The Dutch legislature has recently (2012) altered the legislation for post-conviction revision of criminal cases. The legislature aimed to improve the balance between the competing interests of individual justice and the finality of verdicts, by making post-conviction revision more accessible. In this article we describe the current legal framework for revising cases. We also study how the revision procedure functions in practice, by looking at the types and numbers of (successful) requests for further investigations and applications for revision. We observe three challenges in finding the right balance in the revision process in the Netherlands. These challenges concern: 1) the scope of the novum criterion (which is strict), 2) the appropriate role of an advisory committee (the ACAS) in revision cases (functioning too much as a pre-filter for the Supreme Court) and, 3) the difficulties that arise due to requiring a defence council when requesting a revision (e.g., financial burdens).

revision law, post-conviction review, wrongful convictions, miscarriages of justice, criminal law, empirical research
dx.doi.org/10.5553/ELR.000188, hdl.handle.net/1765/135553
Erasmus Law Review
Erasmus Law Review
Erasmus School of Law

Holvast, N.L, Nan, J, & Lestrade, S.M.A. (2021). Between Legal Certainty and Doubt. Erasmus Law Review, 13(4). doi:10.5553/ELR.000188