« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report presents the findings of an evaluation of the pilot victim statement schemes. The research was commissioned by the Scottish Executive and was undertaken by researchers in the University of Aberdeen School of Law. The pilot victim statement scheme commenced on 25 November 2003 and concluded on 24 November 2005. They operated in 3 pilot sites - Ayr, Edinburgh and Kilmarnock - in relation to certain "prescribed offences".
The pilot schemes provided an opportunity to victims of the prescribed offences (primarily offences against the person, including sexual offences) to make a statement about the effect of the crime on them personally. That right was triggered once a decision to prosecute had been taken. Where a victim statement was made and the accused was convicted, the prosecutor was obliged to present that statement to the sheriff or judge, who was in turn obliged to take it into account in passing sentence.
This summary presents the most significant findings of the research.
Chapters 1 and 2 provide the background to the research and details of the research methods used.
Chapter 3 presents the findings of a review of victim statement schemes in other jurisdictions. It notes that victim statement schemes already exist, in a variety of forms, in most common law jurisdictions. Accurate figures on response rates are not widely available, the main exception being the pilot schemes which operated in England and Wales at an earlier date and were evaluated between 1997 and 1998. These figures are drawn on in evaluating response rates in Scotland (chapter 4).
Chapter 4 examines response rates to the scheme, and considers whether these varied over time and according to factors such as gender, offence category and age. The overall response rate to the Scottish scheme was 14.9%. This is substantially lower than under the pilot schemes in England and Wales (30%), but this can be explained by the fact that the Scottish scheme covered a wider range of offences, including many which would have been insufficiently serious to have fallen within the pilot schemes in England and Wales.
It is clear that the main factor influencing response rates is the seriousness of the offence, with response rates in murder and death by dangerous driving cases being as high as 60%. Response rates did not differ notably over time or with gender. There was some association with age, with older victims being more likely to make a statement than younger ones.
Chapter 5 examines the outcomes of cases in which victim statements were made. In 24% of the cases in which a victim statement was made, it was not put before the court because the accused was not convicted of a relevant offence.
There is some evidence that cases in which victim statements were made were (a) less likely to be deserted by the procurator fiscal and (b) slightly more likely to result in a sentence of imprisonment. In both cases, however, these outcomes may simply be a consequence of the fact that victims are more likely to make statements in serious cases, which are less likely to be deserted and more likely to conclude with a sentence of imprisonment. (In chapter 7, it is explained that interviews with sentencers suggested that, while victim statements may have occasionally influenced the sentencer at least to consider a sentence of a different nature to the one he or she was initially minded to impose, they are unlikely to have made a significant difference to sentences in most cases.)
Compensation orders were more likely to be made in a case where there was a victim statement than they were in a case where there was no victim statement (8% of statement cases compared to 4% of non-statement cases).
Chapter 6 reports the findings of a programme of interviews (both by telephone and face-to-face) with victims of crime. It finds that by far the most common reason for not making a victim statement was that the impact of the crime was not perceived as serious (53% of non-statement makers). Fear of reprisals was occasionally cited, but by a much smaller proportion of non-statement makers (8%).
The majority of statement makers (85% of the 88 respondents), when interviewed after the case had concluded, felt that their decision to make a victim statement had probably or definitely been the right one. Only 6% thought that their decision had probably or definitely not been the right one.
When asked why they had chosen to make a victim statement, the most common reasons were a desire to express their feelings about the offence (34%), or to influence the outcome of the case (28%). Only 5% of statement makers made a statement in order to influence sentence.
Sixty-one percent of statement makers reported that making a victim statement had made them feel better, but 38% reported that it had not. Thirty-nine percent of statement makers found the process of making a victim statement upsetting. This may not be an entirely negative finding, as some statement makers indicated that, while the process had been upsetting, they had found it cathartic. Of the 34 statement makers who found the process of making a statement upsetting, 20 reported that it had also made them feel better afterwards.
Comprehension of the scheme was mixed, and victims, when interviewed, were frequently unaware that any statement made would be shown to the offender or that they could be asked questions about their statement in court. Of those respondents who were aware that their statement would be shown to the offender, 23% were encouraged by this to make a statement. A further 21% were discouraged and 57% stated that it made no difference.
When asked for suggestions for improvements to the criminal justice system, victims generally placed a considerably greater priority on being kept informed about proceedings than they did on influencing outcomes.
Chapter 7 reports the findings of a programme of interviews with criminal justice personnel. The majority of those interviewed were neutral about whether or not the victim statement scheme should be rolled out across Scotland, with only a minority of respondents expressing any strong views one way or the other. It was generally thought that the scheme did not create significant extra work for either the courts or procurators fiscal, given the additional resources provided during the pilots.
Some sheriffs were concerned that the statements risked prejudicing the accused by including biased or irrelevant information, but all sheriffs expressed confidence that they could put such material out of their mind in passing sentence. (The content analysis of victim statements, reported in chapter 8, indicates that victims generally followed instructions not to include irrelevant material. There were, however, cases where the offence(s) of which the accused was convicted were not the same as those originally charged.)
Some respondents were concerned that the scheme did not represent value for money given the relatively low response rates, or that the scheme might unduly raise the expectations of victims about the influence their statement will have. (However, it is noted in chapter 6 that only a very small proportion of statement makers (5%), when interviewed after the conclusion of the case, felt that their decision to make a statement was the wrong one.)
A number of sheriffs and procurators fiscal commented that the information they were now getting in victim statements was useful and went beyond what would previously have been available.
Respondents were generally opposed to the possibility of the victim statement being read out in court, and all of the sheriffs and procurators fiscal interviewed who expressed a view on the matter were of the opinion that the scheme should not be extended to allow victims to express an opinion about sentence or to have any direct influence over the sentencing process.
Chapter 8 reports the findings of an analysis of the content of 160 victim statements. It finds that victims who made statements wished primarily to comment on the emotional impact of the crime rather than the financial or physical impact, which was not reflected in the design of the victim statement form.
The most commonly reported impacts were all emotional impacts: that the victim was suffering from a general fearfulness or inability to cope; was unable to sleep; was afraid to go out; or was suffering from depression.
The victim statement form instructed victims that they should "not include any views about the accused person or the sentence in your [their] statement". The clear majority (72%) followed these instructions. Very few victims (3%) expressed an opinion about the sentence the accused should receive if convicted.
Chapter 9 presents an analysis of "lost cases": that is, cases in which the victim had no opportunity to make a victim statement because the accused pled guilty from custody and was sentenced immediately. It estimates that the number of lost cases ranged from 6 over a 12 month period in one court to 26 in another.
Chapter 10 presents an analysis of the offences which were prescribed for the purposes of the scheme, suggesting that, in order to ensure consistency, some minor clarifications to the list of prescribed offences may be required if the scheme is rolled out across Scotland.
Chapter 11 summarises the findings of the research team.
« Previous | Contents | Next »