Reply to questionnaire on alternative measures to prosecution

1.

Iceland follows a system of discretionary prosecution, in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure No. 19/1991. The prosecution can decide to suspend indictment and to waive prosecution, as stipulated by the Code of Criminal Procedure. The situation in relation to descretionary prosecution has not changed during the last two years nor is a change envisaged.

In 2006 indictment was suspended in 0,8 % of cases received by the prosecution in Iceland and 3,9 % were resolved with a decision to waive prosecution.

In 2005 indictment was suspended in 1,4 % of cases and 4,3 % were resolved with a decision to waive prosecution.

2.

The Icelandic Ministry of Justice in co-operation with the Director of Public Prosecution is currently running a two year test programme of conflict resolution as an alternative to prosecution. The test period runs from the beginning of the year 2007 until the end of 2008. The Director of Public Prosecutions has issued guidelines stipulating offences which may be resolved in this manner. Conflict resolution can not be applied unless both victim and offender give their consent.

3.

The prosecutor decides whether a case shall be referred to conflict resolution.

4.

The Director of Public Prosecutions has issued guidelines stipulating the following offences which may be resolved in this manner:

• theft
• entering private property without permission
• threat
• destruction of property
• minor bodily assault
• minor assault against a civil cervant
• car theft

According to the guidelines conflict resolution may be especially appropriate in cases involving young offenders, although there is no specific age requirement. The offender must have admitted to the offence. Only cases where punishment is not expected to exceed fine or suspended sentence may be resolved in this manner.

Prosecution is waived by referral to a section of the Code of Criminal Procedure which reads that a decision may be taken not to prosecute in specific cases when not considered to be against the public interest.

5.

Provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure on permission to waive prosecution are not restricted to minor offences. Accordingly this could happen.

6.

Victims are informed of the decision not to prosecute and can appeal the decision to a higher prosecution authority.

7.

A decision not to prosecute is not subject to judicial control per se. However a victim can file a private case before the courts claiming damages etc.

8.

Experience with conflict resolution is promising. Surveys have revealed positive comments from both offenders and victims who have undergone the procedure. However since this programme has only been under way for one year it is difficult to draw conclusions from it when it comes to prevention of reoffending.

9.

The test programme of conflict resolution is closely followed by a committee of experts. Questionnaires have been sent to victims and offenders who have undergone the procedure. In december 2007 the committee issued a report assessing the effectiveness of the programme so far.

10.

The Director of Public Prosecutions is represented in the committee of experts responsible for the test programme of conflict resolution. This office can be contacted by the e-mail address:  [email protected]  .

11.

No further comments.