Victim Notification Scheme (VNS): independent review

Section 18: The Scottish Prison Service and the VNS

SPS representatives stated that there was a common misconception that the VNS is managed by the SPS. Whilst SPS hold crucial data, they regard their role just as one stage in a process, other parts of which are owned by other organisations. Ownership of the scheme is discussed later. If they are contacted about a sentence of under 18 months, SPS check eligibility with the sentencing court, which is their only means of confirmation. If a sentence is over 18 months, SPS expect forms sent out by COPFS to be sent to them. If there is any doubt about who the victims are, SPS have to check with COPFS. These checks of victim eligibility could be simplified with improved information sharing. As COPFS would have the relevant information for sentences under 18 months, there should be a simplified way of doing this.

Recommendation 6. Eligibility check. Section 18

In the case of victims of offenders sentenced to under 18 months, we would hope this could be done centrally via a COPFS database, rather than an SPS official needing to contact an individual sentencing court.

If representations are made under Part 2 of the VNS, it is not uncommon for victims to telephone SPS with questions, but enquiries may then need to be redirected to another organisation, the PBS. Thus, by this relatively early stage in the process, three separate arms of the CJS need to be navigated by a victim. Such a relatively bureaucratic system also leaves scope for communications and departmental cooperation problems, effectively asking the victim to find their own way around.

If the victim has no recourse to an advocacy worker, they would in most cases enquire online. Official information on the VNS in Scotland can be found on the following websites: SPS, Mygov.scot, COPFS, Parole Board Scotland and gov.scot. It is also possible to find VNS information on the Police Scotland and Scottish Courts and Tribunals websites. On each of these sites, the language and content differ and they have varying degrees of accessibility in terms of language. It cannot be surprising that victims say they are confused.

To take one example from the SPS website:

"Written Representations to the Parole Board for Scotland

Where victims opts (sic) to make written representations to the Parole Board for Scotland about the offenders (sic) release, the SPS will provide Victims, Witnesses, Parole and Life Sentence Division (VWPLS) with the victim's details. VWPLS will write to the victim nearer the time that the offender's case is being considered, advising when and where to send their representations."

Here we see mention of Victims, Witnesses, Parole and Life Sentence Division (VWPLS), but it is not clear who or where this is, nor would it appear to be necessary for an enquirer to know this detail. A Google search for 'VWPLS' refers only to the SPS website. We note that this website has been recently updated, but we were aware that the above was on the website for the majority of the time we were conducting our research.

We consider communications and how information might be presented online later in Section 30.

What came across strongly from our conversations was that victims, at a highly stressful time, struggle to understand sentencing and the VNS process. The receipt of a notification letter from SPS can be traumatic for the victim and this often results in them telephoning SPS in a highly emotional state. We were impressed by the sensitivity of SPS staff dealing with the VNS as to the victim's distress and their willingness to talk to victims on the telephone. However, it is the role of the SPS to provide statutory notifications, not to provide advice or a counselling service. We heard evidence that conversations, such as where a victim threatens self-harm over the telephone can have a strong impact on the SPS staff member themselves. This aspect is not their role, nor are they trained to deal with such, whilst they do their best to signpost callers to support. SPS is looking at trauma training, but they do not feel they are the right people to take calls from traumatised victims.

SPS has been involved with the First Word Project, People at Heart, which was initiated under the auspices of the Victims Taskforce to guide agencies on how to communicate sensitively with people affected by crime. Whilst we have taken evidence from a number of officials of increased awareness of the impact of language and communications, we are not persuaded that there has yet been a wholesale culture change. The pro-forma letter attached as Appendix H serves as an example. This letter is sent to VNS registered victims to notify that a prisoner is no longer held within SPS custody. Without explaining why more detailed information may not be disclosed, it then lists a number of reasons why the prisoner might no longer be in SPS custody, but does not disclose which of the disparate possibilities it might be. Reference is made to contacting Victim Support Scotland for assistance, but it is not clear how VSS themselves would be able to identify what had happened. To find a local VSS office, it is suggested the recipient consult a telephone directory. The recipient is also invited to contact the sender with any questions and confidentiality is assured. The letter concludes by trusting the above information clarifies the position. It is hard to see how receipt of this communication could not but leave a victim more confused.

The SPS representatives we saw supported the consideration of a trauma-informed single point of contact for the VNS. Long periods can elapse when victims are not contacted, victims need clear explanations from the outset about what they are entitled to be told and also that prisoners' information is also protected under certain conditions, such as the address to where a prisoner may be released. How a prisoner travels through the penal system ('prisoner progression') is often not understood by victims.

On the question of registration, the SPS representatives preferred retention of the 'opt-in' approach to the VNS because contact from SPS can be traumatising for victims. They believed that some victims do want to 'move on' and SPS does receive requests from victims to be removed from the scheme. We have asked SPS how often this occurs but data is not available.

Concerns were also expressed about setting 12 as the age at which a child becomes a VNS registrant in their own right., Some felt that this was problematic, for example when a child is unaware of having been a victim, such as when an infant, or is unaware of having been adopted and that their name may have changed as a result. Passing the age of 12 could then potentially exclude a parent or guardian from receiving information from the VNS on behalf of the child and the child may not be able to deal with this. This issue will be examined in greater detail in Section 28 of this report.