Qualitative interviews with one hundred defendants in Dutch criminal cases examine whether perceived procedural justice is a relevant concern for defendants, and, if so, which procedural justice components they refer to. The study provides a point of epistemological departure from the quantitative studies dominating the field, as it assessed which components of procedural justice (if any) respondents put forward themselves rather than asking about predetermined procedural justice components. The large majority of respondents mentioned procedural justice issues themselves, and six components were at the core of their procedural justice perceptions: (1) information on which decisions are based, (2) interpersonal treatment, (3) due consideration, (4) neutrality, (5) voice, and (6) accuracy. Although these procedural justice components largely correspond with the literature, respondents thus mentioned some components more often, and others less often, than the literature would suggest. In particular, neutrality plays an important role in the Dutch legal context examined here.

This article examines the question to what extent offenders are involved in decisions regarding the sanction, measure and/or conditions that have been imposed upon them. More specifically, the article focuses on the offender's involvement in the stage of implementation (or enforcement) of a conditional sentence or measure. It analyses Dutch legislation and practice on this point and evaluates them in light of the relevant provisions of the European Rules on Community Sanctions and Measures and the European Probation Rules. The research shows that Dutch legislation and practice are generally in conformity with these European instruments; all interviewed probation officers realise the importance of involving offenders and act upon this belief. However, on some points a higher level of offender involvement could be reached, and promoting the European rules amongst probation workers -who are mostly unaware of the existence of these rules -might contribute to this.

The current paper aims to provide insight into judges’ perceptions of how fairly they treat litigants and how important case outcomes are to litigants, and whether these perceptions relate to litigants' perceptions of procedural justice and outcome importance. Respondents were litigants involved in bankruptcy, landlord-tenant, and administrative law cases and judges handling these cases at the district court of the Mid-Netherlands. Both litigants and judges indicated outcome importance and procedural justice. Litigants also indicated their trust in judges. Multilevel analyses using hierarchical regression showed a positive association between judicial and litigant perceptions of outcome importance and no significant association between judges' and litigants’ perceptions of procedural justice. This indicates that whereas judges and litigants largely agreed on how important case outcomes were, their views about how fairly judges handled cases diverged. These insights enhance our understanding of linkages and discrepancies between judges' and litigants' views on important aspects of the legal system.

No abstract