The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

CHAPTER SIX: INTERVIEWS WITH STATEMENT MAKERS AND NON-STATEMENT MAKERS

6.1 This chapter reports on the findings of the programme of interviews with statement makers and non-statement makers.

6.2 As chapter 2 outlined, telephone interviews were undertaken in 3 batches over the course of the evaluation. The first was a pilot survey in July 2004, followed by 2 further surveys in December 2004 and September 2005. Over the course of the 3 surveys, attempts were made to contact and interview 404 victims. Interviews took place with 182, an overall response rate of 45%. ⁷⁵

6.3 Of the 182 victims who were interviewed, 88 had made victim statements, while 94 had not. A copy of the questionnaire used for the telephone interviews is contained in Annex 4. Details of the sample in terms of age, gender, nature of the offence, employment status and educational background are provided in Annex 5.

6.4 The telephone interviews were supplemented by 20 in-depth interviews undertaken with 10 statement makers and 10 non-statement makers. ⁷⁶ Separate discussion guides were used for statement makers and non-statement makers and copies can be found in Annex 6 (non-statement makers) and Annex 7 (statement makers) respectively. The interviews were tape recorded and transcribed. Brief characteristics of the sample of victims who took part in these interviews are outlined in Annex 8.

6.5 The remainder of this chapter of the report presents the principal findings of the interview programme. All tables below refer to the telephone interviews: in reading these, it should be borne in mind that not all of the respondents answered all of the questions. Some of the questions in the questionnaire were only asked of either statement makers or non-statement makers. Other questions were only asked of those who had given specific responses to a previous question. For example, question 13 (how easy was the initial information about the victim statement scheme to understand?) was only asked of those who recalled receiving the written material. The number of respondents to each question is shown below each of the tables.

6.6 In all of the tables that follow, the percentage figures do not always add up to 100% because they have been rounded to the nearest whole number. In addition, in some tables respondents were able to give more than one answer which again means that the percentage totals do not always add up to 100% (where this is the case, it is indicated in the accompanying text or footnotes).

6.7 Where quotations below are taken from statements made by victims who participated in the face-to-face interviews, they are identified as such by giving the gender of the victim, the offence concerned, and the number by which the respondent is identified in Annex 8. Other quotations are from the telephone interviews.

EFFECT OF THE CRIME ON VICTIMS

6.8 Respondents were asked initially whether or not they had suffered physical, emotional or financial problems as a result of the crime and, if so, whether or not they perceived these problems as serious. Tables 6.1 to 6.3 present the results of this exercise.

6.9 Table 6.1 records the distribution of "serious" effects among the sample of 182 respondents. It indicates the number of respondents that perceived themselves as having suffered serious effects in none, one, 2 or all of the physical, emotional or financial categories.

Table 6.1: Distribution of 'serious' effects⁷⁷

n = 182

6.10 Overall, 50% of victims did not report any "serious" effects in any of the 3 categories, with, at the other end of the spectrum, 7% of respondents reporting that the crime had resulted in them suffering serious physical, emotional and financial effects. There was a relationship between the objective seriousness of the offence and the effect as perceived by the respondent. For example, respondents who had been victims of relatively serious offences (judged objectively - aggravated assault, for example) were more likely to report that they had suffered serious emotional effects than victims of theft by housebreaking or assault without any aggravating features. This does not mean, though, that victims of what might be considered relatively minor offences are not seriously affected by the crime. For example, 2 of the 39 victims of theft by housebreaking reported serious effects in all 3 categories and 11 reported serious effects in 2 of the categories.

Table 6.2: Percentage of statement makers/non-statement makers reporting serious effects

n = 182

6.11 It has already been concluded that the uptake of the opportunity to make a victim statement increases in line with offence seriousness, as measured objectively. ⁷⁸ This finding is mirrored in the telephone questionnaire survey. As Table 6.2 above shows, statement makers were far more likely than non-statement makers to report serious effects in at least one of the categories. In total, only 38% of statement makers did not report any serious effects compared to 62% of non-statement makers.

6.12 The correlation between offence seriousness and uptake of the opportunity to make a victim statement was reflected in some of the comments made by non-statement makers in face-to-face interviews when asked if they would make a victim statement in the future:

"Maybe if he had destroyed stuff or stolen personal things, and I don't mean the video… I don't care about the video. Certainly if it had been things that my family had passed down, they mean a lot to me, if they had been taken, would it have changed my mind? I may well have opted to do something and thought 'to hell with it'. But it was a video, stuff that can be replaced, it was enough to know that they had got somebody." (Female victim of theft by housebreaking (respondent 7), non-statement maker).

"I suppose it would depend on the crime. A serious crime, then something like that I would probably… something like assault." (Female victim of theft by housebreaking (respondent 16), non-statement maker).

COMPREHENSION OF THE VICTIM STATEMENT SCHEME

6.13 Respondents were asked various questions designed to test their comprehension of the victim statement scheme. The results are shown in Tables 6.3 to 6.8 below.

6.14 Respondents were first asked whether or not they recalled being told that they could make a victim statement. As Table 6.3 shows, 18% of respondents (all non-statement makers) did not recall being told about the opportunity to make a victim statement and the following questions in this section were asked only of the 149 respondents who did recall being offered the opportunity to make a statement.

Table 6.3: Do you recall being told you could make a victim statement?

n = 182

6.15 The 149 respondents who did recall being told about the victim statement scheme were asked how they first heard about the scheme. As Table 6.4 shows, the vast majority (74%) stated that they first heard about the scheme via a letter from the procurator fiscal. A further 11% of respondents stated that they first heard about the scheme from the police, although this may simply be an inaccurate recollection on their part.

Table 6.4: How did you first hear about making a victim statement?

n = 149

6.16 Respondents were then asked whether or not they thought that it was compulsory to make a victim statement. As Table 6.5 shows, it was generally understood that making a statement was optional, with only 10 respondents (7% of the sample) thinking that it was compulsory (although a further 5% did not know whether it was compulsory or optional). Somewhat surprisingly, 2 of the 10 respondents who thought that making a statement was compulsory were non-statement makers. ⁷⁹

Table 6.5: Do you think it is compulsory for victims to make a victim statement?

n = 149

6.17 The telephone questionnaire then explored whether or not respondents understood that any victim statement they made would be shown to the offender and his or her lawyer (assuming that the case ended in a conviction). In total, 83 respondents (56% of the sample) were aware of this, but 64 (43% of the sample) were not. As might be expected, statement makers were more likely to be aware of this than non-statement makers (64% of statement makers were aware of this compared to 44% of non-statement makers). Of more concern is the fact that 36% of statement makers did not know that their statement would be shown to the offender.

6.18 The 83 respondents who were aware that the offender could read any statement they made were asked if this encouraged them or discouraged them to make a victim statement. As Table 6.6 shows, for 57% (47 of the 83 respondents) it made no difference. Of the remainder, slightly more victims (23%/19 out of 83) were encouraged to make a statement by knowing that the offender would read it than were discouraged (21%/17 out of 83). Some victims saw making the statement as an opportunity to attempt to make the offender aware of their wrongdoing:

"It was between myself and the person who committed the crime, it was me kind of releasing it and letting her know that I wasn't happy. Whatever people's actions are, it has an effect on somebody else's life. To her it might have been 'I need some money and I need to walk into somebody's house and I need to do that' but to me, it was somebody violating my space and coming in uninvited… The person who commits that crime should know, I mean it might have no effect at all." (Female victim of theft by housebreaking (respondent 12), statement maker).

"I didn't like the fact that she was knowing how it had impacted me. It sort of made me think in a way that it was giving her satisfaction to know that it had actually caused so many things to happen. It would have been better if it was a private thing between you and the judge… Despite that, I was hoping she'd feel some sort of remorse on hearing some of those things." (Female victim of assault (respondent 13), statement maker).

Table 6.6: Did the fact that the victim statement would be shown to the offender and his/her lawyer encourage or discourage you to make a statement?

n = 83

6.19 Respondents were then asked whether or not they were aware that, if the case went ahead, they could be asked questions about their victim statement in court. ⁸⁰ In total, 88 respondents (59% of the sample) were aware of this, but 58 respondents (39%) were not. (The remaining 3 respondents indicated that they did not know.) There was some overlap between the different types of misunderstanding: 42 respondents were unaware both that the offender would see any statement they made and that they could be questioned about their statement in court. A further 42 respondents were unaware of one or the other of these facts about the victim statement scheme, but not both.

6.20 As in relation to the previous question, statement makers were more likely to be aware that they could be asked questions about their statement in court than non-statement makers (68% of statement makers compared to 46% of non-statement makers). Of some concern are the 31% of statement makers who did not know that they could be asked questions about their statement in court. ⁸¹

6.21 The 88 respondents who were aware that they could be asked questions about their statement in court were asked if this encouraged them or discouraged them to make a victim statement. As Table 6.7 shows, for 76% of respondents (67 of the 88 who were aware that this could happen) this made no difference. Perhaps surprisingly, slightly more respondents (14%/12 of the 88) stated that this encouraged them to make a statement than discouraged them (8%/7 of the 88).

Table 6.7: Did the fact that you could be asked questions about the victim statement in court encourage or discourage you to make a statement?

n = 88

6.22 The scheme literature highlighted both the fact that the statement would be shown to the offender and the fact that the victim might be asked questions about his or her statement in court, which makes the findings in paras 6.17 and 6.19 a little surprising. It may simply be that respondents did not read this aspect of the literature in the first place. With this in mind, the relationship between the extent to which respondents read the victim statement scheme literature and their knowledge of these specific aspects of the scheme was examined.

6.23 As Table 6.8 shows, there is some correlation between the extent to which respondents read the victim statement scheme literature and whether or not they were aware that the statement would be shown to the offender and that they may be asked questions about the statement in court. For example, 65% of those who reported reading "all or almost all" of the literature were aware that the offender would read any statement they made compared to only 46% of those who read "most" of the literature. The relationship is not straightforward though. For example, respondents who had only read "some" of the literature were more likely than those who had read "all or almost all" of it to be aware that the statement would be shown to the offender (73% compared to 65%). It should be noted, however, that the numbers involved are not large enough to draw any firm conclusions as only 11 respondents in total stated that they had read "some" of the literature, compared to the 83 respondents who stated that they had read "all or almost all" of it.

Table 6.8: Relationship between reading victim statement literature and knowledge about the scheme

n=131⁸²

RECALL AND COMPREHENSIBILITY OF THE SCHEME LITERATURE

6.24 The 149 respondents who recalled being told about the opportunity to make a victim statement ⁸³ were asked whether or not they recalled receiving any written material relating to the victim statement scheme. As Table 6.9 shows, 134 of these 149 respondents did recall receiving the letter and accompanying leaflet about the scheme, a figure of 90%.

Table 6.9: Do you recall receiving any written material?

n = 149

6.25 Those 134 victims who recalled receiving the letter and accompanying leaflet were then asked how much of the leaflet and letter they read; whether or not they found this information easy to understand; and whether or not it helped them to make their decision about submitting a statement. The results of this exercise are shown in Tables 6.10 to 6.13.

Table 6.10: How much of the leaflet or letter did you read?

n = 134

6.26 As Table 6.10 shows, the vast majority of respondents (90%) read all or most of the letter and leaflet, with only a single respondent stating that he or she did not read any of it. There were relatively few respondents who reported finding the letter and/or leaflet difficult to understand. As Table 6.11 shows, 38% of respondents thought the written material was "very easy" to understand, with a further 51% of respondents finding it "quite easy" to understand. Only 10 respondents (8%) found it "not at all easy" or "not very easy" to understand.

Table 6.11: How easy was this letter/leaflet to understand?

n = 134

6.27 Perhaps unsurprisingly, the majority of the 10 people who did not find the literature easy to understand were non-statement makers (8 were non-statement makers and 2 were statement makers). What is not clear is the nature of the relationship, if any, between these variables. It may be that those who found the literature confusing chose not to make a statement for this reason or it may be that those who decided not to make a statement did not put much effort into reading the literature carefully. The numbers involved are so small that it is difficult to draw any firm conclusions.

6.28 Those victims who were interviewed face-to-face invariably reported that they had no difficulty in understanding the letter and leaflet they had been sent, and were generally positive about the clarity of the literature.

6.29 There was no discernable relationship between finding the victim statement literature difficult to understand and either the age of the respondent or their level of education but, again, given the very low numbers involved, a meaningful analysis is not possible.

6.30 The 10 respondents who did not find the written material easy to understand were asked why they thought that this was the case. Table 6.12 summarises the responses received to this question (which was open-ended, respondents not being limited to any particular answer).

Table 6.12: Why was the letter/leaflet difficult to understand?

n = 10

6.31 The answers shown in Table 6.12 demonstrate that, even in the relatively small number of cases where the victim did not find the literature easy to understand, this was not always due to the material itself, with 4 respondents attributing their confusion to their own state of mind at the time. Seven respondents stated simply that they found the literature confusing (without explaining why) and 2 respondents stated specifically that it was not clear exactly what type of information could be included in a victim statement and why this was the case.

6.32 Finally, respondents were asked whether the literature they received helped them to make up their mind about whether or not to submit a victim statement. As Table 6.13 shows, the majority of respondents (72%) did find the leaflet and letter useful in helping them to make this decision. Perhaps unsurprisingly, statement makers found it more useful than non-statement makers, with 83% of statement makers stating that the literature helped them make up their mind, compared to 57% of non-statement makers.

Table 6.13: Did reading the leaflet/letter help you make your mind up?

n = 134

REASONS FOR MAKING A VICTIM STATEMENT

6.33 The 88 statement makers in the sample were asked why they had chosen to make a victim statement; what result they hoped making the statement would have; and whether they felt their decision was the right one. The responses to these (open-ended) questions are summarised in the following tables.

6.34 Table 6.14 sets out the reasons that respondents had for making a statement. The most common reason given (by 30 of the 88 statement makers) was simply to express their feelings about the crime. In a similar vein, 9 of the 88 statement makers did so because they felt that it would be therapeutic, with 12 of the 88 statement makers choosing to submit a statement in order to make the accused think about what he or she had done. As Table 6.14 shows, 20 of the 88 statement makers made a statement because they thought it would influence the outcome of the trial (and an additional 4 did so because they thought it would ensure conviction). This seems to indicate a certain level of misunderstanding of the victim statement scheme, as the statement is only put before the court post-conviction, although the 20 respondents who made a statement because they wanted to influence the outcome of the trial might simply have meant that they wished to influence the sentence. ⁸⁵

Table 6.14: Reasons for making a victim statement

n = 88

6.35 The "other" category in Table 6.14 comprises responses for making a victim statement that were given by only one respondent. It includes reasons such as: "I didn't see any reason not to"; "[the offence] annoyed me"; "for statistical compilation purposes"; "I thought it would make it easier if I went on the stand"; "[the offence] also affected my 15 year old daughter and she was traumatised"; "because my mental health advocate said it might be the best thing to do"; "because I wanted to be helpful"; and "because the guy who attacked me was still threatening me". The possibility of compensation did not appear to be a motivation, and one victim specifically rejected this:

"Money doesn't matter… if you're physically injured you can get a few bob for it, but if you're scarred inside and hurt inside you just have to go on with that pain." (Male victim of racially aggravated harassment (respondent 2), non-statement maker).

6.36 The face-to-face interviews suggested that some victims found the experience of making a statement therapeutic even though this had not been their motivation in choosing to make the statement. For example, a statement maker, when asked why she made a statement, responded:

"On a part of it, it says something about it would go towards giving the judge, although they might not see us, how we feel and what the sentence would be, it would go towards a harsher sentence... that's why I filled it in, because I hoped it would [influence the sentence]." (Female victim of robbery (respondent 8), statement maker).

6.37 When asked later about the experience of making the statement, she said:

"It actually helped, writing it down. I felt as if after I'd written it all down, it just got everything rinsed away from you. I would advise anybody in a robbery just to write it down, supposing you didn't get that form, just to write it all down. Write it down and get it out and just tear it up, burn it or anything, you can do anything with it, just to write everything down, I think it was quite good. I just felt as if there was a weight lifted off my mind after I'd written it down, and knowing that, fine, if it goes to court he might plead guilty and I thought if I'm not allowed to give my evidence in court the judge had got that, they can refer to your sheet."

6.38 Another victim, however, rejected the "therapeutic" justification for the scheme:

"I think it's worthwhile because it gives you the chance for your side to be heard in the court… And the most important point I think is if it does make a difference to the sentence. If it doesn't then… you know, I can take a piece of A4 paper and write it out if it's going to help me. That is, I think, fundamentally the whole purpose of the system. And if it's not making a difference to the sentence then it's either the system that's failing or the sheriff is failing the system." (Female victim of assault (respondent 5), statement maker).

6.39 Table 6.15 sets out the result that statement makers hoped for in making their victim statement. Mirroring the findings of Table 6.14, by far the most common result hoped for from making a victim statement was a conviction (22 of the 88 statement makers), indicating a certain level of misunderstanding about the victim statement scheme. A further 6 respondents (7%) hoped that their victim statement would provide more evidence for the case. In the normal course of events, a statement would have no such effect. ⁸⁷

Table 6.15: Result hoped for by making victim statement

n = 88

6.40 Respondents also hoped that their statement would influence the sentencing process, with 13 respondents (15%) hoping that it would result in a longer sentence, but one respondent hoping that it would result in a more lenient sentence. In face-to-face interviews, 2 victims explained that they specifically wanted to avoid the accused receiving a light sentence as a result of a guilty plea. For example:

"People who plead guilty to me are looking for a lighter sentence, but if the judge reads through how the victims are and how they've been since the robbery, they'll maybe get a harsher sentence instead of a wee slap on the wrist." (Female victim of robbery (respondent 8), statement maker).

6.41 Statement makers were asked whether, with the benefit of hindsight, they thought that making a victim statement was the right decision. As Table 6.16 shows, the vast majority (75 of the 88 respondents) considered that making a victim statement was "definitely" or "probably" the right decision. Only 5 respondents thought that it was "probably not" or "definitely not" the right decision.

Table 6.16: Was making a victim statement the right decision?

n = 88

6.42 The 5 respondents who thought that making a statement was not the right decision were then asked why they held this view. This was an open-ended question. Respondents were not limited to any particular answer and could (and indeed did) give more than one reason. The results are shown in Table 6.17. As the table shows, the most common reason for thinking that making a statement was the wrong decision related to the fact that the statement had not been used as expected: because it did not help the case (4 respondents); it was not used in court (3 respondents); or because the sentence did not seem to take account of it (3 respondents). Rather worryingly, 2 respondents stated that they thought that making a statement was the wrong decision because there had been some sort of reprisals as a result.

Table 6.17: Why was making a statement the wrong decision?

n = 5

6.43 The fact that the statement was not used in court did not, however, inevitably result in the victim regretting the decision to make a statement. A female victim of robbery who had made her statement in order to influence the sentence (see the quote at para 6.36 above), remained positive about her decision despite the trial having ended in a verdict of not proven and the statement having not been used. When asked whether she would make a victim statement again, she responded:

"Yes, and I would advise anyone who's with me to do the same… Yes, it's worthwhile definitely… it seemed to wash the things out of me, because I was very bitter, I was very bitter towards this person. I'm not so bad now. I don't know what would happen if I saw him, but there was a lot of anger in me, and when I wrote that out, I felt a lot better. Knowing that if he pled guilty, someone would know how I feel, know how the victim feels."

EXPERIENCE OF MAKING THE VICTIM STATEMENT

6.44 The 88 respondents who made a victim statement were asked a number of further questions about their experience of doing so. First, respondents were asked whether or not anyone helped them to make the statement. As Table 6.18 shows, 18 respondents (20%) received some help in making the statement, most commonly from a family member or a friend (8 respondents) or from a victim support worker (5 respondents).

Table 6.18: Did anyone help you make your victim statement?

n = 88

6.45 The 18 respondents who did receive help in making their statement were asked about the nature of that help. Table 6.19 shows the responses received to this question, which was open ended, respondents not being limited to any particular answer. The most common answer was simply help with writing the form (in the sense of helping to put the victim's experience into writing). Responses grouped as "other" were those given by only one respondent and comprised "proof reading"; "moral support"; and "answering my questions about the form".

Table 6.19: Nature of help received with victim statement

n = 18

6.46 The 18 respondents who were helped to make their statement were then asked how much influence the person who helped them had over the content of their statement. As Table 6.20 demonstrates, 13 respondents stated that their helper had little or no influence of this nature, with only one respondent stating that they were influenced "a lot" by the person who helped them. One of the victims who was interviewed face-to-face was very positive about the support she had received from a VSS officer:

"She was giving me good advice and guidance. She was more concerned about not making things difficult for me in court and that I left myself open to the prosecution or defence… There was a good point in one of them that [she] didn't think I should put in because it could leave me open to, it could cause trouble for me. But I felt quite strongly about it because it's what happened, so I left it in. But she was very good at guiding me through it." (Female victim of assault (respondent 5), statement maker).

Table 6.20: How much influence did they have?

n = 18

6.47 Respondents were then asked whether making the victim statement was upsetting and whether or not it made them feel any better. As Table 6.21 shows, 34 of the 88 statement makers (39%) did find the experience of making their victim statement upsetting although, as Table 6.22 illustrates, 54 of the 88 statement makers (61%) indicated that they felt better after making the statement.

Table 6.21: Was making the victim statement upsetting?

n = 88

Table 6.22: Did making the victim statement make you feel better?

n = 88

6.48 It should be noted that finding the process of writing the statement "upsetting" was not necessarily seen by victims in a negative light:

"It was upsetting to have to go over it, at the time it was very raw, it had only just happened, I was very annoyed… it was upsetting to have to go over it, but at the end of the day, it had to be done, it had to be written... I would say that it's very therapeutic, being able to get it out, to release it, to put it down into words and then just let it go basically. Because otherwise it's just milling round your head and you've got no way of telling anybody about it." (Female victim of theft by housebreaking (respondent 10), statement maker).

This is supported by the finding that 20 of the 34 respondents who found the process of making the statement upsetting also reported that making the statement made them feel better.

6.49 Perhaps unsurprisingly, the more serious the effect of the offence as perceived by respondents, the more likely they were to find the process of making the statement upsetting. Only 8 of the 33 statement makers (24%) who reported no serious effects found making a statement upsetting, compared to 28 of the 55 statement makers (51%) who reported serious effects in at least one category (physical, emotional or financial).

6.50 There was little relationship, however, between the exact nature of the offence and whether or not respondents found the experience of making the victim statement upsetting. Victims of assault were no more or less likely to find the process of making a statement upsetting than victims of theft by housebreaking. There is a possible exception in relation to victims of sexual offences: while 34 of the 88 statement makers interviewed found the experience upsetting, 3 of the 4 victims of sexual offences interviewed reported that they had found the experience upsetting. It is not, however, possible to draw firm conclusions from such a small sample.

6.51 There may be some relationship between the exact nature of the offence and whether or not making a statement made respondents feel better. Overall, 9 of the 11 victims of theft by housebreaking felt better after making their statement, compared to 54 of the 88 statement makers as a whole. (There was no noticeable difference between other types of offence.) Once again, though, the total number of respondents involved is small (there were 11 victims of theft by housebreaking in the sample of statement makers) so the finding is not very reliable. There was no noticeable relationship between the perceived seriousness of the offence and whether or not making a victim statement made respondents feel better.

6.52 Within the terms of the pilot victim statement scheme, it was possible to update a victim statement but not to withdraw it. Respondents were asked whether or not they attempted to do either of these things. Of the 88 respondents who did make a victim statement, 2 did take the opportunity to update it. Awareness of this possibility was generally low. Only 21 of the 88 statement makers (24%) were aware that it was possible to update a victim statement. There was also some confusion among the sample over whether or not a victim statement could be withdrawn once it had been made, with 19 respondents (22% of statement makers) being under the mistaken impression that it was possible to do this. A further 46 statement makers (52%) did not know whether or not this was a possibility, with only 23 statement makers (26%) stating correctly that it was not possible. None of the 19 respondents who thought that it was possible to withdraw a statement had actually attempted to do so.

6.53 Respondents were then asked about what had happened to their statement after it had been made. First, they were asked how much consideration they felt was given to their statement in court. As Table 6.23 shows, the most common response to this question was that respondents simply did not know (44 of the 88 statement makers). A further 25 respondents felt that "a lot" or "some" consideration was given to their statement, with 16 respondents being under the impression that "little or no consideration" was given to it.

Table 6.23: How much consideration was given by the court to your statement?

n = 88

6.54 In a similar vein, statement makers were asked whether or not they felt that their statement had been taken into account in sentencing. Once again, the most common response was that this was not known (47 of the 88 respondents). A further 22 respondents considered that their statement had been taken into account in the sentencing process, whilst 19 felt that it had not. As might be expected, these figures are roughly consistent with those relating to the question of how much consideration respondents felt that their statement had been given.

6.55 Finally, statement makers were asked, in the light of their experience, how likely they would be to make a victim statement if they were a victim of a similar crime in the future. ⁹¹ As Table 6.24 illustrates, 58 of the 88 respondents stated that they "definitely" would, with a further 18 respondents stating that they "probably" would. Six respondents stated that they "probably" or "definitely" would not.

Table 6.24: How likely are you to make a victim statement if you were the victim of a similar crime again? (Statement makers only)

n = 88

6.56 The 6 respondents who stated that they would not make a victim statement again if they were the victim of a similar offence in the future were asked what their reason was for this. All 6 stated that this was because they felt that their statement had not made any difference to the outcome of the case. Further support for this finding is the fact that, of the 6 respondents who stated that they would probably or definitely not make a victim statement in the future, none had indicated in response to an earlier question that they felt their statement had been taken into account in sentencing. Four of the 6 felt that it definitely had not and the remaining 2 stated that they did not know whether or not it had. One face-to-face interviewee suggested that she might not make a statement in the future because of the effort involved, but concluded that she probably would:

"I would if there were some wee tweaks to how you have to hand it over. It's that handwriting - pages and pages and pages! I would, yes." (Female victim of assault (respondent 5)). [This victim had gone through a number of drafts of her statement and suggested that she would have preferred to have been able to fill out an electronic form.]

6.57 Four of the 6 telephone interviewees stated in addition that they would be wary of making a statement in the future because, in the light of their experience, they would not now want the offender to see the statement.

REASONS FOR NOT MAKING A VICTIM STATEMENT

6.58 The 94 non-statement makers were asked why they had chosen not to make a statement. The responses to this (open ended) question were grouped by the researchers and are summarised in Table 6.25 below. By far the most common reason given for not making a statement was that the respondent did not feel like a victim or felt that the impact of the crime was not sufficiently serious (33 of the 62 non-statement makers who gave a response to this question).

"I wasn't too fussed about doing a victim statement because it was just too much hassle, it wasn't anything major. It was just something that goes with the territory of this job [working in a pub]" (Male victim of assault (respondent 19), non-statement maker).

Table 6.25: Reasons for not making a victim statement

n = 62⁹³

6.59 A small minority of respondents chose not to give a statement because they feared reprisals from the accused (5 of the 62 respondents) or because they did not want the accused to see the statement or to find out their name and address (a further 5 respondents).

"Basically because once the person got sentenced and still got to live in [name of town]… I felt that if I'd made things worse, then retribution factors would maybe have come into it… basically the accused is a known violent person and I've got 3 children and a wife… I was just concerned for my family basically and I didn't want to make things any worse than they already were." (Male victim of assault (respondent 1), non-statement maker).

"[the documentation] seemed to suggest that if he pleaded guilty my statement would then be read out and it seemed a case of my details would be read out. Now, I know he might know anyway, having burgled my house, but I wasn't too keen to let him see anything bad I had to say about him… I would have preferred if it had just been the judge or whoever had read it." (Female victim of theft by housebreaking (respondent 7), non-statement maker).

6.60 Other reasons given were that respondents did not think their statement would make any difference (4 of the 62 respondents); that they wanted to forget the incident (4 respondents) and (perhaps of some concern) that they did not receive the letter inviting them to do so (4 respondents).

6.61 Responses given by only a single respondent were grouped together under the category "other". They included missing the deadline; feeling that they had made enough statements already; and not wanting the statement to be read out in court. ⁹⁴ In the face-to-face interviews, 2 victims explained that they had not wanted to fill out a victim statement because they did not feel vindictive towards the accused (who was known to them). As one explained:

"…basically I didn't want [the accused, her former long-term partner] to get any harsher sentencing. I really didn't want anything to happen to him because my motivation for accusing him in the first place was to stop him harming himself because I was just so afraid for him." (Female victim of assault (respondent 14), non-statement maker).

6.62 Three respondents specifically mentioned the length of time that had passed since the incident as a reason for not making a statement. All 94 non-statement makers were asked specifically if they would have been more likely to make a statement if they had been able to do so more quickly after the incident in question. Whilst 36 respondents stated that this would have made no difference, 26 respondents said that they would have been more likely to do so if the opportunity had been offered sooner. (The remainder did not know.)

6.63 Non-statement makers were then asked if they were aware that they could have changed their mind and submitted a statement even after their initial decision not to do so (at any point up to conviction). Only 15 non-statement makers (16%) were aware that this was a possibility. Forty-six respondents (49% of non-statement makers) indicated that they did not think this was possible, with a further 33 respondents (35%) stating that they did not know whether or not this was possible.

6.64 The 46 respondents who were under the impression that they could not change their mind were asked if they would have made a victim statement at a later date had they know that it was possible. As Table 6.26 shows, a small proportion (11 of the 46 respondents) stated that they would have been "very" or "quite" likely to do so, suggesting that the possibility of making a statement at any point up to the point of conviction might be something that could be emphasised more strongly in the victim statement literature.

Table 6.26: Had you known you could change your mind, do you think you might have made a victim statement at a later date?

n = 46

6.65 Finally, non-statement makers were asked if they thought, with the benefit of hindsight, their decision not to make a statement was the right decision and how likely they would be to make a victim statement if they were the victim of a similar crime in the future. Table 6.27 displays the responses to the first of these questions. As Table 6.27 shows, only 10% of the 94 respondents thought that their decision not to make a statement was the wrong decision, although the majority of the 94 respondents (37%) stated that they did not know whether it had been the right decision or not. In face-to-face interviews, 2 victims expressed regret about not making a statement, one because he had been assaulted by members of the accused's family again afterwards, and another because he felt he had missed an opportunity to make the effects of the crime on him known:

"Yeah, I do regret it, yeah, because we need the support… people knowing what we're going through. We need that support, we need people to understand that it's not just name-calling. It can be very very painful." (Male victim of racially aggravated harassment (respondent 2), non-statement maker).

Table 6.27: Was your decision not to make a statement the right decision?

n = 94

6.66 In a similar vein, Table 6.28 indicates the likelihood that the non-statement makers in the sample would make a victim statement if they were the victim of a similar crime in the future. ⁹⁵ In total, 50 respondents stated that they "definitely" or "probably" would (54% of non-statement makers), although this high figure might be attributable at least in part to the telephone questionnaire survey raising their awareness about the victim statement scheme rather than to any change of view they had experienced prior to being interviewed.

Table 6.28: How likely are you to make a victim statement if you were the victim of a similar crime again? (Non-statement makers only)

n = 94

6.67 Some non-statement makers indicated that they might choose to make a statement in the future if they were the victim of a more serious crime, or if other circumstances were different:

"If I didn't know the person and the person wasn't from the same town and there was no likelihood of me ever crossing their path again then obviously depending on how serious the crime was then I would imagine I would make a statement... If [the crime] was just something minor I don't really feel that a statement would be much use to anyone." (Male victim of assault (respondent 1), non-statement maker).

"The only reason I would have made the statement would have been if I felt it could have done some good. I didn't feel vindictive… and I didn't feel any emotional damage or trauma." (Male victim of assault (respondent 15), non-statement maker).

6.68 It should not, incidentally, be assumed that victims who chose not to make a statement did not benefit from the scheme. One non-statement maker remarked that she found simply being asked to make a statement helpful:

"Because this came very soon after the incident, that in itself was hugely supportive. That there was someone out there. Because I think you can feel very vulnerable, very isolated in a situation like that, and frightened. I think the fact that there's someone there who's offering you some sort of support is really important… I think I was surprised actually, initially. It was some scheme I had no idea about. And I remember thinking at the time 'oh God I have to make a decision'. And there was a deadline… which was giving me about a month… But when I actually thought about it logically, [it] was giving me a huge opportunity to support me. And I think I did feel very vulnerable. It made me feel that there was someone out there who would care about this, who would listen to this." (Female victim of assault (respondent 16), non-statement maker).

GENERAL PERCEPTIONS OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM

6.69 A number of questions explored the general satisfaction (or otherwise) of victims with their experience of the criminal justice system. Respondents were first asked how well informed they felt they had been kept about the progress of the case. A total of 46% of victims considered that they had been kept "very well" or "quite well" informed, with 52% feeling that they had not been kept well informed (the remainder did not comment). All respondents were asked if there was any information about the case that they would like to have known but were not given. Forty-three percent of respondents stated that there was nothing additional that they wished to know. Of those who indicated that they would have liked further information, the nature of that information varied. As Table 6.29 shows, 23 respondents would have liked to have known the date of the court hearing; 12 respondents wanted to know whether anyone was caught; and 10 wanted to know whether they would have to give evidence.

Table 6.29: What other information about the case would you have liked to have known?

n = 182

6.70 Respondents were then asked about the outcome of the case. A total of 104 respondents (57% of the sample) indicated that the case resulted in a conviction, with a further 14 (8%) stating that the case resulted in an acquittal, was abandoned or did not go to court. A total of 51 respondents (28%) did not know what the outcome was. Non-statement makers were more likely than statement makers to be unaware of the outcome.

6.71 The 104 respondents who stated that the case had resulted in a conviction were asked about the nature of the sentence that was passed. A total of 30% of respondents stated that the sentence was custodial; 32% that there was a fine; and 25% that there was another type of sentence. Twenty percent indicated that they did not know the nature of the sentence. ⁹⁷ Custodial sentences were more likely where the respondent was a statement maker, but this is likely simply to reflect the broader finding that the propensity to make a statement increases with offence seriousness, ⁹⁸ rather than the statement itself making a custodial sentence more likely. ⁹⁹

6.72 The 104 respondents who stated that the case had resulted in a conviction were also asked how satisfied they were with the sentence passed. A total of 32% indicated that they were "very" or "quite" satisfied with the sentence, with 44% indicating that they were not satisfied with the sentence. (A further 25% either could not say or were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied.) There was no discernible difference between statement makers and non-statement makers in this respect.

6.73 Respondents were asked how satisfied they were with their treatment by the police, the procurator fiscal service and the judge or sheriff respectively. In response, 71% were "very" or "quite" satisfied with their treatment by the police; 43% were "very" or "quite" satisfied with their treatment by the procurator fiscal service; and 30% were "very" or "quite" satisfied with their treatment by the judge or sheriff. Levels of expressed dissatisfaction were relatively low, however, with 18% expressing dissatisfaction with their treatment by the police; 32% with their treatment by the procurator fiscal service and 14% with their treatment by the judge or sheriff. (The remainder were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied with their treatment by these agencies.)

6.74 Finally, respondents were asked what improvements, if any, they would suggest to the way in which victims are treated by the criminal justice system. A total of 127 respondents made a suggestion of some sort; the nature of these is shown in Table 6.30. As the table shows, very few respondents made suggestions relating to the victim statement scheme or indeed to any desire to put their point of view across more generally. The most common suggestion by far was for victims to be given more information on the progress of the case. Indeed, the vast majority of suggestions focussed on victims' 'information needs' rather than victims indicating a desire to have any input into decisions taken within the criminal justice system. (On the difference between these two types of victims' rights, see Ashworth, 1993; Fenwick, 1997.)

Table 6.30: Suggested improvements to the criminal justice system

n = 127

6.75 This was reflected by comments made by victims in face-to-face interviews. When asked whether victims' views should be taken into account by the criminal justice system, some responded positively but others were more cautious. The following responses are representative:

"I don't know if I want to be able to influence people too much, I think they're better qualified to decide." (Female victim of theft by housebreaking (respondent 7), non-statement maker).

"I don't think they should have [much influence]. I mean, if he'd been found guilty and they'd asked me, 'what do you think he should get?' I'd have said 'just hang him' or 'just give me something to hit him with'. But no, I think, if they give the statement and the judge looks at it, that should be enough". (Female victim of robbery (respondent 8), statement maker).

"I think so, yeah, definitely… when you're considering sentencing somebody, you need to know how they've affected the victim. The whole system seems not to be very victim or customer orientated." (Male victim of assault (respondent 15), non-statement maker).

"To a certain extent, 'cause you know there will be some victims out there who will go 'chop him up and feed him to the dogs' and just go silly about it. But yeah, to a certain extent listen to what the victims have to say 'cause it's them it's happening to." (Male victim of assault (respondent 19), non-statement maker).

6.76 Some victims, although responding positively to the suggestion that victims' views should be taken into account in sentencing, did so in terms that suggested they were more concerned that the court should know about the effect of the crime on the victim rather than the victim's views on how the case should be dealt with.

6.77 In Table 6.30, responses that were given by only a single respondent were grouped as "other". They included: allowing anonymous victim statements; ensuring that the victim was kept separately from the accused in court; training for officers in dealing with female victims; allowing the victim to go to court even when the offender pled guilty; and making more information available on the support offered to victims.

6.78 The desire to be kept informed was reflected in face-to-face interviews, where victims were asked if they had been kept up-to-date with the progress of their case. The following responses demonstrate the range of different answers to that question:

"Quite frequently… by mail from the procurator fiscal's office, from victim support." (Male victim of assault (respondent 1), non-statement maker).

"One of the women from the procurator fiscal office kept in touch with me… quite often I had to phone the procurator fiscal office but they'd always find out what was happening." (Female victim of assault (respondent 9), non-statement maker).

"Not at all… it's not the fact that the case was dropped that concerns me, just the fact that I didn't get any information up to the trial, when the case was dropped I wasn't given an explanation as to why." (Male victim of assault (respondent 15), non-statement maker).

"I never had any contact with the procurator fiscal and I think that people who've been victims of crimes should be kept updated." (Male victim of assault (respondent 17), non-statement maker).

6.79 The evidence from this research strongly suggests that victims generally place a greater priority on being informed about proceedings than they do on influencing outcomes. This is consistent with the findings of a much earlier study of victims (see Shapland et al, 1985).

6.80 In face-to-face interviews, 2 victims expressed a desire to be able to communicate with the accused in some way.

"A good point I can possibly think of is - and I don't know if it happens - is where the person's found guilty or they get a chance to basically say they're sorry or some kind of 'making it up to' the victim… I think it would have helped me because I'm still in a state of limbo of whether anything's going to backfire on me because of what's happened. And maybe the accused would be made to realise what their actions do to people and maybe stop future incidents from taking place. And thinking maybe twice about being violent or stealing that kiddie's bike or whatever. My daughter at the time had her cycling proficiency when the bike was stolen and she couldn't participate in that and that upset her greatly. And say the accused or the person who stole the bike is made to realise how the wee girl suffered, then perhaps…" (Male victim of assault (respondent 1), ¹⁰¹ non-statement maker).

[When asked how the system might be improved]: "The two of us sitting at a table and somebody saying, well you're going to talk about it… meet up, shake hands, rather than it going through the court. The one idea I think could improve it is instead of going through the courts all the time, sit the victim and the accused down together over a table." (Male victim of assault (respondent 18), statement maker).

SUGGESTED IMPROVEMENTS TO THE VICTIM STATEMENT SCHEME

6.81 All interviewees were asked what improvements, if any, they would make to the victim statement scheme. Suggestions were made by 35 of the respondents and these are shown in Table 6.31 below.

Table 6.31: Suggested improvements to the victim statement scheme

n = 35

6.82 As Table 6.31 indicates, the suggestion that was most commonly made (by 10 respondents) was that assistance should be given in completing the form. ¹⁰³ Not all victims, however, were keen on receiving such assistance:

"If there had been people to help me, they might have wanted to influence what I put down and things like that. And also, it would be like when they heard it, they would be getting upset, and I'd rather just do it on my own 'cause I wasn't feeling upset about having to do it." (Female victim of assault (respondent 13), statement maker).

6.83 Seven respondents suggested that more consideration be given to the statement in court; 6 that the statement be completed sooner after the crime actually occurred; and 4 that the form should not be shown to the offender for fear of reprisals. Four respondents indicated that the layout of the form should be changed, for example by not structuring it so that different types of effect should be written in different sections or by tailoring it more specifically to the nature of the offence.

6.84 These various suggested improvements were reflected in the face-to-face interviews. One victim elaborated on the desire for anonymity as follows:

"I didn't like it [the accused's access to the statement], as soon as I realised that, I didn't like it. You're putting down your weaknesses, it's as if you're exposing yourself. And you're being honest about what that has done to you, how it's changed your life. And let's face it, a lot of women go back [to abusive partners], and that person's read it so they know the weaknesses. Not only that, it could also aggravate a situation where they get irate, angry and they go charging. I don't think his solicitor should see it either. I don't see why she should see it." (Female victim of assault (respondent 5), statement maker).

6.85 Against this, it must be remembered that a number of victims saw the fact that the accused might see the statement as a positive factor (see above, para 6.18).

SUMMARY OF MAIN FINDINGS FROM THE INTERVIEWS

6.86 In summary, the main findings from the interviews with statement makers and non-statement makers are as follows.

6.87 Eighty-two percent of respondents recalled receiving information about the victim statement scheme.

6.88 The documentation was generally thought to be clear. A total of 89% of respondents found the initial letter and accompanying leaflet 'very easy' or 'quite easy' to understand and 72% stated that they found the leaflet helpful in making their mind up about whether or not to submit a victim statement.

6.89 The majority of respondents (8 out of 10) who found the literature difficult to understand were non-statement makers. There is no discernible relationship between finding the literature difficult to understand and either the age or level of education of the respondent.

6.90 Despite the majority of respondents reporting that the statement scheme document was easy to understand, comprehension of the victim statement scheme was mixed. A total of 89% of respondents were aware that it was optional and not compulsory to make a statement, but 43% were unaware that any statement made would be shown to the offender and 39% were unaware that a statement maker could be asked questions about their statement in court. There was some correlation between the extent to which the respondent read the literature and his or her understanding of the scheme, but the relationship was not a straightforward one.

6.91 Of the 83 respondents who were aware that their statement would be shown to the offender, 23% were actually encouraged to make a statement by this knowledge. A further 21% were discouraged and 57% stated that it made no difference.

6.92 The most common reason for making a victim statement was 'to express my feelings' or 'to get my point of view across' (34% of the 88 statement makers). A further 27% of statement makers made a statement in order either to 'assist in the outcome of the trial' (23%) or to 'ensure conviction' (5%), ¹⁰⁴ illustrating that a proportion of statement makers probably held a misconception as to the purpose of the scheme. This was backed up by the finding that, when asked what they hoped for as a result of making a statement, 25% of statement makers stated that they hoped it would ensure that the accused was convicted. Ten percent of respondents made a statement for 'therapeutic reasons' and 14% made a statement in order to 'make the accused think about what he/she had done'. Only 5% of statement makers made a statement in order to influence sentence.

6.93 Overall, only 5% of those who made a statement thought, in retrospect, that it was 'probably' or 'definitely' the wrong decision. Eighty-six percent of the 88 statement makers thought that making a statement was 'probably' or 'definitely' the right decision (the remainder of respondents were unsure). The main reasons given by those who thought that making a victim statement was the wrong decision were that they did not feel that it helped the case (4 out of 5 respondents); that it was not used in court (3 out of 5 respondents); or that the sentence did not seem to take account of it (3 out of 5 respondents).

6.94 In total, 61% of the 88 statement makers reported that making a victim statement made them feel better. Thirty-eight percent of respondents felt that it had not made them feel better. Thirty-nine percent of respondents found the process of making a victim statement upsetting. The more serious the effect of the offence as perceived by respondents, the more likely they were to find making the statement upsetting.

6.95 Twenty-two percent of statement makers were under the mistaken impression that a statement could be withdrawn once made. No statement maker, however, actually attempted to do this.

6.96 Around half of the 88 statement makers (53%) were unaware of the extent to which their statement was taken into account in the sentencing process. A further 25% felt that their statement had been taken into account in sentencing the offender, but 22% felt that it had not.

6.97 The vast majority of the 88 statement makers (86%) were of the opinion that they would make a victim statement again if they were a victim of a similar offence in the future. Only 7% of respondents stated that they 'probably' or 'definitely' would not make a statement if the opportunity arose in future to do so. The most common reason given for this was that they felt that their statement had made no difference to the outcome of the case.

6.98 The most common reason for not making a victim statement was that the respondent did not consider him or herself to be a victim or that the crime had no significant impact (53% of the 94 non-statement makers). A total of 8% of non-statement makers chose not to make a statement because of a fear of reprisals from the accused and a further 8% because they did not want the accused to see their name and address. A total of 7% of non-statement makers did not make a statement because they simply wanted to forget about the incident.

6.99 Of some concern are the 7% of the 94 non-statement makers who did not make a statement because (as they claimed) they had not received a statement pack. ¹⁰⁵ Only 3% of respondents stated that they did not make a statement because they did not understand the documentation.

6.100 Only 10% of the 94 respondents who chose not to make a victim statement now regretted their decision. A total of 53% of the 94 non-statement makers still thought that not making a statement was 'definitely' or 'probably' the right decision. The remainder of non-statement makers were unsure.

6.101 When respondents were asked about improvements they would like to see made to the criminal justice system, the most commonly mentioned factors all related to a need for improved information and support: more information for the victim on the progress of the case (43% of respondents); for the victim to be told the sentence imposed on the offender (9%) and for more support in court/more information about the court process (7%). Factors relating to influence over the criminal justice process such as 'taking victims' views into account' or 'harsher sentences, more criminals being caught' were much less frequent (10% and 5% respectively).

6.102 Finally, all respondents were asked how they thought the victim statement scheme might be improved. The most common response was: 'someone to help with the form' (5% of respondents); followed by 'give more consideration to the statement in court' (4%); 'send the form sooner after the crime' (3%); and 'offer anonymity/prevent offender from reading it' (2%).

« Previous | Contents | Next »