« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
The Interface between the Scottish Police Service and the Public as Victims of Crime: Victim Perceptions
CHAPTER SIX: INTERVIEWS WITH CORPORATE VICTIMS
REPORTING THE INCIDENT
Reason for reporting the crime
There was a variety of reasons why corporate victims chose to report crimes to the police. Some reported that they did so as a matter of company policy:
"Well, basically, it was just the first, our policy just, we contact the police first." (38 year-old male, commercial housebreaking victim).
Others were more concerned that a crime had been committed and that therefore attempts should be made to apprehend the offender:
"Well basically, just so that hopefully at the end of the day the person that's committed the crime would be taken to task for it" (30 year-old male, victim of both types of crime).
"A crime had been committed, I wanted them caught." (30 year-old female, victim of both types of crime).
However, since most of the respondents were representatives of relatively small concerns (in several cases they were the owners of the companies) it is likely that offences against their organisations would be viewed in a more personal and potentially more punitive light than by those working for larger concerns.
Only one respondent mentioned that they had any hopes of their property being returned;
"I suppose to catch the criminal, to get the stolen objects back." (35 year-old male, both types of crime).
Other victims felt that apprehending offenders would help prevent further offending:
"I just thought it seemed to be the correct thing to do. I mean I knew a lot of the time if it's a minor one it's very difficult for them to find anybody, but I just thought in case there might have been another break-in in the night, they might have been able to get somebody, you know, just by chance." (47 year-old male, both types of crime).
Method of reporting the incident
All of the corporate victims interviewed had chosen to report the incidents by telephone, with 10% using the Emergency 999 service, and 90% contacting their local police station. The single respondent who used the 999 service felt that by doing so he would receive a faster response form the police.
"I suppose the answer to that is, quick response." (35 year-old male).
Those reporting to their local police station felt that it was inappropriate to use the 999 emergency service for crimes that they did not consider to be emergencies.
"It was telephone because it's the most convenient way and local, just because I didn't think it required 999."
"Well it wasn't an emergency … it would have been a waste of a 999."
It seemed the only way, I mean the crime was done by the time I, you know, it had happened so there was no emergency, there was no point in dialling 999. It was just a, they'd been and gone and the obvious thing was to phone the police.
One person (working in a shop) used the telephone because "… you can't just leave the shop to go find a police officer". In general the telephone was felt to be the quickest and most convenient method of reporting while being able to remain at the scene of the crime and thus maintain its integrity.
Direct involvement in crime
Some 40% of this cohort of victims reported that they had themselves been involved in the crime to some extent. Their experiences ranged from being woken in the middle of the night because they were key holders, to being witness to an assault against a member of staff, and discovering a credit card fraud at an hotel.
Perceived threats to self and others
When asked if they or any other member of staff were in any immediate perceived danger at the time of the crime, 20% of respondents reported that other members of staff had been physically assaulted during the incidents.
"A bloke assaulted a member of staff when I was there."
"Yes, we've got two related crimes here that we're talking about and the second time they came back and they beat the guy up in the 24 hour service station."
Another respondent reported experiencing a feeling of danger due to the drunken state of the offender.
Apart from the threat of physical assault, the only other perceived threat was of financial loss to the company which was mentioned by one respondent. No other respondents had experienced or anticipated any threat to themselves or other members of staff. Amongst the corporate cohort 80% reported that they had made it clear to the police at the time of reporting the incident that no employees were at risk. One was unable to remember and another (an instance of forecourt car theft and damage which had occurred at night) maintained ' There wasn't really much need, that was pretty obvious'.
Response times
In the majority of cases respondents reported satisfaction with response times by the police to initial reports. However, one respondent reported that it had taken two telephone calls and four hours before the police attended the scene. In this particular instance the slow response by police had caused a small amount of disruption to the organisation that had sealed off the area of the break-in, which meant that it was practically the whole day before that area could be utilised. In 40% of cases amongst this cohort the response time was viewed as the main concern by victims. Other respondents had other priorities which included:
"How we were going to explain to the customer that their car had been stolen?"
Other respondents took a more pragmatic view of events
"Well I had other things that I could have been getting on with so it was inconvenient, but what do you expect, they are busy all the time up here."
Response received from the police
The actual response in terms of officers attending and procedures observed appears to have been considered favourably by most respondents and to meet their expectations. Initial responses tended to comprise a visit from two uniformed officers with, where appropriate, additional attendance by CID officers and scene of crime officers.
Six of the cohort expressed their satisfaction with the police response to their reporting of the incident:
"I will give them their due, they did actually know about, that we had three cars stolen and they knew the whereabouts of two of them and that's before I even reported it."
"Very quick, instant, minutes"
and two claimed they were 'very satisfied'. Two said they were not satisfied at all, with one of the latter group being very dissatisfied because the slow response time caused operational difficulties in carrying on working with an area cordoned off:
"After the initial report would have been, yes it would have been about four hours from the initial report."
Another member of the latter group had experienced an earlier incident in which the response was initially less than satisfactory but their experience had later improved:
"There was one in particular, which we weren't very happy with and the police .... with a little bit of pressure and persuasion from ourselves they actually came up trumps."
Communication by attending officers regarding the progression of cases at the stage of initial attendance was reported by five of the cohort as being non-existent or at best vague. However five reported that they were kept well informed. All of those respondents who reported having been supplied with information as to how their case would be progressed were in the Inverness area. No respondents outside the Inverness area reported such information being supplied at the point of initial contact. One of the respondents who reported that he had been well informed as to the way that the enquiry would progress felt that he received preferential treatment due to his wife being a civilian employee of the police. Despite the seemingly negative experience of five of the cohort, only two of the total group felt that at the initial stage of the investigation it would have been helpful to have more information. Comments included:
"No, we don't have time for that kind of conversation … it's a fact of life today."
"No, we are talking about the middle of the night here, who needs to hear more of that stuff?"
With regard to the issue of victims receiving the help that they felt that they needed, five gave an unqualified 'yes'. In addition, one respondent in the cohort reported that he felt that he received the necessary help in the initial phase immediately after the incident, but that the service provided subsequently failed when it came to following up with feedback on progress of the case.
From the whole cohort only one respondent reported that she was herself experiencing any problems in relation to the crime. Her problem manifested itself in an increased mistrust of people. It is interesting that this respondent was the only female in the cohort, in that it may be that women are more prepared to accept that such events are likely to be distressing than are men. One male reported that while he was himself not experiencing any problems resulting from the incident, a member of staff who was assaulted at the time had had to undergo a lifestyle change as a result.
Interestingly again, when discussing the costs both financially and psychologically of the incidents, while all respondents were quite prepared, sometimes at length, to describe the financial costs, only the female respondent was prepared to acknowledge any psychological costs. The financial costs varied from negligible to 20,000. The female respondent had lost approximately two stones as a result of the incident which she said was due to the anxiety she experienced, and continued to experience about possible repeat victimisation.
In terms of cost to the community, five of respondents felt that costs must be high as a result of offenders carrying out multiple offences as opposed to the relatively few offences they had experienced themselves. Other respondents felt that costs to the community were slight and did not view costs incurred in police time and resources as being either significant or ultimately paid for by the community.
The views expressed by seven respondents about the general level of service they received from the police were positive, with another respondent giving qualified approval. The 70% majority of respondents included those who felt that the public and police were let down by the justice system when suspects were apprehended and either returned to the community or prosecutions had failed to achieve convictions. As one respondent put it,
"… the police have caught the people, the police have got the evidence of the people and then, as far as I'm concerned, the justice system allows these people to run free for a long period of time to continue to do the same crime again …"
Another respondent felt that the police are in a 'no-win' situation and described the outcome of an offence that he had experienced as follows:
"I had wheels stolen off a car, the culprit was actually caught and charged and the Procurator Fiscal took no action. So, I mean, that must be pretty soul destroying for the police as well, as well as me."
One additional respondent felt that the police were not responding as quickly as they should and one respondent described the general level of service as "terrible". The respondent who described the service as terrible felt particularly aggrieved after supplying information that identified the offender, which she believed the police had failed to act upon. Amongst those who gave positive reports on the general level of service many expressed the view that the police were doing all that could be expected of them with the limited resources available for the less serious forms of volume crime that this study focuses on.
PROGRESS OF THE CASE
Information and liaison
On the issue of the kind of evidence that the police would need to obtain and how they would achieve that, the majority (eight respondents) of the corporate cohort claimed that they had not been given any information of this type.
A topic that caused widespread disappointment for respondents was that of not being updated with the progress of their cases by the police. While in 80% of cases respondents had been informed verbally by investigating officers that they would be informed of progress, feedback was subsequently forthcoming in only 50% of cases.
In only one instance within this cohort did a respondent ask for further information from the police. Another respondent claimed that the police were
"… very vague with everything. They said that the crime was ongoing, didn't really give me an answer."
It was reported by seven respondents that they had been told of a named officer who would deal with their cases while three could not confirm this. Five respondents said that they had been content with this situation, while others felt that it was a pointless exercise since:
"… they're not going to tell you anything anyway."
and
"I wasn't happy because he was never there."
When respondents were asked if they had been informed about other sources of support available such Victim Support or crime prevention officers, five replied that they had been provided with leaflets about Victim Support and crime prevention but in only one instance had a crime prevention officer paid a visit. In addition one further respondent had been informed about Victim Support but had not taken the matter further. All of the respondents who had been given information about both Victim Support and crime prevention were located in the same police force area.
While eight respondents felt that additional information about other services would not have been helpful or were ambivalent about such information, two felt that it would have been of assistance. One respondent commented:
"Yes, I suppose it would have been now that I look back, but at the time I never really thought about it to be honest that much, but Victim Support is about three doors away from my shop and I didn't even know it existed."
In instances where victims had been given advice or information, only two respondents reported that they had made use of it:
"Just upgraded security."
"Yes, I mean there was a couple of small things that was suggested that we did."
As a result of the advice on security offered one respondent reported taking additional measures to safeguard their future security. Comments included:
"We've changed our security company, upgraded cameras, just generally tightened things up, put in more locks and stuff."
However, when asked what measures they had taken as a result of the crime rather than as a result of any advice offered by the police, four respondents reported specific measures including the following:
"A fair bit, tightened up security, external doors and locks and stuff like that."
"We've upgraded the locks on all the roller doors and all external doors we've secured."
"I put in CCTV … I put in an extra lock on the front door. I've changed all the locks on the back doors. Also, money wise, security is tight with us. I changed my bank as well because the bank I'm with now is just a few steps away from my shop."
"Well, I put lights at the back where I didn't have them before."
All the corporate respondents were unanimous in their opinion that there was a joint responsibility between the police and the individual/company for the safety of their staff and property. One respondent was careful to point out however, that
"I would have said joint, mainly myself. I have to make sure the premises are secure and I can keep the staff as safe as possible… but I also think they have a role to play."
Crimes that were/were not solved
As stated earlier, it is very difficult to extrapolate any significant quantitative data from these sections due the volume and variety of crimes that have been committed against the corporate victims and the small numbers involved. Therefore, crimes that were solved and those which were not have been analysed together in order to gain a better understanding of the situation.
When asked to comment about any information received from the police regarding other criminal justice agencies, the majority of respondents stated that they had not been offered this type of information. However, when asked if this information would have been useful to them the majority stated that this information was not important to them. Comments included:
"I don't think so, to be honest, I can't really think of a reason why they needed to."
"No, most people know that stuff anyway."
Outcome of the case/s
Again, there was a great deal of mixed information supplied by respondents who found it difficult to comment on specific cases. However, many respondents made general comments about the outcome of a few cases of which they had direct experience. Examples of the comments follow:
"There was a conviction in the majority, yes. The two incidents of TVs being stolen, we never did get anyone for that but certainly in the incidents of the credit card fraud, the vandalism and the fighting, the fighting one there was people prosecuted."
"I seem to remember there was a couple solved but, well they knew who did it and one was charged and it was thrown out."
"So no, I don't think there was any actual conviction. There was one that a guy did about twenty places in the one night, so he did get put down but it wasn't specifically for mine but I was part of it. There was one conviction."
"One was, well there was three arrested. One was released without charge. The other one plea bargained his way out of it, he got two hundred hours community service, banned from driving for two years and a year's probation…".
"…. Actually, in any case that I've ever been involved with, the first time you actually hear that somebody has been charged is when you get their defence lawyers writing to you wanting to take a statement. You never ever hear anything from the police."
"In the case of the break-in they got the people involved and they went to court, we didn't hear what happened after that."
Similarly, when respondents were asked if they were informed about the outcome of the case, the information supplied during the interviews was difficult to interpret. However, in the majority of cases respondents commented that they had never been officially informed about the outcome of the case. An example of a typical response follows:
"Well one of them is actually relatively recent. The other one is quite old and in all honesty I can't really answer that truthfully because I don't really remember. There could well have been something that's come in, it could well be ongoing, I don't know."
However, when asked if it would be useful to be given this follow-up information from the police, the majority of respondents felt that it would be a worthless endeavour, often acknowledging that such an exercise would put a further drain on limited police resources.
"I couldn't have cared really. I mean when it's just minor things, you know … and you know if somebody pinches a car radio, the chances of them getting anybody are pretty remote. So I just like to forget about, you just accept that it's an ongoing cost and hope the cost keeps down, you don't want to get too many."
OVERALL SATISFACTION
Respondent were asked to comment about how satisfied they had been about the outcome of the cases. There was a very mixed response to this question with the majority of respondents commenting that they were generally unsatisfied at the outcome of the case, however their criticisms were aimed at the perceived leniency of criminal justice system, and not directly at the police. Some examples follow:
"It was okay, but as I say they, they get sentenced to six months and they will be back out in two, to do it all again."
"Not at all satisfied but in my eyes, these people that have committed the same offence twice, I am sure, unless they're in for something else, they're still able to come and penetrate my premises regardless of what I do."
"Not very, because when the police managed to catch somebody and charge them and then the Procurator Fiscal decides that it wasn't worth carrying on, that's not very satisfactory but I mean, that's not the police's fault, that's the system."
"Well, personally speaking, the outcome of the ones that they actually got, no I didn't think that was appropriate to let somebody off because you're more or less saying that, and that was the Fiscal I would have a problem with, because he's more or less saying, well you're giving somebody the opportunity to do it again."
"To me that was totally unacceptable. I mean even if it was a case of, OK we can't clog up the courts with it, there should be some sort of system where he gets a set fine or something, you know, he shouldn't get off with it or a yellow card and if you get two yellow cards you go to jail, something like that, I don't know. There should be some sort of system."
Professionalism of the police
Respondents were asked to comment about their experiences of dealing with the police in terms of the professionalism employed when dealing with a case. Ten respondents commented that the police had always acted professionally and only one stated that they did not. Respondents where then asked if they were satisfied with the overall treatment that they had received from the police. Eight respondents stated that they were happy and three stated that they were not happy with the overall treatment. Of the three who commented that they were unhappy, only one respondent complained about the actual treatment he had received from an individual police officer. The other two respondents made comments about the lack of follow-up communication, as the following quotations demonstrate:
"No outcome... Yes, any contact I had with them here I was shut aside with, they seemed to be very professional when they were here but it was just them getting here."
"I would have to say no. The initial yes but in general, no. My personal perception again comes into this that says, I reported it, that's it."
When asked if they felt that the cases were handled in an appropriate way the great majority of respondents (nine) commented that the cases had been dealt with in an appropriate way.
Perceptions of bad practice
Respondents were asked to comment on any ways in which the service that they had received from the police could be improved. The comments offered in this section mirrored the comments that emerged from the corporate focus group discussion. One respondent commented on perceived bad practice from an individual police officer in terms of the treatment that he had received. This respondent claimed that the officer in question acted in a condescending manner towards him: the officer told the respondent to 'calm down'. However, it must be stated that this was an isolated incident, which involved an individual's personal perception, and does not reflect on the general comments of the delivery of police services as perceived by the other respondents. This does, though, mirror some of the comments raised by the individual respondents about the perceived lack of sensitivity from some officers in relation to the delivery of services. This respondent commented that:
"I think that they've obviously been taught how to deal with a victim of crime and I think to calm me down, telling me to calm down is not the answer."
In general, parallels can be drawn with the corporate focus groups, inasmuch as the majority of respondents made criticisms that were directed at specific aspects of the criminal justice system and not directly at the police. Many respondents expressed sympathy for the police whom they perceived to be doing the best job possible with very limited resources, while the criminal justice system was perceived as taking a very lenient stance against criminals in general. Some comments follow:
"But the police do their job and then the Procurator Fiscal lets them off with it with a slap on the wrist…what's the point there then?"
"Yes, by justice. I have to say that when people have been charged for something, I think the length of time that it takes to basically, go through the systems if you like, is far too long, which in my occasion causes people to re-offend."
"From the police's point of view, I can't see it, no. I can't really see it, you know, what they can do. Their hands are tied really aren't they?"
"Yes, the Fiscal could have not done his plea bargaining bit."
Similarly, it was also highlighted that in certain circumstances many crimes against businesses go unreported because of lack of resources. This was especially relevant to respondents working in the retail industry, and again comparisons can be drawn from the information received from the corporate focus group discussion. Some examples follow:
"Maybe if there were more police on the streets it would act as a better deterrent…you know prevention is better than cure."
"More police about…that would maybe be a deterrent to crime."
"We can't hold everyone whom we suspect might be shoplifting…I mean that's a violation of their rights…we would end up in the dock…so we have to let it go unreported."
Perceptions of good practice
Respondents were asked to identify any examples of good practice from their experience as a victim of crime and their involvement with the police. Again, as with the corporate focus groups, there was a general agreement that the police offer the best services possible under the circumstances. Similarly, good practice was measured in terms of resources available and the perceived associated limitations. Many respondents commented extensively about how the criminal justice system lets the police down to some degree as the following quotations illustrate:
"Well, they work under extreme pressure all the time and get very little credit for it, people are always quick to point the finger at them if something goes wrong but they rarely get any credit…. I couldn't do their job."
"Yes, the police do their job and it's pointless in most cases… the police send them (perpetrators) away with a warning but they just come back another day…what can you do? The system needs a good shake up. I would like to add that every time the police are called no matter how trivial the matter, they respond…it must be a pain for them to be running back and forwards chasing away people. Then the courts give the ones involved a lump of sugar and a pat on the head …you know the ' that's a good boy, don't do it again' routine. It has to be soul destroying for the police, they do all the work and the courts just let them walk. Where is the justice in that?"
Other respondents made comments about specific aspects of the service raising issues like the response time with statements like, " I would just say the promptness of everything". The same respondent commented that:
"There's been other incidences where our alarm has been triggered falsely through the night and the majority of times, I would say seven out of ten times, the police…they're on site at the property….they haven't even been phoned, they've just been driving past."
Another respondent commented that what he had perceived as good practice was the fact that the police always respond regardless of the crime.
"Well, I suppose even though it was a relatively minor crime, they still bothered to take fingerprints and do things like that, you know, they had their scenes of crime guys down and all that."
Another respondent who was very frustrated about what he perceived as very limited results in relation to the outcome of crimes that had been committed against him commented that:
"I don't know if it was all bad. I do remember they were very polite, well there was one that was very polite. As far as the crime itself goes, I can't really say anything positive about them."
Finally, respondents were asked if they would like to add any further comments. FIve of the respondents stated that they were happy that they had covered all of the issues that they wished to discuss. The others reiterated some of the points that they had made throughout the interview. However, a few respondents made additional comments about how the criminal justice system should be improved. Some comments follow:
"A general comment would be that there is more crime out there other than speeding offences, parking offences etc. And I think the government resource should be put into fighting serious crime."
"Well I do, I think the country would be a better place if the police resources were put into fighting crime, real crime as I call it, rather than looking at revenue streams but that's just the way we have to be, we need to live. We're just robbing Peter to pay Paul."
"Nothing about the way the police handled it but, as I say, more against the Fiscal I'm a bit, basically, pissed off with. I mean, there was three cars and a motorbike stolen."
"… basically, the guy got a slap on the wrist. I mean, it beggars believe that the Fiscal can actually let somebody away with that because that's what's happened. And the day that he got out of jail, he comes down to our place and scratches three cars."
« Previous | Contents | Next »