Lisa Ansems
Charles Berger
Jan Crijns
Roosmarijn van Es
Linda Geven
Jan de Keijser
Hanne Klapwijk
Marianne Lochs
Marloes van Noorloos
Marcel Pheijffer
David Sander
Kiki Twisk
Mojdeh Kobari
Sigrid van Wingerden

Researcher: Linda Geven

Imagine you’ve been convicted of a crime you didn’t commit. It sounds contradictory, but miscarriages of justice across the globe have shown that innocent people make false confessions under pressure. To date, however, we have been unable to identify false and true confessions, which has had profound implications. Using new experimental methods, this project aims to establish the causes of false confessions. Innovative lie detection techniques based on bodily reactions and language will be used to uncover the truth behind the confession.

Researchers: Linda Geven in collaboration with Jenny Schell-Leugers and Teresa Schneider

The aim of this project is to collect data on European miscarriages of justice and create an online register in order to inform academics, lawyers, the police, students and policymakers about the number, causes and implications of wrongful convictions in Europe. The register will provide detailed information on successful judicial reviews within Europe, which will be compiled into statistics and reports on the acquitted individuals and underlying factors in academic publications and visual infographics.

PhD candidate: Kiki Twisk

Supervisors: J. W. de Keijser and J. H. Crijns

Kiki Twisk is investigating the interaction between forensic technical experts and litigants in criminal cases. Her research is at the intersection of criminal law and criminology, and she applies a variety of legal and qualitative empirical research methods, including interviews with almost all parties involved in the forensic aspects of criminal cases. Through her research, she will discover what the interaction between litigants and forensic experts involves and any obstacles that may arise in terms of establishing the facts in criminal cases. The research focuses on the entire criminal process, with specific attention to topics that were underexposed in previous empirical studies. Examples include the formulation of questions to the various types of forensic investigators and the role of forensic reports in the criminal process.

PhD candidate Hanne Klapwijk

Supervisors: J. W. de Keijser, J. H. Crijns, L. M. Geven and M. Lochs

The search for material truth forms a key part of criminal procedure in the Netherlands. Forensic psychological expertise can play a key role when it comes to assessing evidence in criminal cases, for example.

The law of criminal evidence gives the court a huge amount of freedom to select and assess evidence. Evaluating the reliability of evidence is one of the primary tasks of a criminal court judge. At the same time, by applying scientific knowledge about fundamental psychological functions and social factors, a forensic expert can make a decision about the reliability and quality of that same piece of evidence. Forensic experts and criminal lawyers can therefore work on the same issues from their own disciplines.

This research bridges the gap between science and legal practice. It is an interdisciplinary study at the interface of forensic psychology and criminal law that aims to gain an insight into how forensic psychological expertise is used and applied within criminal cases. The second objective involves identifying obstacles, with a specific focus on their causes. The third and final objective is to propose solutions to bridge any gaps between the disciplines.

PhD candidate: David Sander

Supervisors: J. H. Crijns and F. P. Ölcer

Legal entities facing criminal charges (Article 51, paragraph 1, Dutch Criminal Code) have the right to due process (Article 6, European Convention on Human Rights). As this is a human right, its applicability to legal entities is an anthropomorphism. This research delves deeper into this: which specific due process issues arise for legal entities facing criminal charges? ‘Due process issues’ are issues related to a fair trial that natural persons facing criminal charges experience less frequently, less quickly or differently from legal entities, or not at all.

Take the following example: natural persons and legal entities facing criminal charges have the right to remain silent. However, a special issue arises with legal entities: they cannot speak or remain silent in their own right, but depend on individuals to exercise their own right to remain silent. Who, if heard in a criminal investigation into a legal entity, may remain silent on its behalf and who may not? Uncertainty about this raises the issue of the legal entity’s legal protection in terms of its right to remain silent. The aim of this research project is to identify these and other special due process issues that may arise for legal entities facing criminal charges. Another aim is to explore potential solutions where the issues identified are proving to be problematic.

PhD candidate: Mojdeh Kobari

Supervisors: J. W. Ouwerkerk and J. M. ten Voorde

The modernised Dutch Code of Criminal Procedure is now at an advanced stage, with the new code expected to take effect on 1 April 2029. While this is a very comprehensive operation, the modernisation of digital investigations, on the other hand, is quite limited in nature. This limited modernisation, which clings onto a system based on premises created for the physical world, faces a number of criticisms. One question that has arisen is whether and to what extent it is sufficient to apply traditional legal frameworks within an online environment.

Within this research, we will consider which premises underlie the national legal provisions for digital investigations, how those premises affect the workability of digital investigations and what it means for the desirability of the premises. There will be a specific focus on the Dutch Computer Crime Acts I, II and III, as well as the ongoing modernisation of digital investigations.