Unreasonable delay in a criminal case

Calendar time and legal processing time are different data

A calendar simply shows how many months have passed since an incident. A different question is required for the reasonable period: from which government act could the person concerned reasonably expect to be prosecuted for a specific offense? That starting point may be later than the event itself. Therefore, make a note of the incident date, but do not use it as a legal start date without further assessment. The general criminal procedure helps organize the events; the term question then requires its own analysis of those events and the associated documents.

Also make it clear what you are complaining about. A file that was forwarded late, a hearing that was postponed several times and a long period without visible action are different forms of time lapse. A lack of mail received does not prove that nothing happened during the investigation. Conversely, a large number of short administrative messages do not automatically make it clear that work has been done efficiently. Describe the available facts and ask what missing process information is needed. This way you prevent the discussion from getting stuck in the understandable but still legally indeterminate feeling that it has been going on for far too long.

The first interrogation is not always the decisive beginning

In ECLI:NL:HR:2008:BD2578, the Supreme Court formulates as a starting point an act of the Dutch State from which the person concerned can reasonably infer the expectation of criminal prosecution for a specific offense. A first police interrogation does not always automatically count as such an act. The Supreme Court does mention police custody (Inverzekeringstelling) and service of the preliminary summons as relevant acts. Therefore, have it determined which event legally constitutes the beginning in your case and which documents support this. An unproven assumption about the starting point affects every subsequent calculation.

Also bring events to the meeting that do not fit neatly on one date. When was a document issued, what was the content of a notification and what fact did it refer to? A reminder that you were called by the police sometime in the spring is not sufficiently precise to simply set a start date. Keep the original invitation or notification and mark an unknown date as unknown. The goal is not to choose the earliest conceivable date, but to determine a legally tenable beginning based on the actual litigation history.

Two years is a starting point with important conditions

For trial at first instance, the judgment mentions as a general starting point a final judgment within two years after the relevant start, barring special circumstances. For cases in which the suspect is in pre-trial detention in connection with that case and for the application of juvenile criminal law, a shorter starting point of sixteen months applies. These categories require careful checking of the concrete situation. An old detention period or the age at the time you read a letter does not in itself tell you which assessment framework the judge will apply.

A planned first hearing date is also not the same as a final judgment. A hearing may address a procedural issue, discuss investigations or be adjourned. Put in the timeline what actually happened and what decision followed. Also distinguish between an employee's expectation and a formally set date. It is important for the preparation whether the case has been substantively completed, which end point is being assessed and what period is still running. Do not let a future hearing disappear from the overview because there is also a discussion about the time that has already passed.

After an appeal, a new assessment begins

The appeal has its own starting point when instituting that legal remedy and its own final ruling. Cassation again has a separate phase. In addition, the time for submitting the file may be relevant. The detailed assessment of this is not a simple sum of all silences. Particularly expeditious further treatment may be important if the submission deadline has been exceeded. Therefore, ask for each phase which beginning, which end and which specific period is being investigated. The guide to appealing in a criminal case also discusses the choice and procedure. (appeal in a criminal case)

A previous exceedance does not disappear from your administration because a new phase starts. Keep the court decision on this, including any reduction granted and the reason for it. This prevents the same period from being presented again in an unclear manner or from an untreated issue being lost from view. A referral or new treatment complicates the history; then have it explicitly determined what needs to be reassessed. The process map must follow the real route, even when it deviates from the simple scheme of court, court of appeal and Supreme Court.

Complexity and process behavior require a factual explanation

The overview judgment mentions, among other things, the complexity of the case, the influence of the defense on the course and the manner of treatment by the authorities. This does not mean that every extensive file automatically justifies unlimited time. Nor does an investigation request from the defense automatically mean that the entire subsequent period will be borne by the suspect. Describe the action, the purpose and the actual follow-up period. Then have it legally assessed what significance this has for the reasonableness of the total duration.

A useful distinction is between necessary research time and a period for which the cause is not yet known. If foreign documents were requested, note when the request was made, what response there was and when the investigation continued. If a hearing is adjourned, keep the official report with the reason. Avoid your own debt allocation without underlying data. The time period sheet should enable a discussion about concrete delays and possible explanations, not attributing each month to one party because that seems favorable for the desired outcome.

An exceedance does not automatically end the criminal case

The reasonable period protects against the threat of prosecution for too long. However, an established violation is not a judgment that the fact cannot be proven. According to the Supreme Court's line, it does not lead to inadmissibility of the Public Prosecution Service because of that excess alone. Reduction of a sentence or a confiscation amount may be appropriate, but under certain circumstances the judge may suffice with establishing the violation. Therefore, keep the substantive defense and the deadline question both visible; a discussion about waiting time does not replace an investigation into the accusation.

In ECLI:NL:HR:2024:492, the Supreme Court further explained when a single observation can suffice. In that specific case, a prison sentence of eleven days and sixty hours of community service were imposed and the appeal period had been exceeded to a limited extent. The Supreme Court did not attach any further reduction to the determination and dismissed the appeal. The ruling warns against general discount promises. The consequence is related to the duration of the violation, the penalty or measure and the applicable discretion; a fixed percentage calculation tool for every criminal judge does not do justice to this.

Limitation and a response period have a different function

An appeal period, a date for submitting documents and limitation are different legal topics than the reasonable period. An ongoing discussion about excessively long treatment does not automatically suspend your obligation to take your own procedural action in a timely manner. Therefore, keep a current agenda with upcoming actions in addition to the time period sheet. An old case may still have a very short current timeframe. Appoint him to a new office immediately and do not wait until the entire history has been perfectly investigated before seeking legal assistance.

A complaint about communication and a request for information also do not automatically have the same effect as a defense presented at the hearing. Ask the lawyer which step is necessary, at what time and with what substantiation. In the Supreme Court context, it may be important whether the issue was raised in the actual hearing. A casual e-mail stating that you find the wait annoying is therefore not automatically a sufficiently detailed appeal for exceeding the deadline. Have it confirmed what is actually entered and save the subsequent decision.

Fictional example: two start dates give a different picture

In a fictional case, an incident takes place in January. An invitation for an interview will follow in March and the suspect will be held in police custody in September. A final verdict has been issued two years and three months after the incident. Ravi counts from January and concludes that the decision was automatically made three months too late. His lawyer must first investigate which event constitutes the legal beginning and which framework applies. The invitation may have significance, but its date is not decisive without reading the content and circumstances.

The same case then includes an investigation request and an adjourned hearing. Ravi puts both events in his overview with the accompanying documents, without crossing out all the subsequent months. He also states whether the pre-trial detention continued and what decision there is on this. The example deliberately ends without a discount percentage. It shows why a seemingly simple calculation can contain several unanswered legal questions. Good preparation makes those questions verifiable, rather than suggesting an outcome before the starting point and relevant circumstances have been established.

Place each period next to an event and a source

Use one line per meaningful event and connect the intervening period to what is actually known. Do not add an explanation for standstill if the file does not provide one. An unknown column is useful: it makes visible what information still needs to be requested. Keep references to original documents and keep a personal overview separate from the legal documents themselves. The state should allow someone else to check your order while showing what legal qualifications still need to be reviewed by an attorney.

• Identity: public prosecutor's office number, alleged offense and any linked cases.
• Start: possible start event, date, content and original document.
• Phase: first instance, appeal, cassation or new treatment after referral.
• Event: interrogation, detention, investigation, hearing, arrest and final verdict.
• Interval: Known actions, received responses, and unexplained periods.
• Framework: relevant detention, application of juvenile criminal law and special circumstances.
• Decision: defense submitted, judicial decision and any consequences already processed.

Request a review, not a predicted discount

Discuss with the lawyer which periods are legally relevant and which documents are still required. Also ask what a possible successful appeal could mean in practical terms, in addition to the substantive outcome of the case. A punishment that is not suitable for reduction requires a different expectation than a large unconditional sanction. Do not let a possible reduction become the sole decision criterion for a legal remedy. Evidence, punishment, collateral consequences and procedural options must be assessed together, while maintaining the individual questions.

Our conclusion: the passage of time deserves serious attention, but requires better substantiation than a year in an agenda. A carefully defined beginning, an overview per phase and a verifiable description of the delay make the conversation substantively stronger. In the meantime, keep track of new mail and deadlines. This gives protection against unreasonably long prosecution a concrete place in the defense, without the incorrect expectation that waiting for itself will erase the accusation or automatically result in a fixed amount of reduced sentence.