The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

CHAPTER SIX THE WITNESS PERSPECTIVE

Introduction

6.1 This chapter sets out the evidence from this evaluation on witnesses' experiences and perceptions of their role in and treatment by the Scottish criminal justice system. It includes the results from interviews with 11 witnesses or their representatives. Therefore care should be interpreting this chapter's findings, which are based on interviews with a small number of witnesses or their representatives. Because fewer witnesses could be interviewed than was planned, it also includes other sources of evidence, including observations made in court waiting areas and a summary of a survey of 50 witnesses from the related VWO evaluation (outlined in chapter 1).

6.2 This chapter includes many quotes from witnesses, rather than paraphrasing what they said. It relates largely to witnesses' experiences of the criminal justice process; witnesses were recruited for interview largely through Witness Services and were involved in solemn cases only. No witnesses interviewed had experience of speaking in a referral to the sheriff from a Children's Hearing.

Commencement arrangements and their implications

6.3 As annex 2 outlines in more detail, phase 1 of the Act came into force on 1 April 2005 for child witnesses in solemn cases reported to the fiscal, and for children involved in children's hearings court proceedings lodged on or after that date. Child witnesses in cases reported before that date did not come within the ambit of the provisions.

6.4 This means that the research sample includes the periods when agencies were processing cases using both pre- and post-Act approaches to vulnerable witnesses. The effect of this on the research results is that it is not possible to draw firm conclusions from the data about how quickly the new provisions were being implemented for child witnesses from the start of phase 1, or for adult vulnerable witnesses from the start of phase 2. However, the interviews presented in this chapter all took place during child year 2, so all child witnesses should have been covered by the Act's provisions. Provisions for adult vulnerable witnesses came into force on 1 April 2006 but in a similar manner (for cases reported to the fiscal rather than all cases indicted after that date), so for some of the adult vulnerable witness interviews (that took place during 2007) it is possible that the case had been reported to the fiscal before the adult provisions came into force on 1 April 2005.

Interview strategy

6.5 The research aims included interviewing 30 witnesses, including 12 young witnesses. The approach was complicated by the need to interview witnesses only after their cases were complete, to avoid the risk of influencing cases, and by being confined to witnesses in the most serious cases (High Court and Sheriff solemn, not summary, cases). Previous research has shown that witnesses are unlikely to talk about their experiences in serious cases (Hamlyn et al, 2004; Richards et al, 2007). Also, vulnerable adult witnesses proved difficult to identify throughout the research in the absence of VW applications, and very few of these were being submitted.

6.6 Following discussions at the RAG with the agencies involved, WS offered help in identifying vulnerable witnesses in solemn and High Court cases. The Witness Services at each study court and at the High Court (and later at other courts) were contacted and asked to contact witnesses and make referrals to the researchers. If people were willing to be interviewed, their details were passed to the researchers. After cases had completed the WS staff informed the researchers who then contacted witnesses to seek an interview. A variety of other approaches were also adopted including the researchers visiting waiting areas to meet potential interviewees, the use of posters and leaflets for witnesses and the use of gift vouchers as a 'thank you'. Annex 2 gives full details of the approach adopted.

6.7 A total of 12 Witness Services approached an estimated 100 witnesses on the researchers' behalf. From this, 18 referrals were received from 4 Witness Services. Some other referrals had to be discounted because they were in summary cases, but in all 11 individuals were interviewed of whom 3 were parents or carers. This was far less than hoped for, but many witnesses, understandably, did not want to revisit their experiences. After agreeing to be interviewed, some other people changed their minds on the day.

Table 6.1 Witnesses interviewed

6.8 The 11 people interviewed were 3 young witnesses, one of whom was 'very young' (under 12), 3 parents or carers and 5 adult witnesses. Each of the young witnesses was giving evidence in a case where they were also the alleged victim. Four of the 5 adult witnesses were also alleged victims. Overall, 5 males and 6 females were interviewed. Each of the young witnesses were cited at a different study court.

6.9 While none of the adults had vulnerable witness applications made on their behalf, they were judged by the WS to have been vulnerable witnesses, or their cases involved intimidation and/or crimes of a sexual nature, and in some cases the witness had a physical and/or mild learning disability.

Results; witness perceptions and main concerns

Intimidation and effects of the crime upon witnesses

6.10 When asked what it was like before even going to court, the young female witnesses said that they were scared, and they didn't want to go. Reasons for being scared included " I didn't want to see them and didn't want them to see me" and "Having everybody looking at me, having to answer questions, getting really nervous about seeing them again". There was also perhaps some element of lack of control; when asked why she was scared, the very young witness replied "I knew I'd got to go".

6.11 The male young witness though, who had been reluctant to report the crime, was also reluctant to answer the question about how he felt about going to court, and said that "I can sort myself out, that's what should have happened anyway". Another male (adult) alleged victim reported being embarrassed when talking to the police and fiscal.

6.12 One adult witness giving evidence against a family member described how this had impacted on a co-witness; "[Witness name] is intimidated- it's a very small village- they keep bumping into each other" and " It's split the whole family". One witness had "… lost a lot of weight through worry- and it's not as if she can afford to lose any- and she's got other health problems." There were some overt signs of intimidation outwith the courthouse; in one case a not proven verdict was returned and afterwards what was described as a 'funeral card' was sent to a witness, which was considered intimidating. In the same case before and during trial, 2 witnesses used to get silent nuisance telephone calls.

6.13 The effects of a crime were exacerbated if it took place near home. One young victim's life had been quite profoundly affected according to her mother; "[My daughter] won't go out at night any more. She has an evening job and her Dad has to pick her up- it's changed her life- we would like to move but it's hard at our ages. But because it happened just over the road, she's scared she'll bump into the people". Nevertheless, this young witness was later able to overcome her fears and give evidence in court without a special measure, at her own choosing. Even so, on the night before court it was "Really very stressful- thinking 'what if, what if'- I don't think [my daughter] slept that night- I don't think any of us slept". In this case the family wanted, ideally, to move from the area.

Investigation stages

6.14 Generally, the police received praise for being understanding and helpful. The only real criticism was that after the investigation stage was over, witnesses heard no more from them. After the police investigation, all witnesses felt that no-one got in touch (although one DC gave a parent his phone number in case they needed it). Acting as an on-going information point is of course not the intended role of the police, who do not have the necessary resources; proposals under the draft Witness Charter to this end in England and Wales have recently been diluted (see chapter 2).

6.15 One mother felt that during the investigative stages a social worker was unfairly critical of her. One adult male victim of alleged assault by a female felt the police were being "quite stern" and disbelieving until a neighbour confirmed his story. However, at Crown precognition, the fiscal was "very nice, easy to talk to , and quite concerned about me". The defence precognition agent was also very pleasant, but apparently disinterested.

6.16 One young witness had a very quick statement taken in an ambulance, and then a longer one at hospital with a parent present; "She was hysterical in the hospital but the officer was very good. The CID were really good, nice throughout". One adult witness said of the police "They were brilliant- they were alright- it was just the lawyers…" This witness was kept informed by the interviewing police officer, but there was no family liaison officer.

6.17 After the investigation, witnesses heard nothing until receiving a citation for Crown precognition. For example, two different young witnesses and their parents heard nothing until they were called in to the fiscal's office. The young male witness's father was allowed to sit in on his son's precognition. The young female witness's mother wanted to accompany her daughter into precognition but was not allowed to, until being asked to come in towards the end after her daughter had become 'quite emotional'. She felt that 2 and a half hours was a very long time for her daughter to be in there alone: " I don't know if they have specialist fiscals who deal with children, but we weren't very impressed with this one".

6.18 Interestingly, the young witness in this case felt differently:

Interviewer: "What before court helped most to make you feel more comfortable and relaxed?"

Witness: "The PF probably. After her, I talked to lots of people- police at the ID parade, the CID man. Every single person that helped me from the paramedics to the court case, everyone was really helpful and I really liked that because it made me more comfortable because they've seen these things before and feel really bad for you."

6.19 One adult witness confirmed that an interview with the fiscal could be long and tiring however; " It was long, very long- about 4 hours- I was sitting there thinking 'I'm tired now'- the police were just 2 hours, so the PF was very very thorough". All of the witnesses interviewed underwent defence precognition, even though following full disclosure by the Crown of all statements and productions, defence agents in another study (Richards et al, 2007) reported no longer using precognition. In some cases defence agents came to a child's home, whereas all adults had to attend defence agents' offices.

6.20 One adult prosecution witness and victim had to telephone the defence lawyer 4 times before the firm got back in touch to arrange a precognition. The witness was concerned that the case would not go ahead (there had already been many delays) unless the defence precognition had taken place. The defence precognition agent, a former police officer, was described as 'alright'.

Information before court

6.21 The very young witness interviewed said that it was her Mum and Dad who told her about what would happen when she went to court. After the police and social work involvement in the investigative stages, this child's mother said that the only person who spoke to her daughter was the WS, at court:

"I think it might help kids if before they actually got to meet a judge or a procurator fiscal beforehand … I do think it would be a good idea- to say to the bairns look, I'm just a human, what the court looked like, what was going to happen".

6.22 The only information they had was the leaflet 'Being a Witness' which the parents sat and read and explained to their daughter;

"We were just left - a long long time and nobody came and spoke to us- we were just left with this little booklet … I got onto the court website so she could see the room. But I really think there was just no support I can think of, of what there should have been for their age".

6.23 The parents in this case thought that as well as being able to look at the CDROM (which they did not know existed) having a fuller court familiarisation visit ( CFV) might have helped them prepare better (see below). Visits from a social worker or a lawyer a week or so before court to explain what was going to happen were other suggestions.

6.24 One of the teenagers interviewed said that again, she did not see or receive the CDROM but got leaflets through the door, and also a CFV by the WS. Mostly the fiscal and WS told her about court, but she talked to the police about it too. Even so, " Just someone to talk to, like a counsellor" might have helped. As described in chapter 2, pre-trial therapy was discussed during the stage 3 debate on the Bill's proceedings. The Minister said that therapy should not be discouraged, so a multi-agency steering group was developing guidance on doing this without the risk of contaminating evidence. An amendment to include this in the Bill was defeated.

6.25 When this young witness was precognosced, the fiscal had briefly explained special measures and that "No matter what they would see me, but I didn't need to see them'. The witness's parent described this as just a brief run-through of special measures at the end. The fiscal in the above case did not give these interviewees any leaflets or information but told them to " contact VIA if we wanted anything like that".

6.26 In this case, VIA were " very good to start with … they sent letters and info giving us the jargon of court. But latterly, as the case came up, they seem to be way behind anybody else". In this case the citation to appear came through the letterbox as a complete surprise, and then VIA's letter arrived almost 2 weeks after that. The witness's parents reported that two female VIA officers were in touch with them, but "… always by letter, never in person or on the phone". Conversely, the Witness Service court co-ordinator telephoned as court day approached, "… just to see if we were alright".

6.27 The young male witness and his father, despite attending for Crown precognition, had no notion of the existence of special measures. This young witness appeared old for his age, and it may also have been a matter of receptiveness; the father said that the police had told them about 'victim aid' but there was "No need for that, me and the wife can take care of it".

6.28 One adult witness reported how information held cannot always keep pace with changing circumstances:

" It was meant to start in [month] but the lawyer couldn't make it- at 5pm the night before my sister got a call to say it was not on anymore- she called me. And at 8am the next day the police called me to say 'You're to be in court at 9.45'- and I said no I wasn't- it's been cancelled- so even the police didn't know what was going on!"

6.29 It was only after discussing issues with the Witness Service at court that one parent realised that VIA and VSS were not the same organisation. This therefore acted as a barrier to this parent seeking help from VSS:

"I suppose I could have looked it up in the phonebook- I blame myself- I honestly thought Victim Information was part of Victim Support- during that stage I think [witness] should have had someone to talk to about this. I just presumed that Victim Information was Victim Support, and I'm not stupid- I'm an intelligent person! It was on the pre-court visit when [young witness] broke down- and [the WS volunteer] suggested Victim Support- he said 'would you like to speak to someone?' I said 'where are they?!'"

6.30 One adult male alleged victim had problems telephoning to try to find out about his case and called the police station and later the fiscal more than once to find out after hearing nothing for about 6 weeks, but in the end gave up calling.

6.31 In one case of alleged familial sexual abuse, with a witness with both physical disabilities and learning difficulties, and in which intimidation had occurred, the fiscal did not discuss special measures:

Researcher: "Did the PF discuss how you could give evidence?

Witness: "Not at all - and you can't coach the witness".

Researcher: "But did they mention any things that might make it easier?"

Witness: "We asked right from the start if it was going to be an open or closed court- we knew all those people are going to be in there, looking at us- and possibly journalists too. But they wouldn't say."

Researcher: "Did anyone say you could have someone standing behind you- not to be able to touch or help but just be there?"

Witness: "No-one suggested that".

Friend: "You felt on your own, didn't you?"

Witness: "I think that would have been helpful- but we had nothing".

Court familiarisation visits

6.32 The youngest witness interviewed had a court visit but " We didn't go in the big courtroom" because although the WS had arranged a visit the court was busy at the time. When asked whether talking to other children beforehand might have made things easier, the child agreed and volunteered that then she would have known what she had to do. Nevertheless, the court visit was appreciated by her parents:

" After the police, CID and social work, after that the only person who ever spoke to [my daughter] was [ WS co-ordinator], the witness protection and in the court on the day we went through it all- she was more than helpful".

6.33 The WS-arranged court visit was greatly valued and described by another parent:

"What did help was the WS who actually asked us if we wanted a court visit. They have been fantastic- more helpful than Victim Information actually. The service was exceptional. Again, we knew nothing until we went to the court.

"We went to visit the court, and a person explained everything- in [my daughter's] language about the law, put us at ease. They showed us the waiting area, and explained the court room and where everybody would be sitting. We just had one person all the way through - [male volunteer] who's fantastic. They're all volunteers, you know."

6.34 One adult witness also had a court familiarisation visit by the WS.

Delays before court

6.35 Comments by one adult witness indicated severe delays, with a case taking 3 years to get to court after what they called " Little tactics … dragging it out". This person said they had attended court twice but on each occasion the defence agent had not turned up. One young witness's case went to trial in August following an offence the previous December:

"It meant that my brain was getting rid of some memories, not remembering so much, it would be better if it was a shorter time but I still had to do interviews every now and then. I'd forget then get a call and remember and get upset again".

6.36 One adult confirmed that delays meant " It's so hard having to concentrate- remember dates, etc". The young male witness had been to court twice; he and his mother waited the first time "for hours" before being told "the trial's called off - a new date will be set and you'll hear about it". The second time he and his mother had just arrived at the courthouse when the fiscal came and said it was over, since a plea had been entered.

6.37 The parent of the very young witness said that it was almost a year before the case called. The accused person was " Getting briefed all the time" but they had:

"Nothing; no social workers; no one to come and say what's happening. At one point - there was our PF and solicitor who said 'Since it's Christmas time do you want to drop the charges'? I said 'No way on earth after what we've been through' - I thought it was maybe a tactic to just delay it.

"We would get phone calls sometimes from the secretary of the court or reception- she would phone sometimes and say right, this is the court date. The offence actually happened in July and we eventually went to court in June [the year after]. It was going to be February, then March…"

6.38 An adult male alleged assault victim had to wait 7 or 8 months after reporting the crime before hearing from the fiscal about the next stage of the case.

Experiences at court

Waiting

6.39 One adult witness spoke of VIA and the WS interchangeably. For example they thought that VIA kept coming back and checking on them in the waiting area, whereas it is much more likely this was the WS. Despite some confusion about who was who, witnesses were unanimous in their praise for the WS and its help from pre-court to helping at court. One family appreciated being able to walk straight through the reception area on the day without waiting in any queues at reception, because they had been shown this on the court familiarisation visit. This family were:

"Just told to turn up- but the WS was there straight away within half an hour- he was brilliant- cracking jokes, etc. No-one else came to see us or told us what was happening- no fiscal, etc".

6.40 Perceptions of waiting rooms depended perhaps on expectations. The following witnesses were all taking about Glasgow sheriff court. One parent said she was surprised by the waiting area because it was 'comfortable enough', with a vending machine and water cooler. But an adult witness noted that " There's nothing there- just a Coke/chocolate machine- and it kept on stealing our money- we thought that was quite funny, in a court - you can't kick it!". Another adult suggested that "They could put music on in that [waiting] room- it would calm you down, keep you relaxed".

6.41 While waiting rooms themselves were not particularly criticised, unthinking arrangements were. One adult witness said:

"In the witness room, we were put in there with [the defence witnesses]; there was a certain amount of intimidation going on; I don't think we should have been in the same room ... To be all in one room- all of them there making snide remarks, all in one room - and [a defence witness in the same case] was sitting there crying- so the woman from behind the desk came and put her arm around her; I was thinking 'Who's the victim here?'"

6.42 One WS volunteer "Saw what was happening, and moved us".

6.43 Another adult witness who was just about to give evidence was approached by the fiscal who started talking to her within earshot of defence witnesses in the same waiting room. This witness had to ask if they could move outside for the discussion. The parent of one child witness said that their case was delayed the first day for an undisclosed reason. This parent felt that returning was worse than having to go the first day; "You'd psyched yourself up- to be told we had to come back was awful". The young witness herself felt:

"The witness protection guy said waiting was the boring part and truly it was. From quarter to ten to about eleven the first day, then we went away and came back at two, then waited until about 3.30 when my friend went in, then back next day until we were told we weren't needed."

6.44 On the other hand, the c ase with the witness aged under 12 called early in the day, to the parents' relief. One adult who was at court 'the best part of a day' said:

"They waste so much time- they seem to have such a long lunch- two hours- you're actually already standing up in court- nothing happens before ten, but you have to be there for nine, and you even have to sit while they have a cup of coffee- the judge said 'We'll just let the jury have a coffee for half an hour'- but I just had to sit there!"

Interviewer: "Sit where- not in the witness box?"

Witness: "I had to sit in a hall, on my own- the woman who brings you into the court said to the people in the waiting room 'Don't talk to her- you can look at her but don't talk to her' - there's a glass window".

Separate entrances

6.45 Witnesses reported encountering accused persons or their associates at court:

"[One of the accused persons] was still in court, but we saw them on the second day when leaving the courtroom … [two co-accused] were outside sitting on a bench even though they'd already pled- I don't know why they were there. Giving us daggers- and they live quite near here. We had to go out that way, right next to reception- and they were sitting there. Reassurances were given, security guards everywhere, but just that one entrance; I don't know why there's not a different way in or anything we could have used."

6.46 There is in fact a separate entrance at the court in question, but it was not used or offered in this case. Witness Service staff interviewed spoke frequently of taking witnesses out of courts via separate entrances when possible, but it may be that the WS is not always aware of when a witness finishes giving evidence and needs to be escorted out.

6.47 At another court, the under-12 year old victim of a sexual offence and her parents "Did get to go in the back door with the bairns- and that was I think for fear of coming face to face in the corridor, but it's all windows!" This meant that "Well, we walked past and he was standing there in the corridor, staring at us".

Special measures used

6.48 Only one witness in this sample discussed special measures before court at the Crown precognition. This witness and her parent, interviewed separately, described the process through which the witness decided which special measure to use. This young witness had clearly been made aware of the disadvantages of each special measure:

"The only thing that was bad was that they have to see you in court, but it's the law; if you're scared and paranoid that's no good [so] you can ask for a private court, but then your mum and dad can't be there".

6.49 Her mother described what was planned:

"In the end the sheriff decided, for the other girl who was a witness, it was a closed court anyway.

"After the PF, the Witness Service asked us again about special measures, and made a note of it. [ WS volunteer] also offered that an adult could sit beside [young witness], not touch her; we were going to take them up on that- just your presence there. So basically she was going to have a screen, supporter, cleared court".

6.50 The choice of a screen may have been influenced by professionals:

"At the start I didn't really want to go through it but decided on screens because that's what they thought best for me, but when it came to court I didn't want to use anything because I was more confident by then. But I was really scared at first".

6.51 The professionals involved in the case and their encouragement had made this young witness more confident. This witness's mother reported that the WS had reassured her daughter, and her interpretation of the decision not to use special measures on the day was partly because she could be seen via CCTV anyway, but also because " she decided she was bigger than these people". In the event, this witness did not give evidence, because after other witnesses in the case had done so, the accused persons pled guilty.

6.52 The witness aged under 12 said she did not know beforehand that she would be able to use special measures. She thought it might have helped to speak to other young people beforehand. Her mother confirmed that they knew SMs were a possibility, but not which, until the day of court. In the event, CCTV from within the court was used: "We got a video link eventually". When asked how it was giving evidence in this way, the child confirmed that it worked, that she was able to talk into it and managed to say everything she wanted to say, and that the people on the other end " asked lots of questions". Overall:

"It was better because if I did it like in a big room I would be really scared"

6.53 This very young witness's father also acted as a supporter, which again the parents were not sure beforehand would be allowed:

"We went to the room and she didn't show much nerves at all but she's quite a nervous person so it was a godsend that her dad could go in. It was a last ditch attempt- we were going to say 'Could you be big and brave and go in', but luckily she got her dad in with her …I think they would have preferred if it had been someone from the court."

6.54 The adult witnesses interviewed for this study did not use any of the 'standard special measures' set out for children, but one received a visit and also a closed court after they asked for this. One other adult witness reported being 'on the stand' for most of a morning and until after 3pm on a Friday.

6.55 One of the non-statutory special measures is the removal of wigs and gowns. Witnesses were asked about this, and for the very young witness, wigs were removed:

Researcher: "The people who worked in the court - did they have all their wigs and gowns on and all that stuff or did they all look ordinary?"

Young witness: "Ordinary."

Researcher: "Was it better they didn't have their wigs on- how come?"

Young witness: "Because I would have laughed".

6.56 The parent of this young witness confirmed that the WS"Did say sometimes, when it's kids, the judge , he'll take off his wig and stuff, which he did". Finding wigs amusing was not an isolated reaction:

Witness: "And he [the defence agent] had a wig; it kept slipping down over his eyes, like Laurel and Hardy. I was smiling and thinking 'don't laugh, don't laugh'; and he said I should be treating the proceedings more seriously. Plus he had a robe, and kept folding it around him like Batman - that's another affectation".

Researcher: "Would it have helped if they'd taken them off?"

Witness: "I don't mind the robe thing- the PF had a robe on but not the wig- so he [the defence agent] chose to wear it- he thinks it gives him authority".

Witness perceptions of legal professionals' attitudes

6.57 Of course cross-examination can be a rigorous process and unpleasant experience, and the witnesses in the study confirmed this, but also found other aspects of court procedure (such as not meeting their trial prosecutor beforehand) unsettling. One witness and her sister, a co-witness, each had hearing disabilities. The witness felt that the defence agent had kept turning away from them when he was asking questions, and that the sheriff should have intervened, since VIA knew the witness used a hearing aid.

6.58 Witnesses were generally not expecting that the fiscal who appeared in court would differ from the one who had handled their case earlier. One parent thought this was 'unnerving'. An adult witness talked about fiscals 'getting cases on the day'. A young witness noted that "The man that would be asking questions came out when we came to court, the other PF".

6.59 Generally of course, the adversarial nature was upsetting for some young or vulnerable witnesses. A parent of the youngest witness interviewed said:

"[The defence agent] was telling her instructions, he was saying tell the truth and all that- I was horrified- putting a bairn through that was just disgusting … We half expected it anyway with a solicitor because that's his job."

6.60 One friend, who supported an adult witness during her interview with the researchers, commented "The solicitor was rude; he called you a liar; are they allowed to do that?"

Identification

6.61 One young witness had to attend an ID parade which was not a VIPER parade, and heard about this only on the day, via a friend who was also a witness. Her father was able to make arrangements to attend with her at this short notice, however.

6.62 One adult witness was asked to point out the accused person in court, even though this was her brother " I was asked to identify him in court ... It's ludicrous- the most stupid way to ru n a court." Of course, the jury needs to have such evidence presented to it in court, if ID has not earlier or otherwise been established.

Outcomes

6.63 For most of the witnesses interviewed, the accused person was convicted, twice through a guilty plea on the day, so these witnesses did not give evidence, after attending:

"At about half eleven the PF came through and my friend got really excited jumping up and down- they'd pleaded guilty and I was pleased but I was ready for it and a bit disappointed. […]

"… the PF told me they could plead on the day. But I was still quite shocked because I wanted to prove them guilty, not get a shorter sentence because they pleaded, because it wasn't right what they did to me. I was scared, then really, really stressed and angry and upset, almost depressed, then confident- lots of different feelings".

6.64 For one adult witness whose case was not proven, not knowing why was important:

"We got a letter confirming the verdict two weeks after the bloody thing! They can't even tell you, although you've taken part."

Interviewer: "Did you know anything else about the verdict?"

Witness: "I would have liked to have known what the jury said; why they went for not proven. To put yourself through that and get no information- that I find quite hard".

After court

Information and offers of help

6.65 VIA communications arrived too late in some cases to be of use. The WS told one witness that they would not be informed but had to call to find out:

"[The WS volunteer] asked if we would like her to ring instead and we said yes please. One of [another witness's] friends phoned to find out the verdict, so [they] told me. But 2-3 days later [the WS volunteer] called to ask 'Have you heard the verdict?' Then we got the letter from VIA 2 weeks later. Isn't that wonderful- to have heard it second-hand".

6.66 One parent said that since the court case:

"Nobody's been in contact at all- only [the court co-ordinator] from the Witness Service who's called twice just to ask if we're OK. We have had nothing from VIA - they have not even been in touch. [A WS volunteer] said we might get a letter from them … but nothing".

6.67 Asked whether anyone had offered help after the case was over, one witness said he had been back to the hospital for a check-up, and the hospital "had been good". One young witness said she was receiving counselling, and confirmed "Yes, I got offered help after the court, but I think if it was offered before, I would have had more confidence."

Overall feelings

6.68 Witnesses were asked to help sum up overall feelings. In their words:

Experiences of witnesses in waiting areas

6.69 In attempts to increase numbers of referrals to the research, the researchers visited witness waiting rooms at Edinburgh and Glasgow sheriff courts. In the event this did not improve interview success rates, but provided a further source of information. During the brief meetings witnesses in solemn cases were very keen to share their experiences of the system with the researchers. Therefore although these meetings did not constitute interviews, they informed the research.

6.70 Prosecution witness waiting rooms at Glasgow and Edinburgh sheriff courts are typically large, and busy. As well as groups (often families) sitting waiting there are many professional witnesses including police officers. The WS is usually present. There are several waiting rooms, serving different courtrooms. At Glasgow the defence witnesses' waiting area is tucked away but the WS has erected signs to it; even so, it is empty compared to the prosecution witnesses' waiting rooms.

6.71 As well as this, there are communal areas where anyone can wait. At Glasgow sheriff court the ground floor reception atrium area has benches which invite one to sit. At Edinburgh too, there are seats in the ground floor main corridor. As with all sheriff courts, smokers, who could be prosecution or defence witnesses or observers, gather outside the front door. It is impossible to guarantee that someone entering the building would not encounter witnesses for the other side, unless they were brought in the rear entrance.

Summary of witness survey results for VWO pilots

6.72 A survey of 50 witnesses was carried out for the related work to assess the vulnerable witness officer ( VWO) pilots in Aberdeen and Ayrshire. A self-completion questionnaire was used to explore agencies and structures that helped witnesses, rather than in-depth discussion of experiences surrounding the case itself. However, during development the content and depth of the questionnaire expanded considerably, to cover experiences at court and use of special measures, making it of increasing relevance to the current research.

6.73 The questionnaires were administered by sheriff court criminal offices to witnesses with cases calling at Aberdeen, Ayr and Kilmarnock sheriff courts, and a sample of those contacted by VIA officers and other agencies in these areas. It could not be guaranteed that these witnesses were involved in solemn cases only, and they were outwith the VWA study courts. Nevertheless, they illustrate some witnesses' experiences during September-October 2006.

6.74 Of some 400-450 administered, 50 questionnaires were returned by witnesses (around a 12% response rate). Full results are presented in Morris et al (2008) but in summary:

6.75 Perhaps the most interesting finding of this albeit limited survey is that 9 of 49 who answered the question self-identified as 'particularly vulnerable'. Including 2 under-16s who did not, 11 of the sample or 22% of witnesses either self-identified as vulnerable or would be deemed vulnerable under the Act.

6.76 Reasons for vulnerability varied, but it was significantly associated with being an alleged victim ⁷². Of the 40 witnesses who did not think they were vulnerable, only 10 said they were also the victim in the case. But of those 9 who considered themselves especially vulnerable, 8 were also victims. Indeed, reasons given for feeling vulnerable were often to do with the accused person rather than the witness:

• the accused is a customer, "threats and violence and intimidation can be scary";
• aged 78 - "feel a bit old to be called to court";
• sister of the accused person, a defence witness who also alleges domestic violence;
• related to a court official, physical disability;
• accused lives in same street, "the only female and youngest witness", aged 16-17;
• ex-partner of the accused person, mental illness, symptoms exacerbated by court;
• knows the accused person, in a wheelchair following a stroke;
• accused person is neighbour; "if he gets out it will be a nightmare", and
• a witness with special needs - "hard to read and write".

6.77 Knowing the accused person was less important in determining vulnerability however; half (20 of 40) of those who did not think they were vulnerable knew the accused, as did 6 of the 9 who identified as vulnerable witnesses. The difference in distribution between the groups was not significant ⁷³, but this is perhaps because the majority of people who returned questionnaires knew the accused.

6.78 In summary then, the respondents to the survey indicated that it is not necessarily or only the vulnerability factors defined by the Act that determine a person's view of their own vulnerability (particularly being under 16), but a range of personal relationships and circumstances. The results show that being a victim is a significant factor. In some ways this reflects the spirit of the Act in having few 'hard and fast' tests of vulnerability. But the responses also suggest that people can be 'trusted' to say whether they are vulnerable or not, which perhaps reassures those who think that with such 'woolly' or all-encompassing definitions of vulnerability 'everyone could be vulnerable'.

6.79 As with the child witness notices, where since implementation in the study courts 53 children have had CWNs with 'no special measures required', people are not seeking vulnerable status or special measures just because they are on offer.

6.80 Some of the other responses challenge assumptions. Of 46 respondents, only 2 had to attend an identification ( VIPER) parade, which does not imply overuse of these facilities in the pilot areas. Respondents to this survey were not concerned about more help after the case was over (but of course there will always be people who need specialist support).

6.81 Other results confirm findings of other work; witnesses were calling clearly for more information while the case was on-going, at court and after disposal.

Summary

6.82 Witnessing a crime, or being the victim of a crime as several of the witnesses in this research were, can have profound effects upon witnesses and their families. Generally, witnesses felt the police were supportive immediately afterwards and during the investigative stages, but after police involvement ended, information was cut off.

6.83 Several of the witnesses interviewed (or met in waiting rooms) had to wait a long time for citations. During this period, no-one kept them informed. Witnesses had to telephone several times to ask for information, or to arrange defence precognition in one case. The parents of a very young witness were her only source of support and information before court and another young witness would have welcomed someone to talk to about her feelings, and pre-trial counselling.

6.84 VIA does not appear to be offering a very personal or speedy service, at times when these are 2 qualities that witnesses would value highly. There is also confusion between VSS, VIA and WS, which may hamper victims seeking help from VSS. Witnesses were extremely appreciative of the service offered by the WS, both at court and in keeping them informed through phone calls.

6.85 One often cited potential benefit of using visually recorded prior statements is to reduce the need for some interviews and precognitions. However, while Crown precognitions are lengthy according to the witnesses in this sample, neither they nor defence precognitions appeared to be unduly upsetting experiences (but the small numbers interviewed should be borne in mind). The wearing of wigs, or the idea of it, was found amusing by 2 vulnerable witnesses interviewed.

6.86 Several of the witnesses had CFVs and some used SMs. One witness, for whom a VW application was not made, found defence cross-examination particularly upsetting. One use of CCTV link by a very young witness went well, although the link was from within the same courthouse, where she and her parents saw the accused person.

6.87 Most of the witnesses interviewed who attended court came into contact with either the accused person or their associates in the courthouse. Several mentioned matters at court that made things worse, such as being placed in a waiting room with defence witnesses, told to sit in a corridor while the jury had a coffee break, or being asked to come back next day. More help after the trial was over was not seen by the witnesses interviewed as a high priority.

« Previous | Contents | Next »