The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

CHAPTER FIVE: CASE OUTCOME ANALYSIS

5.1 This chapter presents the findings of the case outcome analysis. The purpose of this analysis was two-fold. First, one of the aims of the evaluation was to assess the impact of victim statements on sentencing. One way in which this aim was addressed was by examining case disposals in victim statement cases and comparing them to case disposals in non-victim statement cases. At the outset, it must be said that this exercise is subject to some major limitations. Two of these are practical in nature:

5.2 First, it was not possible to obtain information on the disposal of all cases, either because the case had not concluded by the end of the evaluation or because it would have involved an excessive amount of time for the pilot sites to supply case conclusion details for every single concluded case. This in itself is not thought to have affected the validity of the analysis. There is no reason to think that the pattern of case outcomes would have been any different in those cases for which outcome information was not available.

5.3 Second, information on disposals was only provided in terms of the nature of the sentence (imprisonment, community service, fine etc.) and not the length of any imprisonment period or the amount of any fine. Thus comparisons can only be made in terms of the nature of the sentence and not its precise length. Information was provided on compensation orders, however, so it was at least possible to assess whether or not compensation orders were more likely to be made in victim statement cases than non-victim statement cases.

5.4 The exercise is also limited for a more principled reason. The existence of a victim statement is only one of a multitude of factors that influence sentencers in their sentencing decisions and it is difficult if not impossible to isolate the effect on sentencing of the statement alone. This is not helped by the fact that the more serious the offence the more likely it was that a statement was made ⁶³ and therefore sentences are likely to have been heavier in cases where there was a statement for this reason alone. What will almost certainly be of more value in assessing the impact of victim statements on sentencing is the information derived from the interviews undertaken with sheriffs and High Court judges, who were asked about the extent to which the existence of a victim statement affected their sentencing decisions. ⁶⁴

5.5 The second purpose of the case outcome analysis was to estimate the number of relevant cases in which a victim statement was made but was not put before the court because the accused was not convicted. ⁶⁵ This could have been because the case ended with a not guilty or a not proven verdict; because the case was deserted; or because the accused eventually pled guilty to a reduced charge that did not fall under the auspices of the victim statement scheme. ⁶⁶ The outcome analysis will allow us to estimate the number of cases in which this occurred. While the outcome analysis is subject to some of the same limitations as the sentencing analysis, primarily the fact that outcome information was not available for all cases, the general patterns it displays are still valid.

ANALYSIS OF OUTCOMES

5.6 Bearing these limitations in mind, Table 5.1 provides details of case outcomes for cases where a statement was submitted compared to cases where a statement was not submitted, in the 2262 cases for which this information was available. Two issues emerge from the table.

5.7 First, Table 5.1 indicates that cases were less likely to be deserted (or it was less likely for a not guilty plea to be accepted) where a victim statement was made. Only 15% of statement maker cases were deserted compared to 23% of non-statement maker cases. This may indicate that procurators fiscal were more reluctant to desert a case when they knew that there was a victim statement. Indeed, the interviews undertaken with procurators fiscal did indicate that the existence of a victim statement was one factor that they took into account in deciding whether or not to desert a case or to accept a plea of not guilty in relation to a particular charge. ⁶⁷

Table 5.1: Case outcomes (statement makers vs non-statement makers)

n=2262

5.8 One should, however, be careful not to read too much into this finding. It may simply be a result of the relationship between the existence of a victim statement and the seriousness of the offence. ⁶⁸ Equally, it may be that procurators fiscal were simply more reluctant to desert relatively serious cases than they were minor ones, rather than the existence of the victim statement itself being the influential factor. An alternative explanation is that one type of case that tends to get deserted is that where victims are reluctant to give evidence and it may be that reluctant or uncooperative victims were unlikely to make victim statements.

5.9 Table 5.2 attempts to isolate the impact of the victim statement (or at least to reduce the influence of the seriousness of the offence) by calculating the proportion of victim statement and non-victim statement cases that were deserted for the specific offence categories of assault, aggravated assault, robbery and theft by housebreaking. ⁶⁹

5.10 As Table 5.2 shows, even within each category of offence, cases in which there was a victim statement were less likely to be deserted. The exception to this was robbery, where statement cases were actually slightly more likely to be deserted than non-statement cases (10% of statement cases compared to 7% of non-statement cases), although in view of the relatively small numbers involved this finding is not particularly reliable. Even in relation to the offence categories where the relationship does hold, it should be noted that this is a very crude exercise, as even within the generic category of 'assault' the conduct concerned can vary in seriousness quite considerably, and it may still be that offence seriousness is the main influencing factor and not the existence of the victim statement.

Table 5.2: Likelihood of desertion by offence (statement makers vs non-statement makers)

5.11 Second, Table 5.1 allows us to make an estimate of the number of cases in which a victim statement was made but was not submitted to the court. This would occur whenever the case resulted in a not guilty or not proven verdict; where the case was deserted; or where the accused pled guilty to a reduced charge that did not fall under the auspices of the victim statement scheme. As Table 5.1 indicates, 24% of cases in which a victim statement was made resulted in one of these outcomes. This equates to a total of 99 actual cases in which a statement was made but was not put before the court. It should also be noted that this is an under-estimate of the number of cases involved because case outcome data was only available for 412 of the cases in which a statement was made - just over half of the total. There were an additional 331 cases in which a statement was made and for which the eventual case outcome is not known. Assuming ⁷⁰ that the pattern of case outcomes in Table 5.1 is replicated in these 331 cases, this would result in an additional 79 cases in which a statement was made but not put before the court, and an estimated total of 178 (from a total of 743 statements) across the 2 year pilot period. ⁷¹

ANALYSIS OF DISPOSALS

5.12 Table 5.3 focuses only on those cases in which there was a conviction (either because the accused was found guilty or pled guilty). It shows the proportion of cases in which a particular disposal was made for both statement maker cases and non-statement maker cases (in the 1501 cases for which this information was available). Where multiple disposals were made (for example, a fine and community service), only the most serious was recorded (in this example, that would be the fine).

5.13 Table 5.3 shows that cases in which there was a victim statement were slightly more likely than cases in which there was no victim statement to result in a sentence of imprisonment. Conversely, they were slightly less likely to result in a fine or a probation order. This finding on its own is of negligible value, however, given that victim statements were more likely to be made the more serious the offence and relatively serious offences are themselves more likely to result in a disposal of imprisonment.

Table 5.3: Case disposals (statement makers vs non-statement makers)

n=1501

5.14 One finding in Table 5.3 that is of some interest is that compensation orders were more likely to be made in cases in which a victim statement was made: 8% of victim statement cases compared to only 4% of non-victim statement cases.

5.15 What is of slightly more value in terms of attempting to assess the impact of victim statements on sentencing is the analysis that is displayed in Table 5.4 below. To try and isolate the impact of the victim statement (or at least to reduce the influence of the seriousness of the offence), the likelihood of a disposal of imprisonment has been calculated for the specific offence categories of assault, aggravated assault, robbery and theft by housebreaking. ⁷³

Table 5.4: Likelihood of imprisonment by offence (statement makers vs non-statement makers)

5.16 As Table 5.4 shows, taking only cases of assault, a sentence of imprisonment was more likely to result where the case involved a victim statement (20% of statement cases compared to 15% of non-statement cases). This relationship was also apparent in robbery cases (80% of statement cases compared to 74% of non-statement cases) and, although to a lesser extent, in aggravated assault cases (37% of statement cases compared to 35% of non-statement cases). In cases of theft by housebreaking, however, the opposite was true and imprisonment was actually less likely in cases where a victim statement was made (61% of statement cases compared to 76% of non-statement cases). Indeed, the finding that imprisonment was more likely in cases of theft by housebreaking than it was in cases of aggravated assault (regardless of the existence of any victim statement) suggests that sentencing is a complex process, as aggravated assault would, all other things being equal, seem to be the more serious offence. It may be that those found guilty of theft by housebreaking are more likely to have previous convictions or to be guilty of multiple offences. It should also be remembered that this analysis is based only on the fact of the victim statement and not its content. No account has been taken of the relative seriousness of the effects actually reported by victims in their statements.

5.17 All that can really be concluded as a result of this analysis is that there are a multitude of factors that affect sentencing decisions of which the existence of a victim statement is only one. ⁷⁴ There does seem to be a relationship of sorts between the existence of a victim statement and the disposal in a particular case, but there is no indication that this is a causal relationship. There is no firm evidence of any such relationship.

« Previous | Contents | Next »