The HCR-20V3 is a violence risk assessment tool that is widely used in forensic clinical practice for risk management planning. The predictive value of the tool, when used in court for legal decisionmaking, is not yet intensively been studied and questions about legal admissibility may arise. This article aims to provide legal and mental health practitioners with an overview of the strengths and weaknesses of the HCR-20V3 when applied in legal settings. The HCR-20V3 is described and discussed with respect to its psychometric properties for different groups and settings. Issues involving legal admissibility and potential biases when conducting violence risk assessments with the HCR-20V3 are outlined. To explore legal admissibility challenges with respect to the HCR-20V3, we searched case law databases since 2013 from Australia, Canada, Ireland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the UK, and the USA. In total, we found 546 cases referring to the HCR-20/HCR-20V3. In these cases, the tool was rarely challenged (4.03%), and when challenged, it never resulted in a court decision that the risk assessment was inadmissible. Finally, we provide recommendations for legal practitioners for the cross-examination of risk assessments and recommendations for mental health professionals who conduct risk assessments and report to the court. We conclude with suggestions for future research with the HCR-20V3 to strengthen the evidence base for use of the instrument in legal contexts.
Individuals in multiproblem situations frequently seek frontline legal support. The support by frontline legal professionals is limited by its focus on the legal issue instead of the underlying problems. A strong focus on client values – i.e. on the outcome that these services yield in the client’s perception – may lead to a more effective approach by targeting underlying problems. Through individual interviews with clients and professionals, the current study examines client values and services that may contribute to those client values. Besides functional client values that focus on resolving the problem situation, emotional client values, such as trust prove at least as important. Furthermore, client values are not only supported by the professional’s legal expertise, accessibility and ability to build a relationship, but also by the professional’s knowledge and skills relevant to multiproblem situations, such as his ability to empower the client, the willingness to work on concrete needs, and his ability to adopt an integrated approach. Research findings confirm the relevance of an integrated approach to multiproblem situations, with due attention to different client values. Similarly, it proves important to incorporate skills and knowledge that specifically address multiproblem situations in education and training programmes of frontline legal professionals. Nederlandse samenvatting: Mensen in multiprobleem situaties maken veelvuldig gebruik van eerstelijns rechtshulp. De ondersteuning door eerstelijns rechtshulp wordt beperkt door de focus op de voorliggende rechtsvraag, in plaats van de onderliggende problematiek. Een sterke focus op klantwaarden – de opbrengsten van de dienstverlening in de ogen van de cliënt – zou weleens tot een effectievere werkwijze kunnen leiden, omdat de achterliggende problemen worden aangepakt. Aan de hand van diepteinterviews onder cliënten en professionals is onderzocht welke klantwaarden voor deze doelgroep relevant zijn en welke dienstverleningsaspecten daaraan kunnen bijdragen. Naast functionele klantwaarden gericht op oplossingen voor de probleemsituatie, blijken emotionele klantwaarden als vertrouwen en ontzorging minstens zo relevant. Ook dragen niet alleen juridisch vakmanschap, bereikbaarheid en de vaardigheden om met de klant een relatie op te bouwen van de professional aan klantwaarden bij, maar ook specifieke kennis en vaardigheden gericht op multiproblematiek, zoals de vaardigheid om de klant te empoweren, de bereidheid om te werken aan concrete behoeften, en het werken met een geïntegreerde aanpak. De onderzoeksbevindingen onderstrepen de relevantie van een integrale aanpak bij multiproblematiek met aandacht voor diverse klantwaarden. Evenzo blijkt van belang dat vaardigheden en kennis die specifiek gericht zijn op multiproblematiek in de opleiding van eerstelijns rechtshulp professionals worden geïncorporeerd.
This report relates to the Horizon 2020 project entitled ‘Making City’. The report was conducted by the Hanze University of Applied Sciences to the benefit of theMunicipality of Groningen and other consortium partners in the Making City project and addresses the legal impediments that may arise when creating and achieving a Positive Energy District (PED). In doing so, it specifically addresses the situation in the city of Groningen and the legal framework of the Netherlands.This report highlights legal developments of (upcoming) EU and mostly Dutch legislation related to a PED, such as the Collective Heat and Supply Act (Warmtewet) and the Environmental Act. Moreover, smart contracts used in the Block chain technology is discussed and a chapter on Intellectual Property legislation is included which becomes relevant when using new innovations and technologies. Furthermore, it identifies certain legal barriers that emerged in the establishment of the Groningen PED.
