During the recent Senate debate about the constitutional state some senators expressed a concern about the tensions between the legislature and judiciary. The problems of overburdening, underfunding and instrumentalisation of the judiciary have a long history. The legislature has a tendency to overburden himself and the other powers of state, like the judiciary, notwithstanding the official policy to be reserved with regard to the responsibilities of government. The judiciary must adapt itself to an ever more prominent role in the constitutional state. The judiciary also has to generate its own legitimacy and cannot consider this to be a function of the legitimacy basis of the democratic legislator. The legislator for his part has all kinds of democratic wishes and expectations on how the judiciary can increase its own legitimacy basis by dealing quicker with more cases. In this context, the minister strongly adheres to the maxim that justice delayed is justice denied. The working methods of the judiciary have shown small and gradual steps in the direction of a more responsive and communicative procedure. However, the judiciary is not able to transform all its ideas into concrete initiatives and to transform successful initiatives into settled practices.

Judges in the Netherlands have recently expressed their concerns in the media over the organization of the judiciary and the pressure to deliver output. At the same time, they consider themselves highly loyal to their work. In this article we explore this seeming contradiction by studying the developments in the selection, training and organisation of the judiciary and considering the consequences that these developments could have on the loyalty of judges. In doing so, a distinction is made between loyalty to the profession, to the organisation and to colleagues. We follow Hirschman's theory on Exit, Voice and Loyalty and determine that the act of judges expressing their concerns (instead of exiting the judiciary) is essentially a sign of their loyalty. However, we reason that this displays more loyalty to the profession than to the organisation. Due to changes in the selection and training of judges, more candidates who were formerly employed in other settings, e.g. in advocacy, will enter the profession. With their socialisation taking place in a more business-like setting, where values such as efficiency and productivity are significant, it is expected that they will be more willing to accept the new public management values which are criticized by the present generation of judges.

Recently there have been several miscarriages of justice in the Netherlands, which were widely reported in the media. They show that much can go wrong with legal proof in criminal cases and that judges sometimes give limited justification for their decisions. Insights from the so-called story-based approach to legal proof can potentially assist to improve and to critically assess judicial decisions in criminal cases, thereby helping to reduce the chance of mistakes. The story-based approach involves constructing and critically analyzing at least two stories about what (might have) happened in a case that explain the evidential data. These stories have to be compared to each other in order to decide which story is the most plausible. The judge has to include the different scenarios in his judgment and he must explain why the scenario he had chosen is the most plausible. In my paper I first discuss why it is important that judges justify their decision in a verdict. Then I explicate the story based approach. After that I explain how applying the story based approach in the motivation can be useful and help to reduce the chance of a miscarriage of justice.

This article reports on an explorative empirical research project on the experiences and opinions of litigants and judges with respect to a new way of handling court cases in administrative law, in which an early contact between parties is initiated and the judge tries to solve the conflict via mediation techniques. Fourteen case files have been analyzed, fourteen court sessions have been observed and thirteen litigants and five judges have been interviewed. Considering the limited scope and the explorative character of the project, it obviously can provide no general or final conclusions. Nonetheless, the research does provide a number of useful indications regarding how the respondents have experienced the new way of working. It also shows how theories on litigation and procedural fairness are implemented by judges in the daily routine of court hearings.