In today’s complex security landscape, gathering intelligence is no longer the problem. Using it is.
In recent interviews with Jean-Paul Laborde, who served for 22 years in the French criminal justice system as judge, assistant Prosecutor-General, Chief Prosecutor and Head of the National Service for the Inspection of Penitentiary Services, and former Irish investigator Liam Ennis, we explored why so much valuable intelligence never makes it into a courtroom. What emerged were two parallel realities: the practical constraints of covert operations, and the procedural hurdles of legal systems across Europe.
“You gather everything covertly… and yet you might not use any of it in court.” – Liam Ennis
1. Why Intelligence Often Dies Before Trial
Investigators use surveillance, informants, and other sensitive tools to gather actionable intelligence. But this evidence often cannot be used in court without exposing sources or methods—especially if it wasn’t obtained under tight legal protocols. Our expert recalls cases where even proven terrorist plots couldn’t be prosecuted because using the intel would have revealed national security capabilities.
2. The Risk Dilemma
Officers and agencies must constantly decide: do they act now and lose access forever, or wait and risk letting a crime happen? These are not just operational decisions—they’re ethical and strategic dilemmas that shape real outcomes.
“If I use the intel, I burn the source.”
“We gather intel. They want certainty.”
3. Friction Between Police and Prosecutors
In common law systems, the police often complete investigations before involving prosecutors. But prosecutors, measured on conviction rates, are less willing to take risks—especially in complex, intelligence-heavy cases. According to our expert, “the prosecutors only go to court if they have an 85% chance of conviction”. This creates systemic tension between those who gather intelligence and those who present it in court.
4. A Different Logic in Civil Law
Civil law jurisdictions like France and Spain operate differently. Investigating judges can oversee and direct police work. Theoretically, this helps manage legal thresholds from the start—but even here, tensions remain between judicial oversight, operational secrecy, and evidentiary standards.
“In our system, for serious crimes, the judge leads the investigation.” – Jean-Paul Laborde
5. What Needs to Change?
Better legal frameworks for using intelligence as evidence
Stronger collaboration between law enforcement and prosecutors
Common training and trust-building mechanisms across jurisdictions
Clear risk protocols for when intelligence can and should be disclosed
This is what the EU Global Facility on Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism has been striving for through its Financial Intelligence to Evidence Workshop Series.
Designed to bring together law enforcement, prosecutors, financial intelligence units, and judicial actors from partner countries, this workshop makes them work through real-life case scenarios led by operational experts.
It seeks to help national stakeholders understand how to transform financial intelligence into admissible evidence—within the legal and operational constraints of their own systems. More than just technical training, these sessions foster trust, coordination, and a shared language between agencies that rarely collaborate so closely.
This project is funded by the European Union.