Articles

Supreme Court approves criminal liability of suspect refusing to unlock his smartphone

Supreme Court approves criminal liability of suspect refusing to unlo

Supreme Court approves criminal liability of suspect refusing to unlock his smartphone

06.02.2020 BE law

In a groundbreaking judgment, the Belgian Supreme Court (Court of Cassation) states that the investigating judge may order a suspect to provide the access code of his mobile phone. Hans Van Bavel and Charlotte Conings, our specialists in criminal law, shed a light on the judgment.

For several years now, the compatibility of the order to issue passwords and PIN codes to decrypt computers and smartphones and the defendant's right to remain silent is heavily discussed. Judges at first instance and in appeal have answered the question in different ways. Yesterday, the Supreme Court decided on the issue in a case involving a drug trafficker who was prosecuted for refusing to give the access code of two mobile phones found at his premises.  The Court of Appeal of Ghent acquitted him in October. According to the Court of Appeal, the decryption order violated the right to remain silent and the prohibition of self-incrimination. However, the Supreme Court did not follow that line of reasoning.

The Court indicates that the right not to incriminate oneself and the presumption of innocence are not absolute and must be weighed against other rights such as the right to freedom and security and the prohibition of abuse of rights. The main purpose of the right is to avoid false statements made under coercion and thus unreliable evidence, a risk which does not exist in case of a decryption order, according to the Court. Moreover, the information received through coercion is limited (only a key/password/code) and in itself not incriminating. Moreover, the key is only used to make legible what the investigators themselves have found. The latter will, furthermore, have to prove that the accused knows the code. Finally, the right of the accused to defend himself with regard to the unlocked data remains intact.

According to the Supreme Court the obligation to decrypt is vital for truth finding. It refers, in that regard, to the general availability of encryption tools and the current state of technology that often makes it almost impossible to gain access to a secured computer system or encrypted data.

In brief, the Court speaks plainly: an investigating judge may order a suspect to provide information on the operation of computer systems and on the means of gaining access to them. A suspect who refuses to hand over the access code of his mobile phone risks criminal sanctions, including imprisonment.

In the context of this debate, a preliminary question was recently referred to the Constitutional Court. It remains to be seen whether the Constitutional Court will agree with the Supreme Court or whether, on the other hand, the divergent views will be confirmed at the highest level.

For a detailed analysis of the topic, see: CONINGS, C., KERKHOFS, J., “U hebt het recht te zwijgen. Uw login kan en zal tegen u worden gebruikt? Over ontsleutelplicht, zwijgrecht en 'nemo tenetur'”, NC 2018, afl. 5, 457-472 (www.nullumcrimen.be)

Team

Related news

08.07.2020 NL law
Dutch State breached duty of care in providing information to victims and surviving relatives of plane crash

Short Reads - Earlier this year, the District Court in The Hague ruled that the Dutch State is liable vis-à-vis the victims and surviving relatives of a 1992 plane crash in Faro, Portugal. The State was found liable because it is responsible for the information provided by the Dutch Aviation Safety Board (a government agency) to the victims and surviving relatives. This information, on the causes of the crash was deemed by the court to be incorrect and incomplete.

Read more

03.07.2020 NL law
E-book NOW-2: Second Temporary Emergency Bridging Measure Work Retention

Articles - On 17 March 2020, the Dutch cabinet announced the first emergency package of support measures to alleviate the economic consequences of the corona crisis. This emergency package inter alia comprised the First Temporary Emergency Bridging Measure for the purpose of Work Retention (“NOW-1”) and the Temporary Bridging Measure for Self-Employed Persons (“Tozo-1”).

Read more

07.07.2020 NL law
UBO-register gaat van start op 27 september 2020

Short Reads - Vandaag (7 juli 2020) is bekend geworden dat het UBO-register live gaat op 27 september 2020. De Wet tot implementatie van het UBO-register (“Implementatiewet”) en het bijbehorende inwerkingtredingsbesluit zijn vandaag in het Staatsblad verschenen. De wet treedt (deels) al op 8 juli 2020 in werking. Het betreft de verplichting voor rechtspersonen om informatie over hun UBO’s te verzamelen en bij te houden en de verplichting voor stichtingen om uitkeringen van 25 procent of minder bij te houden.

Read more

03.07.2020 NL law
E-book NOW-2: Tweede tijdelijke noodmaatregel overbrugging voor behoud van werkgelegenheid

Articles - Op 17 maart 2020 kondigde het kabinet het eerste noodpakket aan met steunmaatregelen om de economische gevolgen van de coronacrisis te dempen. Onderdeel van dit noodpakket zijn onder andere de Eerste tijdelijke noodmaatregel overbrugging voor behoud van werkgelegenheid (“NOW-1”) en de Tijdelijke overbruggingsregeling zelfstandige ondernemers (“Tozo-1”).

Read more

07.07.2020 NL law
Actualiteiten bescherming Nederlandse ondernemingen

Short Reads - Het afgelopen half jaar zijn er verschillende ontwikkelingen geweest op het gebied van bescherming van Nederlandse ondernemingen. COVID-19 zorgde daarbij voor een stroomversnelling. De verslechterde economische situatie als gevolg van COVID-19 maakt dat ondernemingen sneller bloot kunnen komen te staan aan ongewenste overnames of investeringen. Het Kabinet biedt ondernemingen handvatten ter bescherming tegen ongewenste overnames en investeringen als de nationale veiligheid in het geding komt.

Read more

02.07.2020 NL law
Aansprakelijkheid van de Staat bij vliegtuigcrash in Faro

Articles - In haar uitspraak van 8 januari 2020 oordeelde Rechtbank Den Haag dat de Nederlandse Staat onrechtmatig heeft gehandeld jegens de slachtoffers en nabestaanden van de vliegramp in Faro (Portugal) in 1992, waarbij een Nederlands toestel was betrokken. De onrechtmatigheid is gelegen in onjuiste dan wel onvolledige informatieverstrekking over de oorzaken van deze vliegramp door de toenmalige Raad voor de Luchtvaart, inmiddels opgegaan in de Onderzoeksraad voor Veiligheid (‘Raad’). 

Read more