Victim Notification Scheme (VNS): independent review

Section 27: Safety

It was evident to us that the prime consideration of victims is their safety. We received strong representations from the victim support organisations that victims are often unclear about how safety planning is or should be undertaken, who has what particular responsibility and they are sometimes caught off-guard by short timescales, either by a misunderstanding of sentencing about when a release might happen or by unexpected events or decisions.

There are a number of partnerships and processes in place to safeguard victims and the wider public but these will not necessarily engage with those registered with the VNS.

MAPPA (Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements)

The purpose of MAPPA is public protection and the reduction of serious harm. In Scotland MAPPA brings together the Police, Scottish Prison Service (SPS), Health Boards and the Local Authorities, in partnership as the Responsible Authorities, to assess and manage the risk posed for certain categories of offender:

• Sex offenders who are subject to notification requirements under the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
• Mentally disordered restricted patients; and
• Other individuals who by reason of their conviction are assessed by the Responsible Authorities as posing a risk of serious harm to the public.

A number of other agencies are under a 'Duty to Cooperate' (DTC) with the Responsible Authorities including, housing providers, the voluntary sector, Social Security Scotland and the Children's Reporter.

MARAC (Multi-Agency Risk Assessment Conference)

The MARAC is a meeting where information is shared on the highest risk domestic abuse cases between representatives of local police, health, child protection, housing practitioners, Independent Domestic Violence Advisors (IDVAs), probation and other specialists from the statutory and voluntary sectors. After sharing all relevant information they have about a victim, the representatives discuss options for increasing the safety of the victim and turn these into a co-ordinated action plan. The primary focus of the MARAC is to safeguard the adult victim. The MARAC will also make links with other fora to safeguard children and manage the behaviour of the perpetrator.

The victim does not attend the meeting but is represented by an Independent Domestic Abuse Advocate (IDAA) - who supports victims (through risk assessment, safety planning and institutional advocacy) and makes sure their views are heard, that agencies are held to account and that victims are kept informed after the meeting. There is an assumption that no single agency or individual can see the complete picture of the life of a victim, but all may have insights that are crucial to their safety. MARAC, with its focus on working collaboratively to ensure the safety of domestic abuse victims and their children, allows partners involved to share those insights and develop robust and effective safety plans. There is no statutory obligation to hold MARACs.

We have not found that all victims understand these processes or how planning around their safety is done.

We have been told that MAPPA partners will be aware if there is a registered victim under the VNS, and a flag will appear on the SPS PR2 system. It is less clear what action would be taken by the MAPPA partners, as the flag does not go further in identifying that particular victim or if that victim would be entitled to specific information.

We have been informed that the SPS position is that the VNS is a confidential scheme and the legislation does not permit SPS to disclose information regarding a registered victim to MAPPA partners. Most SPS staff do not have access to information in relation to registered victims - only those who operate the scheme are aware who the registered victim is. The PR2 marking is there just to alert staff that there is registered VNS interest.

Given this position, it is hard to identify what benefit the flag actually has. MAPPA practitioners have told us they find this frustrating. It does not make sense to protect a victim from disclosure of their information to the very authorities who exist to protect them and the public. If indeed there is a legal impediment, there should be a consent mechanism to join this up properly.

From talking to victims themselves, it came across strongly that there is misunderstanding about risk management and safety planning in connection with the release of offenders into the community. Victims may believe that there are shortfalls, when in fact a detailed risk assessment may have taken place of which they may be unaware. A proper explanation of what the risk management plan is (and is not) would go a long way to avoiding misunderstandings and offer victims a chance to ask questions and consider their own part in safety planning. The forthcoming Bail and Release from Custody (Scotland) Bill introduced to Parliament in 2022 proposes enabling victim support organisations to receive information as well as or on behalf of victims. This proposal also aligns with our recommendations in relation to various aspects of the VNS that victims should be able to nominate someone to receive information on their behalf, or as well as the victim.

We are aware that the Criminal Justice Committee's Stage 1 Report on the Bail and Release from Custody (Scotland) Bill recommends that the VNS Review takes into account evidence from survivors of crime about their concerns with the current victim notification arrangements. The Committee has heard evidence of numerous deficiencies with current victim engagement, in particular for bail decisions and reports that victims were having to police bail conditions themselves. The Committee wishes the Scottish Government to consider whether further information can be provided to victims to give them confidence that bail conditions are being policed and where necessary action taken in the case of a reported breach.

We determined at an early stage of our Review that we would confine our enquiries to victim notification post-sentence as the current legislation stands. In this Review, we have considered licence conditions and temporary release, particularly with regard to victim safety and what information victims should receive. We noted that there are already victim information arrangements pre-sentence, such as Family Liaison Officers and the Victim Information and Advice service in Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. We judged at an early stage that to broaden our remit across the whole criminal justice system would prove too broad a task and dilute our focus on finding practical and implementable solutions for victims under the current Victim Notification Scheme. We suggest that issues across the wider criminal justice system would be better addressed within the Victim Centred Approach workstream which is a priority for the Victims Taskforce.