The approach to dealing with the offence of driving under the influence of drugs is currently based on the catch-all clause of article 8, section one, of the 1994 Road Traffic Act (Wegenverkeerswet, hereinafter referred to as WVW1994). In practice, there are problems with this approach. So an amendment to the WVW1994 has been proposed, namely in the form of the addition of a fifth section. The aim of the amendment is not just to make it easier to establish the suspicion of the use of drugs by drivers but also to make it easier to prosecute. The amendment of the Act is expected to be implemented in mid-2017. During discussions on the proposal for the change in legislation in the Lower House various parties asked for an assessment of the new act. In response to this the Minister of Security and Justice has promised to assess the act within a period of five years. Within this framework DSP Groep was commissioned by the WODC to carry out a study into the investigation and prosecution of drivers who violated the ban on driving under the influence of drugs. The issue at the heart of the study was as follows: “How is driving under the influence of drugs investigated and sanctioned with regard to the implementation of the amended WVW1994 and with what result?” The study looked at the current and proposed working processes within investigation and prosecution. It also provided an interim assessment of the policy logic behind the proposed change in legislation. The study is a so-called ‘baseline measurement’ that is expected to be repeated following the implementation of the act. A comparison of the results of the two measurements will make it possible to ascertain what changes happen with regard to practical implementation following the introduction of the act. To ensure that this comparison can also be reliably carried out the appendix to the report contains extensive details of the design of this follow-up measurement and the points of attention involved. The study used various methods. First of all, desk research was carried out into legislation, policy documents, parliamentary papers and literature. A survey was also held among 272 traffic officers in the core teams (in Dutch: Basispolitieteams) of the National Police. 208 respondents filled in the survey (in part), which gave a net response of 76%. Thirdly 26 semi-structured interviews were held with people directly involved in the investigation and prosecution of the criminal offence in question. In addition to traffic officers in the core teams these were judges, public prosecutors, employees at the Driver Licensing Centre (CBR), the Dutch Forensic Institute (NFI) and policy-makers at the National Police and the Ministry of Security and Justice. The Public Ministry for Central Processing (CVOM) responded only in writing. Finally an analysis was carried out of the data registers of the National Police, the NFI and the CBR. There are two limitations to the study. The first one is the degree of detail for parts of the study. Initially the field work was supposed to take place in the period immediately before and immediately after the implementation of the amendment to article 8 WVW1994, so that the baseline measurement would provide not only a clear, accurate picture of the old method but also a description of the initial experiences with the new act. However, the implementation was postponed several times — because of the procurement of the saliva testers — as a result of which only the period of one year before the implementation could be studied. Because of the shift in the implementation date not a lot was known about the precise effect of the new legal framework and as a result of this, little concrete effect was realised by the chain partners. The effect of this was that this report could only report to a limited extent on the preparations. The second limitation is the non-optimal study period as regards quantitative data regarding the number of criminal cases studied. The figures were taken from the period 2013-2015, but in 2015 there were stoppages and work-to-rules among the police because of the deadlocked CAO (collective labour agreement) negotiations. It is not clear how much these actions affected the numbers of cases dealt with nationally, but there is a chance that a distorted picture has emerged for 2015. (Author/publisher)
Samenvatting