A practical approach to sexual abuse allegations: Netherlands Expert Committee for Equivocal Sexual Abuse Allegations

Abstract

Equivocal sexual abuse allegations are those in which the details of the alleged offence(s) are uncertain. The circumstances are ambiguous, there is limited evidence, and it is unclear how police investigations should proceed. This article discusses the challenges such allegations pose for police, prosecution, judges and mental health experts, and advocates for the use of multidisciplinary expert opinion during the investigation. The practical application of this approach by the Netherlands Expert Committee for Equivocal Sexual Abuse Allegations (LEBZ) is described, which has assessed over 900 cases since its inception in 1999. The LEBZ approach represents a significant innovation in police and criminal justice responses to equivocal allegations of sexual assault, which warrants consideration in other jurisdictions.

Introduction

The Netherlands Expert Committee for Equivocal Sexual Abuse Allegations was established in 1999 (Shaw & Vredeveldt, 2019). The Dutch name is ‘Landelijke Expertisegroep Bijzondere Zedenzaken’ (LEBZ), which literally translates as ‘National Expert Committee for Specific Sexual Abuse Allegations’. The LEBZ provides the prosecutor with multidisciplinary expert knowledge at the earliest possible stage of the legal process (the police investigation) and improves the quality of information gathered by police and evidence that can be used to prosecute sexual assault cases at court. Police and prosecutors in the Netherlands have found that this approach provides a practical way of dealing with complex sexual abuse allegations. Since its inception, there have been several reports about the cases the LEBZ has reviewed (Nierop & Van den Eshof, 2001, 2003, 2008), but the function and processes of this body have never been available to a wider audience outside of the Netherlands.

In this article the LEBZ is introduced as an approach that prioritises the pursuit of truth in equivocal sexual abuse investigations. Because many of the issues that arise in equivocal sexual assault allegations require expert knowledge from a variety of fields, a multidisciplinary approach allows allegations to be assessed from several different professional perspectives. Investigations can benefit from expert knowledge at a relatively early stage: when there is still the possibility of answering some of the questions that arise when reviewing the casefile, determining (and addressing) a case’s strengths and weaknesses and focusing the investigation. This way accusers and accused can be spared the impact of a criminal investigation and court proceedings if it becomes obvious that this will not lead to a resolution, whilst cases that do proceed are considerably strengthened. Such an approach can also aid prosecutors, judges and juries in reaching a well-founded – legal – decision. The aim of this article is to describe the LEBZ approach as a way of dealing with equivocal abuse allegations that could be of interest to other jurisdictions.

Investigation and adjudication of sexual abuse allegations

Partly under the influence of the feminist movement, in the eighties the police, public prosecution service, and legislature gradually began to pay more attention to sexual violence (Gregory & Lees, 1999). A more victim-oriented approach developed, and victims’ rights were recognised in directives, policy regulations, and laws.

In the clinical setting and research, too, there was a growing interest in victims and victimology (Schneider, 2001). The 1990s saw an explosive growth in publications relating to trauma and post-traumatic stress disorder (e.g. Briggs & Joyce, 1997; Herman, 1992; Roesler & McKenzie, 1994; Roth et al., 1997). Within the literature on trauma, sexual abuse acquired a special position. Some authors posited that sexual abuse could be so traumatic that it could be repressed from the victim’s memory (e.g. Briere, & Conte, 1993; Herman & Schatzow, 1987). Equally they claimed that these repressed memories could later be retrieved through therapy (e.g. Van der Hart et al., 1993). Cognitive, experimental and forensic psychologists expressed reservations about such theories (Lindsay, & Read, 1994; Loftus et al., 1994; Merckelbach & Wessel, 1995). Heated debate raged among researchers about the credibility of retrieved memories, the so-called ‘memory wars’ (Crews, 1995). To this day there is academic debate about traumatic, repressed and recovered memories (Brand et al., 2018; Dalenberg et al., 2012), with some authors highlighting the differences of opinion that persist between researchers and practitioners (Otgaar et al., 2019; Patihis et al., 2014; Patihis & Pendergrast, 2019) and others offering additional perspectives to explain why some memories are perhaps not perceived as traumatic until later in life (McNally, 2012). When assessing allegations that involve aspects of recovered and/or repressed memories, it is important to be able to draw on up-to-date expert knowledge around these topics.

The controversy between clinical and forensic psychologists did not remain within the confines of the academic arena. Internationally, the victim-oriented attitude of the police and judicial authorities, in combination with the academic debate, led to fierce discussions in the courts between expert witnesses for the prosecution on the one hand and those for the defence on the other (Ost, 2003). Whilst this controversy first became apparent in the United States, it quickly spread to other countries and continues to have an impact to this day (Shaw & Vredeveldt, 2019).

Over recent decades there has been increasing attention paid to the very low rates of successful prosecution for sexual assault around the industrialised world, with systemic biases against victims identified as one likely cause (Hohl & Stanko, 2015). A solution that has been proposed by some advocating on behalf of sexual assault or abuse victims is that police and other authority figures should ‘believe’ those reporting such crimes rather than defaulting to doubting victims as has often been the case in the past (Brown & Walklate, 2012). In the UK this led to the College of Policing CEO writing a letter to all chief constables, police and crime commissioners and heads of public protection units stating that ‘when an allegation is received, police should believe this account and record it as a crime, unless there is credible evidence at the point the allegation is made that determines no crime has been committed’ (Marshall, 2016).

While calls to believe victims are undoubtedly well intentioned, Corteen and Steele (2018) argue that this pressure is causing a shift from the presumption of innocence in sexual assault cases to a presumption of guilt. They warn that this could increase the potential for miscarriages of justice and wrongful convictions. In March 2016 Lord Richard Henriques was tasked by the UK government to review the Metropolitan Police Service’s handling of the allegations of Carl Beech in Operation Midland. In this case, at the age of 46, Mr Carl Beech, under the pseudonym Nick, reported to the Metropolitan Police in October 2014 that he had, as a child, been a victim of a paedophile ring involving a large number of prominent British men, amongst whom were Lord Brittan, Lord Bramall and Mr Proctor, a former MP. The Metropolitan Police believed Mr Beech’s allegations, and Operation Midland was established to investigate. This attracted considerable media attention and had a devastating impact on the accused. In 2016, Operation Midland was abandoned, and the cases against the men were dropped due to lack of evidence (Henriques, 2016). In 2018 Mr Beech was charged and later found guilty of child sexual offences, perjury and a range of other offences relating to making false reports to police. He was sentenced to 18 years in prison (Murphy, 2019). Lord Henriques found serious failings, which he outlined in his report. He made a number of recommendations, including that police should use the term ‘complainant’ instead of the term ‘victim’ and that the police should no longer be instructed to believe a victim’s account (Henriques, 2016). A subsequent police review of the recommendations concluded that ‘mandating a mind-set is problematic, some say unethical. A professional body should focus on laying out and mandating expected behaviours not mind sets’ (Beckley, 2018, p. 12) and recommended that the words ‘the intention that victims are believed’ should be replaced with the words ‘the intention is that victims can be confident they will be listened to and their crime taken seriously’ (Beckley, 2018, p. 13). A similar observation was made by Irish Supreme Court Justice Adrian Hardiman (2015) when he commented on the case of the falsely accused BBC DJ Paul Gambaccini:

Every person is presumed to be innocent, so if an investigation or trial simply fails to resolve the issue beyond reasonable doubt the suspect or defendant is entitled to the benefit of the presumption. But this can be a hard thing for some people to accept. In sexual cases particularly, even very old ones, such people seem inclined to think that there should be a different presumption: that the accuser is to be believed. (Hardiman, 2015)

This discussion has also been observed in the Netherlands, where some have argued that the barriers for reporting sexual abuse to the police are too high and that police should be responsible for lowering this threshold (Bosma et al., 2015; Leermakers et al., 2018), with others warning of the risks of this approach, such as wrongful arrests and even convictions (Nierop & Van den Eshof, 2015). At its most fundamental, this is a discussion about the presumption of innocence versus the presumption of guilt.

Development of the LEBZ

In the Netherlands a sexual abuse case that drew a lot of media attention was a case from the village of Epe. Between 1990 and 1993 a young woman, Y.v.B., made a series of allegations claiming that she was the victim of a large-scale network of child abusers (Snoyink, 1994). She accused her parents, ex-husband, neighbours, a number of policemen and the village priest and doctor, amongst others, of having systematically and ritualistically abused her throughout the 1980s. She claimed to have been made pregnant 14 times, only for people in the network to have forcibly aborted the children or killed them after they were born. Despite an extensive investigation, no proof was ever found to corroborate her statements. Five suspects, including her parents, were found guilty of incest and received prison sentences (Ruigrok & Gulmans, 2014). The Epe case did not occur in isolation. Around the same time there were a number of sexual assault cases where the evidence was discussed in the media or courts were confronted with experts who contradicted each other, leading to persistent doubt about the outcomes of the court cases (for example the Oude Pekela case in 1987, the Bolderkar case in 1988, and the Lancee case in 1996).

In 1993 the Ministry of Justice instated a working group to research ritual abuse and formulate suggestions for reporting procedures, because potential ritual abuse was the subject of several reports in youth services in 1992. The working group concluded:

There is no evidence, in the Netherlands or elsewhere, for the existence of ritual abuse other than the alleged victims’ testimonies. The existence of the separate elements of the stories about ritual abuse has been documented in police investigations. The combination of these elements in the form of ritual abuse, as told in these stories, has not been sufficiently verified anywhere. (Werkgroep Ritueel Misbruik, 1994, p. 39)

The working group made several recommendations to the police. (a) Check all facts as much as possible and investigate how the story came about. (b) Interview the therapist about the way in which and when the victim disclosed the ritual abuse in therapy. Keep in mind that in therapy the subjective experience of the client is far more important than the question if those experiences have a basis in truth, whilst the opposite is true for police investigations. (c) Try to falsify the victim statements and investigate alternative explanations. (d) Use expert advice, because ritual abuse cases contain elements that are not part of the daily police practice, such as the mental health aspects of victims, sexual homicide and problems with perception and memory.

In 1997 the Minister of Justice asked forensic psychologist Van Koppen for advice on how police should deal with reports that were based on recovered memories. This resulted in the report ‘Recovered Crimes’ (Van Koppen, 1997). The recommendations in the report did not pertain only to recovered memories, but also to charges based on memories of abuse before the age of three and charges based on ritual abuse allegations (Crombag & Merckelbach, 1996; Loftus & Ketcham, 1994). The report gave guidelines for cautious investigations divided in several stages, after each of which decisions on how to proceed should be made. Experts should be consulted, if necessary. Only when the preceding stages had yielded sufficient evidence that conviction of the accused became a reasonable possibility should the investigator proceed with house search and arrest.

In October 1999 the ‘Directions on Criminal Investigations in Relationships of Dependence’ came into force (Aanwijzing, 1999). These Directions were issued by the Board of Procurators General, the highest authority within the prosecution service. They were a mandatory guideline regarding how police should operate and stated that the focus of a criminal investigation must always be investigating facts to ascertain the truth, insofar as this is possible. They mandated that a professional approach must always be taken by sex crime investigators, which entails taking allegations seriously and investigating them conscientiously. Moreover, the Directions highlighted that in some cases the police and public prosecutor must exercise extreme caution about assuming a reasonable suspicion of guilt based on a single report. The implicit objective of the Directions was to ensure that individuals who were accused of sexual abuse would not be arrested too quickly because of the damage this could do to an investigation, to the accused individual, and to the accuser if the case was subsequently abandoned (Nierop & Van den Eshof, 2001).

In the same Directions the Board of Procurators General formally initiated the LEBZ: a multidisciplinary committee for the assessment of equivocal abuse allegations. The public prosecutor was required to consult the LEBZ in certain equivocal allegations before deciding whether to prosecute (in the Netherlands, the prosecutor decides whether to lay charges). This was based on the dual notion that during the investigative phase it is still possible to instruct the police to investigate further, thereby strengthening the case; and, if there are fundamental problems with evidence that cannot be overcome through further investigation, the case can be stopped in a timely fashion, thereby sparing both the complainant and the accused from the damage of a trial that cannot result in a finding of guilt.

Operation of the LEBZ

The role of the LEBZ is not to act as quasi-judicial body or to judge the veracity or reliability of equivocal allegations of sexual assault. Rather, the LEBZ consists of a team of experts including investigative psychologists, sex crime investigators and independent advisers who are experts in memory, cognition and psychopathology. They can review equivocal allegations at any point during an investigation and give advice about the best way to proceed. Several elements of the LEBZ are discussed: equivocal allegations and criteria, and the multidisciplinary nature of the expert committee.

Equivocal allegations and criteria

Equivocal sexual abuse allegations are those in which the details of the alleged offence(s) are uncertain. The circumstances surrounding the offence(s) are ambiguous, there is limited evidence, and it is unclear how the police investigation should proceed. Typical circumstances in which such allegations arise are those in which memory plays a strong role (e.g. allegations of historical abuse or where abuse is recalled during therapy) or where contextual factors around the timing of the allegation may influence reporting (e.g. allegations made by one parent against the other during a contentious divorce; Wagenaar & Crombag, 2005). Effective investigation of these kinds of cases requires expertise in both police and court procedure and psychology (Allan, 2015), making the recommendations of the multidisciplinary LEBZ a key part of the investigation process.

Equivocal abuse allegations in which consultation of the LEBZ was mandatory were allegations of sexual abuse based on recovered memories, allegations based on memories of sexual abuse before the age of three and allegations of ritual abuse (Aanwijzing, 1999). Elements of the report on ritual abuse (Werkgroep Ritueel Misbruik, 1994) and the report on recovered memories (Van Koppen, 1997) were reflected within these criteria. In addition to mandatory consultation, optional consultation of the LEBZ was possible, for example in allegations of sexual abuse that emerged after a divorce, or allegations of abuse that was alleged to have taken place more than eight years ago (historical abuse allegations). Since 1999 there have been several Directives in which the LEBZ was mentioned. Currently, LEBZ consultation is no longer mandatory. However, in practice the original procedure is still followed. Adaptations in the criteria are made in consultation between the police, the public prosecution and the LEBZ coordinators. The formulation of the mandatory criteria for LEBZ consultation has been adapted somewhat (‘aspects of recovered memories’ and ‘aspects of ritual abuse’). Allegations with aspects of ritual abuse had diminished over the years, and in 2016 that criterion was replaced with historical abuse allegations.

Multidisciplinary expert committee

The LEBZ was established in recognition of the fact that sexual assault allegations present greater evidentiary challenges than other types of crime. In many sexual abuse and assault cases the only information about events is from two diametrically opposed statements from the two parties, and no other confirming or exculpatory evidence is available (Westera et al., 2017). Given the importance of statements provided in sexual abuse cases, it is unsurprising that courts have turned to psychologists to assess the veracity (or otherwise) of these statements (Van Koppen, 2017) and the credibility of witnesses (Saunders, 2018). But from an investigative standpoint, talking about veracity and credibility, or how believable a witness or complainant is, makes little sense. It currently is not possible to scientifically determine whether someone is telling the truth (Canter, 2010; Meijer et al., 2016; Sternglanz et al., 2019). Despite a large research literature on detecting deception (see Nortje & Tredoux, 2019, for a recent overview), the only definitive way to corroborate statements is with facts.

While psychologists cannot determine whether a complainant or accused’s statement is true, psychological knowledge and principles can be used to inform criminal and civil investigations. Psychologists can translate knowledge gleaned from research into practical applications that can inform the work of police, judges and jurors. In sexual assault cases this could be relevant to areas such as memory, perception and vulnerability, for example explaining how suggestibility, compliance and collaborative storytelling may influence statements (Merckelbach et al., 2007; Ridley et al., 2013; Wright et al., 2015) or qualifying certain sexualised behaviours exhibited by children (Drach et al., 2001; Hershkowitz, 2011; Vrolijk-Bosschaart et al., 2018).

Of course, each of these topics might require a separate expert, and all their answers are dependent on the quality of the original police investigation. This means that if questions about statements are only asked in court, it is potentially too late: the investigation is closed, and if it was insufficient nothing further can be done. The LEBZ circumvents this problem through its involvement from early in the police investigation. Its recommendations help guide police so that they have the greatest chance of gathering useful evidence, and advise prosecutors about the strength of evidence already gathered when they are considering whether or not to proceed to court.

The LEBZ is a multidisciplinary group of experts from within and from outside the police, consisting of four sections: clinical psychologists, cognitive and forensic psychologists, experienced police officers (sex crime investigators) and investigative psychologists. Four representatives from each of these sections work together on cases to ensure adequate coverage of all aspects, with each expert reviewing the case file independently, before meeting to discuss everyone’s findings. The LEBZ is multidisciplinary to ensure the necessary expertise to review cases, but also so those involved must respect each other’s areas of expertise and stick to their own.

Experts from outside the police are clinical, cognitive and forensic psychologists. They are academics from universities across the Netherlands, and many are also practitioners who provide or have provided expert evidence in court. These experts have demonstrated knowledge and published extensively in their area of expertise that is relevant to the LEBZ (for example, post-traumatic stress and trauma symptomatology, cognitive behavioural processes in dissociative disorders, trauma and memory, the effects of substance use on memory, and interviewing children and vulnerable adults). Experts from within the police are experienced sex crime investigators and investigative psychologists. In the Netherlands, sex crime investigators are certified. They have to meet certain quality and performance standards, which consist of attending specific training and working in a sex crime investigator capacity for at least 24 hours a week. Investigative psychologists are psychologists who are employed by the police and who have completed further accredited training in investigative psychology. Experts are appointed for three years; after that period membership extension is evaluated annually.

The LEBZ is coordinated from within the police by two experienced investigative psychologists. Tasks are intake and planning of the cases, writing about the cases and related subjects, teaching (to public prosecutors, sex crime investigators and investigative psychologists) and giving lectures. Candidate members are identified and put forward by the coordinators of the LEBZ and are instated after approval by the LEBZ section that the expert will be a member of.

LEBZ assessment

A public prosecutor who wants the advice of the LEBZ contacts the coordinators and explains the case. The coordinators decide whether the investigation has been extensive enough to consult the LEBZ at this stage and sometimes advise to first investigate further, for which they can give specific suggestions. When the case is accepted, the public prosecutor sends the complete investigation file to the LEBZ. The coordinators send the file to experts from the four sections. Each group member reviews the file individually and makes draft comments and recommendations. The group then meets to discuss the case in detail, with each member providing comments based on his or her own area of expertise. The investigative psychologist views the police interviews before the case meeting and informs the other experts about any notable content. Also the investigative psychologist chairs the meeting. The experts discuss the case until they agree on the conclusion and the advice. Sometimes there are small differences of opinion about the weight that should be given to certain elements of the case, but until now hardly ever about the conclusion and advice itself. After the case meeting the investigative psychologist writes an extensive draft report, which is then presented to the experts for approval before being sent to the prosecutor and police for their consideration and action. The LEBZ’s recommendation to the public prosecutor is not binding, but follow-up with prosecutors has shown that in practice it is virtually always followed.

There are four key elements of the report: an extensive timeline detailing what is known and its temporal relationship; an analysis of the genesis of and context surrounding the disclosure of the allegation; identification and explanation of any mental health issues or therapy that may influence the investigation; and the (quality of the) police investigation to date. Questions such as when the disclosure occurred, what prompted the disclosure, what was the content of the disclosure and to whom was the disclosure made, are relevant, as are questions about how the suspicion of abuse arose, in what context and how people reacted. How these various aspects of the disclosure relate to each other is mapped out in the case timeline to help examine whether there may have been contamination of the allegation during the disclosure process.

As reflected in the report, the LEBZ assessment focuses not only on the allegation itself, but also on the genesis of the allegation and whether there are alternative scenarios that should be considered as part of the investigation. This is similar to the approach of the Forensic Psychology Center for Children and Adolescents in Helsinki described by Laajasalo et al. (2018), although the LEBZ assesses cases about both children and adults. Experts should examine information that supports the report to the police, but also information that does not. Otgaar et al. (2017) state that to reduce the effect of confirmation bias and increase objectivity, expert witnesses’ reports should contain alternative scenarios, be checked by another expert and focus on the origin and context of the first statement.

Essentially, an allegation of sexual abuse is regarded as a hypothesis. The aim is to falsify or to verify this hypothesis; determine if there are alternative feasible hypotheses based on the information available; and describe which information in the casefile supports or contradicts each of these hypotheses. This leads to a conclusion and a recommendation to the public prosecutor who commissioned the report about whether to continue with the criminal investigation, how that investigation might proceed to elicit useful information and whether to prosecute the person accused. LEBZ reports that advise to continue the investigation always contain investigative suggestions. This can vary from a long list to a single suggestion to, for example, interview a specific witness whose testimony was crucial to the burden of proof.

An LEBZ assessment is essentially attempting to answer two questions. The first question relates to verification: can the allegation be substantiated by facts? This is a legal question and determines the scope within which the expert must operate. The expert cannot offer judgement on the guilt or innocence of the suspect; it is up to a judge or a jury to decide whether there is enough proof to convict a suspect. But experts can review existing statements and other evidence, recommend further investigation and advise about the focus of that investigation. The second question relates to falsification and is twofold: does the casefile contain facts that contradict the report to the police or does the casefile contain factors that have had a fundamentally negative impact on the way the allegations have come about? The first part of the question requires good police work or analytical skills, but the second part is psychological and requires expert knowledge from a variety of different psychological fields, not just to identify the factors at play but also to determine whether they had a negative impact on the case.

The questions that relate to verification and falsification are reflected in the four possible conclusions and recommendations: (a) The casefile contains facts that contradict the report to the police or factors that have had a fundamentally negative impact on the way the allegations have come about: discontinue the investigation. (b) The casefile does not contain any factors that have had a fundamentally negative impact on the way the allegations have come about and includes facts that support the report to the police: continue the investigation and/or prosecute. (c) The casefile does not contain sufficient information, but further investigation is possible: continue the investigation. (d) The casefile does not contain sufficient information, but further investigation is impossible: discontinue the investigation. The assessment of the casefile and the question of the casefile contained sufficient information are closely related to the behavioural questions that play a role in the cases that were submitted. For example, if a report appeared to be based on a memory that was recovered during treatment, it became relevant to interview the therapist.

Discussion

The subject of sexual abuse is complex and emotional. The consequences for victims, both short-term and long-term, can be devastating (Cashmore & Shackel, 2013; Dworkin et al., 2017). Being wrongfully accused of sexual abuse can also be traumatising and have far-reaching consequences (Hoyle et al., 2016). Dealing with such emotional subjects within a legal framework is challenging. On the one hand there is an obvious need to investigate allegations of sexual abuse and bring perpetrators to justice. On the other hand, pursuing cases that are ultimately unsuccessful in court can cause lifelong damage to those who (rightfully) allege the abuse, and to those who have been (wrongfully) accused and found not guilty. Such cases also undermine public confidence in the police and the court system’s ability to hold offenders to account.

Naughton (2019) has attempted to move the discussion beyond the heated and polarised debate about believing or disbelieving allegations of sexual abuse. Where this article earlier referred to the presumption of guilt versus the presumption of innocence, Naughton refers to the ‘Child Protection Discourse’ versus the ‘False Allegations Discourse’. He concludes:

The intrinsic uncertainty of uncorroborated allegations of child sexual abuse and the considerable forms of harm and injustice that can be, and are, caused by taking one side over another based on the belief or disbelief of an uncorroborated allegation of child sexual abuse, signal the need for a rethink of existing ways of dealing with such allegations. Overall, there is a need for an open-minded approach that prioritises the pursuit of truth in investigations to try and ensure that criminal justice system interventions in such an inherently problematic area are just and that they do not cause or contribute to the forms of harm and injustice currently at play. (Naughton, 2019, p. 463)

The LEBZ prioritises the pursuit of truth in investigations by focusing on both verification and falsification. Because many of the issues that arise in equivocal sexual assault allegations require expert knowledge from a variety of fields, a multidisciplinary approach allows allegations to be assessed from several different professional perspectives, thereby reducing the risk of confirmation bias. Investigations can benefit from expert knowledge at a relatively early stage: when there is still the possibility of answering some of the questions that arise when reviewing the casefile, determining (and addressing) a case’s strengths and weaknesses and focusing the investigation. This way accusers and accused can be spared the impact of a criminal investigation and court proceedings if it becomes obvious that this will not lead to a resolution, whilst cases that do proceed are considerably strengthened. Such an approach can also aid prosecutors, judges and juries in reaching a well-founded – legal – decision. For these reasons the LEBZ approach could be considered an open-minded approach, as advocated by Naughton.

The obvious limitation to this article is that it describes an approach that would benefit from further testing and research. It would be good if this approach could be evaluated by an independent third party or, for example, contrasted with expert involvement at a later stage (in court). Also, the LEBZ approach was developed in an inquisitorial system, and it would be good to test its usefulness in an adversarial system and identify the different challenges that would bring. A potential limitation of the actual approach in an adversarial system might be that a ‘do not continue’ advice could close off an avenue for complainants but does not open up any other avenues. In the inquisitorial system in the Netherlands, a complainant can initiate what is called an ‘Article 12’ procedure, whereby the Court of Appeal evaluates the case and the prosecutor’s decision. The Court makes a ruling on whether the case should be pursued after all or not. Arguably, in an adversarial system, there would be value in ensuring there is assistance for complainants or even pairing the LEBZ approach with a procedural justice-based response.

Ethical standards

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Declaration of conflicts of interest

Nicole Nierop has declared no conflicts of interest

Paul van den Eshof has declared no conflicts of interest

Cleo Brandt has declared no conflicts of interest