.

Pike, A and Adams, A (2012), Digital exclusion or learning exclusion? An ethnographic study of

adult male distance learners in English prisons. Research in Learning Technology Vol. 20, 2012

Prisoners Abroad, Coming Home: A handbook of information about your resettlement.

Secretary of State for Justice (2010), Breaking the Cycle: Effective Punishment, Rehabilitation

and Sentencing of Offenders.

Secretary of State for Justice (2011), Breaking the Cycle: Government Response, London.

Secretary of State for Justice (2012), Swift and Sure Justice: The Government’s Plans for Reform

of the Criminal Justice System

Technology in prisons website; http://www.technologyinprisons.org/the-project.php

The Young Foundation (2010) A UK Centre for Justice Innovation?

UK Border Agency (2011), A thematic inspection of how the UK Border Agency manages foreign

national prisoners February – May 2011

Van Rotterdam, P and van den Hoogen, R (2010), True-to-life requirements for using

videoconferencing in legal proceedings. Ministry of Security and Justice, The Hague.

Young, J (2011) A Virtual Day in Court: Design Thinking & Virtual Courts


45

9. Acknowledgements

Many thanks to the DUTT project partners for their input into this research. Particular thanks go

to Kalpana Kapoor (London Probation Trust) for advice throughout and for reviewing drafts of

this report, as well as Ernst Eilering (Custodial Institutions Agency) for providing useful content.

Thanks also got to those who participated in interviews and hosted study visits.

Author Biography

After completing a degree in law at the University of Bristol and Katholieke Universiteit Leuven

in 2009, Emma Di Iorio worked in European higher education projects, moving to London

Probation Trust in 2010. Since then she has worked as European Projects Officer, assisting with

various projects and conducting research. Previous work includes stints in both Westminster

and European Parliaments. Emma is involved in the European Movement in London and has a

keen interest in EU law and policy.


46

For further information please contact;

European Projects Team

London Probation Trust

151 Buckingham Palace Road

London SW1P 2BN

Telephone: + 44 (0)300 0480046

Email: [email protected]

.

This publication has been produced with the financial support of the Criminal Justice Programme of the

European Commission.

The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of the author and can in no way be taken to

reflect the views of the European Commission.

the use of touch-screens in cross border...

Documents