The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

Partners in Crime - Solving and Reassuring
A Thematic Inspection of Crime Management in Scotland

chapter 5: victims

5.1 Victim Issues

The Criminal Justice system has many players ranging from Sheriffs and Judges to accused persons and victims. Many debates have centred on who is the most important player in that system. Some suggest it must be the accused person as it is he or she who is subject to scrutiny during a trial and it is he or she who is most commonly referred to in legislation relating to the process.

However, in recent years, more emphasis has been placed on the rights of victims. Organisations and institutions from the United Nations, to the Scottish Executive and ACPOS have produced legislation and/or guidance on how victims should be treated. Against this background, HMIC has identified that service to victims by police forces in Scotland, although generally very good, is not always consistent.

The Scottish Executive's 'Strategy for Victims' ²⁴ aims to secure a central role for victims in the criminal justice system. The principles underpinning the strategy are:

• a recognition of the importance of the victim and the need to provide practical and emotional support to assist the victim to recover and towards prevention of further crime or secondary victimisation;
• a commitment to provide explanations for victims about the criminal justice and other processes with which they are involved;
• a recognition that victims have a legitimate interest in the case with which they are involved and so have a contribution to make;
• a commitment to offer victims information on the progress of their case; and
• a recognition that victims should be enabled to have a voice throughout all stages of the criminal justice system.

The wider practical and resource implications for the police service of such a refocusing of the criminal justice system is covered in more detail in the HMIC Thematic 'Relatively Speaking' ²⁵.

5.2 To Report or Not To Report

As mentioned in para 1.1, for many reasons it is evident that police forces only record a proportion of total crime.

It is indicative of different perceptions within the criminal justice system to acknowledge that the initial assessment was to start this inspection at the point when the police became aware of the crime. At the initial meeting of the Advisory Group, the representative of Victim Support Scotland proposed that this was too late. A key issue, he suggested, was what factors determined whether or not victims did in fact report crimes to the police. Accordingly forces were asked what processes, if any, existed to:

• encourage people to report crimes or
• to inform victims debating whether or not to report what the true implications of
  both options may be.

In addition, victims participating in the independent research ²⁶ were asked what had induced them to report the crime and, if they were repeat victims, what factors had encouraged them to formally report or not report previous incidents.

In respect of force responses, HMIC was encouraged to note that some forces supported formalised 3rd party reporting schemes aimed at encouraging vulnerable victims to report crimes. One force has developed a structure through which victims can use one of three designated voluntary organisations as a conduit to report certain classification of crimes. Action, thereafter, is victim led in that they can specify which of the following four categories is most appropriate for them to be placed in:

• Remain anonymous and provide details for police information only with no active investigation.
• Be identified to police only and provide details for police information only with no active investigation.
• Be identified and support police investigation with request that victim need not become formally involved in further proceedings.
• Be identified and support police investigation and subsequent proceedings.

Such policies are positive developments but need the support of other agencies within the Criminal Justice environment.

Mechanisms to support victims have greatly improved in recent years with the police service, partner organisations and support agencies linking to provide practical and emotional support to those in need. These facilities however are generally only accessed by those who have formally reported crimes to the police. As mentioned above, some Scottish forces are more advanced than others in actively encouraging victims to formally make the police aware of crimes. Third party reporting schemes are effective mechanisms for alerting police to specific crimes but some forces could enhance their services to reluctant victims by having a clear policy on how to record and progress investigations. It may be unhelpful to suggest investigations should only continue if the victim formally supports this course of action, as this could encourage certain criminals to intimidate victims into seeking no further action by the police. However, there are some cases where it is apparent the victim will only provide all available information if there is an agreement the matter will not result in a court case with the attendant publicity.

HMIC recognises this to be a sensitive area and referred to the issue in the recent thematic inspection on family liaison ²⁷ but would encourage some further work on the practical implications. It may be appropriate for ACPOS and COPFS to discuss the extent to which vulnerable victims, including those who may be persuaded to use a 3rd party reporting facility, may provide factual information to the police without necessarily becoming witnesses in formal judicial proceedings.

5.3 Repeat Victimisation

Another specific area worthy of comment is repeat victimisation. All Scottish forces employ systems designed to identify repeat victims. This is to provide an opportunity to review the services offered to that victim and provide additional measures, if appropriate, designed to deliver reassurance. Most Forces have employed an IT solution to identify repeat victims, however, in most cases, this IT system only identifies the repeat status following recording of the crime which is almost always after the police have left the victim. Most organisations would prefer to meet the customer's requirements at the first point of contact. In respect of police/victim interaction that would be at the first point of contact (normally the telephone) or first face-to-face contact (normally the officer dispatched to the incident). The key issue is 'How do the police establish at such an early stage if this is indeed a repeat victim?'.

Kent Constabulary have a single contact centre located at Force Headquarters which uses a relatively simple approach. All calls from the public are routed to the contact centre. If the call relates to a crime, it is transferred to a specific bank of operators who record the necessary information, prompted by on-line help menus. One of the first questions asked of the victim is 'Has this ever happened to you before'? If the answer is 'Yes', additional support options are immediately considered. Amongst other things, the next officer having contact with the victim is aware of the repeat victim status.

Clearly there are immense benefits from the Kent Constabulary system including the simplicity of the system and the fact that no matter where and when the person was previously a victim, it is immediately taken into account in the response to the most recent event. On the other hand, some victims may be disappointed they have to advise the police of facts that they believe should be immediately known to police. This may be particularly relevant in cases of repeat domestic violence, where gaining the trust of the victim is a significant responsibility for forces.

One Scottish force is about to launch a 'Vulnerable Persons Database', which will, in time, provide early identification of certain repeat victims and other people.

Once the repeat victim has been identified, HMIC also recommends that forces review their strategies for supporting action. At present there is no national standard or guidance manual prompting the range of measures to be considered. Some forces leave the decisions to the officer investigating the most recent event, supported by his/her local managers. Other forces have some policy guidance, although this is often created at local level and is not necessarily consistent across an entire force.

HMIC fully acknowledges that local action will very often be the appropriate mechanism for resolution but there appear to be many benefits from guidance that reflects best practice across Scotland. One option would be to introduce a common additional chapter to crime reports in all forces. The chapter, which would only apply when a repeat victim was involved, could include a list of options available ranging from security survey or provision of personal attack alarm, through to referral to problem solving policing/multi-agency task groups.

HMIC recommends that Chief Constables implement the following processes with regards repeat victims:

• review their in-force arrangements for identifying all repeat victims at the earliest possible point and preferably before first face to face contact with a police officer
• where necessary, exploit best practice available elsewhere
• carry out a review of policies in respect of action to be taken when a repeat victim is identified (recommendation 13).

5.4 Victim Information Needs

Amongst the more significant challenges being addressed by Scottish Police forces is matching expectation in respect of information and general feedback. Over the years surveys have consistently identified this as an area capable of improvement. That is why HMIC commissioned independent research to address key issues around victim perceptions of policing services within a criminal justice context ²⁸.

The detailed results of this research will be published by the Scottish Executive in the near future, and should be considered in the context of the key themes in this report. In general the perception was of a general sense of professionalism and efficiency. Victims appreciated the extent to which officers had attempted to assist them. They also expressed acute awareness of the time constraints in which many officers operate.

However, victims offered the following as areas capable of improvement.

• Implementing some crime prevention advice is outwith the reasonable means of some victims. Being aware of this can increase feelings of vulnerability
• Some officers tend to deliver more detailed advice to men than women
• Information is not standardised
• Some officers appear unprepared for the emotional impact victims experience following the occurrence of what may be a relatively common crime type.
• Being promised updated information that did not materialise is more frustrating than not receiving the promise in the first place.
• There is an apparent correlation between higher satisfaction levels with the police and officers spending longer with victims.

HMIC acknowledges these issues reflect a small proportion of the totality of interaction between police and victims but considers the matters should not be overlooked.

It is suggested that ACPOS review training to ensure it reflects the reasonable expectations of victims (suggestion 5).

The research did identify that some victims seem to express higher levels of satisfaction if they are reassured by the policing response to a crime, whether or not that crime is actually solved. However, it is apparent that solving the crime often has a very positive impact upon the level of reassurance provided.

Within the scope of the survey, victims generally appeared to have a clear understanding of the role performed by the police, prosecutor and courts. In general, a perceived negative outcome at prosecution or court stage did not manifest itself in the victim recording a lower level of satisfaction in respect of the policing involvement with them. The research also produced evidence of victims expressing concern that the support and reassurance provided directly to them by the police was not matched by the level of support and reassurance from other agencies subsequently involved in the criminal justice process. The fact that those other agencies rarely have direct personal contact with victims may be a factor in this conclusion.

Scottish forces have adopted differing systems to support victim information needs. Some forces leave the decision to the investigating officer as to how and when victims should receive progress reports. Other forces have a policy of lettering most victims at certain stages in the investigation. No one method is considered necessarily better than any other but HMIC considers the key issue is to ensure the feedback is delivered. Most forces require the investigating officer to record on the crime report how and when the victim was provided with a final update. Some forces go further and seek a comment on whether or not the victim appeared satisfied with the service provided. It is implicit that if the victim expresses dissatisfaction, attempts are made to resolve that fact.

HMIC considers there is significant room to improve the supervision and auditing of victim satisfaction levels from the earliest stages of an investigation. As with so many other aspects of the management of crime, Information Technology could provide many of the solutions.

Firstly, no crime report or force policy currently provides specific opportunity to record victim expectations or requirements. To a great extent, it is anticipated that professional and experienced police officers will intuitively identify these and, in turn, deliver them. If this were correct, every victim would record high levels of satisfaction with all aspects of the police investigation. Although most surveys suggest victim satisfaction is generally good, HMIC considers service delivery could be improved by a range of relatively simple proposals:

• Crime Reports in all forces could include a common chapter on victim requirements. This would complement the proposed chapter relative to repeat victims and could contain mandatory fields relating to such issues as
  • Victim expectations: Offering options referred to at paragraph 5.2 relative to Hate Crime victims and also categorising victims who do not wish to support investigations for a variety of reasons ranging from those who only wish to report events to support insurance claims to those non-co-operative victims, many with criminal tendencies, who seek to exact their own retribution without police involvement.
  • Referral to Victim Support or other agency: By creating a specific field for this information rather than it appearing in a section of free text incorporating other information, police managers would more readily identify cases where Victim Support has not been properly offered. Research of a divisional or force database would, in time, identify officers whose referral rate to Victim Support or other agency is below average, thus encouraging appropriate management intervention.
  • Victim Information Requirements: Every victim is unique and individual information requirements are therefore potentially very different. Some victims need the reassurance of regular, perhaps daily, personal contact with progress reports whilst others may only seek knowledge of the conclusion of the process. Indeed some people in the latter category may be content to know that the matter will be investigated and an update will only be forthcoming if there is some development to the investigation. If the victim's reasonable expectation could be captured and recorded in a standard way at an early stage of the investigation, perhaps forces could better deliver against victim expectations.
  • Provision Of Updates: Whilst every force policy requires every investigation to be concluded with a final update to the victim, not every force can audit whether this has been achieved without sometimes painstaking research of every crime report. Inclusion of a mandatory field in a crime report would minimise the risk of this being overlooked. A properly structured field would also identify the average time between report and final update. This would again facilitate appropriate management intervention if an officer was consistently, for example, providing a final update within 48 hours of initial report. Such a short time gap may suggest that officer's investigations were not extensive.
  • Victim Contact Preferences: Contact with many victims in Scotland can be achieved by calling at their home address or by telephoning the same location. However, some victims have a range of contact options including home and business telephone and fax numbers, mobile phone numbers, pagers plus home and business email addresses. Rarely will officers establish all of these from a victim then record which is the preferred method of subsequent contact. HMIC considers such information should be recorded to maximise the benefits of e-technology as outlined in the Information Technology Chapter of this report ( Chapter 4).

HMIC recommends forces review the mechanisms by which victim information needs are identified, recorded, delivered and monitored (recommendation 14).

HMIC recommends ACPOS considers the development of a standard chapter relative to victim issues be incorporated, within an appropriate timescale, within the crime reports utilised by each Scottish force (recommendation 15).

Victim Support Scotland (VSS) is an excellent source of support to victims of crime in Scotland. Following resolution of concerns relating to Data Protection issues, all Scottish forces are referring a sizeable number of victims to VSS. VSS is equipped and willing to support not only the principal victim, but also any person adversely affected by crime.

Currently forces do not refer many people who fit this wider criteria.

HMIC considers those adversely affected by crime to be as entitled to the service of VSS as those who were directly victimised.

HMIC recommends forces significantly increase the number of referrals to VSS in respect of people adversely affected by crime (recommendation 16).

5.5 Linking Victims to the Wider Criminal Justice System

As indicated in Chapter 1, the police service in Scotland is solving more crime today than ever before. It therefore follows that more victims are becoming involved in the criminal justice process as their cases are reviewed by prosecutors and often featuring in trials at court.

The police service remains the visible and accessible arm of the criminal justice system, so far as victims are concerned, and it is to the police service that victims mostly turn for feedback or progress reports relating to prosecution or court decisions. This is outlined fully in the recently published HMIC thematic inspection of family liaison 'Relatively Speaking' ²⁹. However that does not focus on the victims of high volume crimes such as housebreaking or car crime.

Within all Scottish forces, the current policy is that, unless a particular need is identified or unless the investigating officer happens to be aware of a development in the case, then the victim is simply advised the matter is now the subject of a report to the Procurator Fiscal. At that point, police liaison is essentially finished. This is a disappointment to many victims and it would undoubtedly be beneficial for formal feedback to be provided to victims at every stage of the process. HMIC does not consider this task should necessarily fall to the police, in part because the existing criminal justice process does not provide the investigating officer with feedback on progress of the case.

For some victims, and perhaps for many corporate victims, E-technology may provide a suitable solution to providing effective feedback, The principle of victims accessing extracts of data from crime reports is more fully considered at Para 4.7 of this report.

However, in Scotland, at present, there is significant scope for progress in respect of victims of crime that are not classified as major. As outlined, police progress reports to victims tend to conclude when reports are submitted to the Procurator Fiscal. Victims receive no additional details. Indeed one standard letter currently in use in one force, advises victims their case has been referred to 'the appropriate prosecuting authority'. Although technically accurate, such phrases do not really offer a link to the next phase in the process. HMIC considers it would be more appropriate for Procurators Fiscal and Police to agree on a more meaningful input that would formally pass the victim's contact point from the investigating officer to the relevant person within the COPFS. It could remain the task of the police to supply the information to the victim incorporating details such as which office the case has been referred to, the PFs reference number, a contact person and telephone number and an indication of timescale before a decision is taken on the case.

HMIC acknowledges the practicalities of raising expectations and the finite capacity of resources, but considers it reasonable that if the interests of the victim genuinely are to be looked after throughout the entire criminal justice process, then arrangements in this area need to be kept under review.

HMIC recommends ACPOS in liaison with COPFS review how respective responsibilities might be addressed in relation to how victims of volume crimes including housebreaking and car crime receive progress reports relative to their particular case once the case is forwarded to COPFS (recommendation 17).

5.6 SAVAN Scheme - North Carolina Police

North Carolina's Statewide Automated Victim Advice Notification Scheme (SAVAN) is a good example of providing quality progress reports. Supported by an information structure not unlike ISCJIS ( see para 6.2), officials in North Carolina proactively alert victims to the next event that will take place in relation to their case. At first point of contact with police, all victims, other than those who choose to opt out of this universally available scheme, agree on a preferred method of contact for progress reports. Thereafter they are advised of changes during the investigation phase, prosecution decisions, dates of all court hearings, dates of parole hearings etc. If the offender is imprisoned, victims are also alerted to when and to where the offender will be released from prison.

« Previous | Contents | Next »