Victim Notification Scheme (VNS): independent review

Section 30: Communication

A key aspect of any victim notification scheme is how and when victims are contacted. There is a strategic intention in the criminal justice system to make dealings with victims trauma- informed. This review does not propose to rehearse the definitions and the benefits of adopting such an approach; Lady Dorrian's recent report covers this comprehensively. We have seen evidence that this is an approach desired by leaders across the Scottish criminal justice system. There has been criticism from victim support organisations that the Scheme is not trauma-informed. When we interviewed stakeholders, particularly service delivery organisations, we made this a specific topic of discussion in order to gauge their understanding and commitment.

All the delivery organisations were familiar with it and could tell us its principles. Some had engaged with Dr Caroline Bruce's programme, commissioned by the Victims Taskforce and with a programme called First Word, which was overhauling official written communication in a bid to make it more sensitive to the recipient's needs. It is fair to say that there were varying degrees of progress and it cannot be said that there is much evidence of significant change yet, but some victims did tell us they had noticed an improvement in written content, such as not displaying the offender's details boldly at the top of the missive or labelling letters 'Official', as well as softening the language.

We found no consistency in how victims receive communications. The initial communication from COPFS is a covering letter and a number of leaflets. Notifications are mostly in writing (and probably should be so for legal reasons) but delivery varied in terms of timing, method of delivery (some by courier, others by normal mail) and sometimes by telephone. There was a reluctance to use email for data protection reasons around personal details. Whilst we were told some organisations do email victims, we were also told by some victims that their emails to CJ agencies had been unanswered or they had been directed to an unmonitored mailbox. We did find evidence where officials had tried to telephone victims, particularly if something had come up at short notice, and SPS officials did engage on the telephone with victims who called them as a response to having received a letter. We were told victims often call SPS in a great state of distress and they may even threaten self-harm, in response to which, the SPS contact the police and ask them to make a 'welfare check'. When speaking to SPS officials, they told us they did their best to respond personally to enquiries from distressed victims, but this is really beyond their brief and the strain of trying to respond sympathetically to a highly distraught victim takes a toll on officials as well. They are not trained to handle these situations. It is important to remind ourselves that the VNS's purpose is to provide information, not to provide a support service, but having said that, there must be a straightforward way to access support for those who need it.

Not all information about an offender can or should be disclosed to a victim, and there are good reasons for this to be the case. Victims complain and feel frustrated when they are denied information to which they think they should be entitled. In such cases, where it is not appropriate or lawful to disclose particular information to a victim, it is essential that the reasons why are fully explained from the outset; we are of the opinion that much of the tension around lack of information perceived by victims could be avoided with better, timely, regular and personally delivered communication.

Several communications do include the contact details for Victim Support Scotland, but we were told that VSS did not suit everybody. There are several support organisations offering a spectrum of support. The question is, how able is an anxious victim to navigate this landscape? We heard from many support organisations, and at the workshop, that links to support provision for victims were not enough and more should be done. If there were a single, supportive personalised information service, able to direct victims informatively to the full range of support available, this could be significantly more effective and take the navigational burden off the victim.

The current system is essentially based on agencies imparting information to victims at certain stages, rather than a two-way dialogue. The system as it stands can overload an anxious victim at the start, and then have no communication at all for perhaps a number of years. It can have a traumatic effect when a victim is notified of a major event without warning. We noted that under the Mental Health Tribunal System, as some detentions are without a time limit, there is a built-in two-year review process, but this is not the case with the criminal justice VNS.

In the meantime, there are issues around keeping current victims' contact numbers, email and home addresses up to date. We were also reminded by the support organisations that some victims may have chaotic lifestyles, unstable accommodation and variable access to phones/IT. This makes a system which is essentially passive, rather than proactive, prone to communication gaps and helps defeat the purpose of the VNS.

At 31 March 2022, there were 53 victims SPS reported they were unable to contact (3.1% of letters issued)

Recommendation 18. Communication. Section 30.

For any system to be truly trauma-informed, the victim should be offered a readily accessible menu of means of staying in touch, so they choose what is best for them and they can alter their choice when they need to. Victims' needs will change over time and the system should reflect this.

We recommend delivery partners each clarify their GDPR procedures to ensure that restrictions are not applied unnecessarily with regard to use of email, records retention policies and sharing information with relevant partners.

There are also occasions when notifications arrive on anniversaries, such as a birthday or the date of the sentence. This causes particular distress. We noted that in New Zealand and other international jurisdictions, efforts are made specifically to avoid this unnecessary distress and this should also be adopted by the Scottish system.

Recommendation 19. Rationalise online information. Section 30.

We recommend that a review be undertaken of all the official websites giving details of the VNS, to rationalise VNS information into one common format in clear, concise, consistent and accessible language. Ideally, there should be one single website and one phone number/email address for victims to contact. Information should not be confined to script. We recommend also that visual information is available on one main website, containing videos and graphics for example, be produced alongside for those who prefer visual media. Mainstream platforms, such as YouTube, could also be considered.