Ruben Timmerman

This report presents the research findings of a three-month socio-legal study focusing specifically on the development and implementation of ‘safe reporting’ policies as they exist in the Netherlands. It contributes to a broader project carried out by the University of Oxford’s Centre on Migration, Policy and Society (COMPAS) assessing ‘safe reporting’ of crime for victims and witnesses with irregular status in the United States and in Europe. In particular, this broader project intends to explore the legal and political replicability of so-called ‘firewall’ practices across different national contexts.The report has two central aims: first, it provides an overview of the existing Dutch legislation, policies, and practices, at both the national and local levels, relevant to ‘safe reporting of crime’ by irregular migrants, and broadly to assess the effectiveness of these measures. In doing so, it examines the implementation of various legislative instruments and polices, from the European regional level (including the EU Victims’ Directive) to various Dutch national and local ordinances. It focuses in particular on identifying the gaps and ongoing challenges of existing policies and practices in the area of ‘safe reporting’ for irregular migrant victims of crime. The second central aim of this report is to explore the applicability of so-called ‘sanctuary’ or ‘firewall’ policies in the Netherlands, while also identifying and discussing the unique features of the Dutch context that distinguish it both practically and juridically from the US context.

Real and perceived risks of deportation may compromise the effective right of irregular migrants to report to the police if they have been a victim of crime. Some localities have therefore introduced so-called ‘firewall protection’, providing a clear separation between the provision of public services and immigration enforcement. This article explores one such policy in the Netherlands: ‘free in, free out’. While the policy began as a local pilot project, in 2015 it was introduced at the national-level alongside implementation of EU Victim’s Rights Directive, and currently represents the only national-level example of ‘firewall protection’ for victims of crime in Europe. This article is based on a socio-legal study that included interviews with informants from governmental and non-governmental organisations. It documents the legal and social reasons for instituting the policy, while critically assessing the challenges in implementation. Finally, it discusses the lessons and opportun...