Victim Notification Scheme (VNS): independent review

Section 32: Victim Notification Models in other countries

In order to gain a wider perspective of other models, we contacted representatives of victim notification schemes which operate abroad. We did not conduct a formal research survey, but simply looked for:

• Examples of victim notification schemes in other countries, particularly with similar adversarial judicial systems
• Learning what works well and what does not
• How the needs of victims are catered for in the processes. How victim-centred are they?

We were assisted by Victim Support Europe, who passed on our request to EuroPris - the European Organisation of Prison and Correctional Services - and CEP, the Confederation of European Probation. We received a good response from 10 European countries, who provided written information and/or took part in an interview. Contacts outside of Europe included Canada, New Zealand and Australia and written material on the USA was considered. In addition, we consulted officials and the Victims Commissioners for both England and Wales and Northern Ireland. Information is included in a supplement to this report.

We were keen to understand not just the main features of the schemes being delivered in other jurisdictions but what our international colleagues considered to be their relative strengths and weaknesses and their plans to develop their arrangements. We sought to identify schemes, or aspects of schemes, that had the potential to address the key issues that had been highlighted with the VNS in Scotland.

To that end, we particularly focussed on:

• Eligibility criteria
• Enrolment processes
• How and by whom the scheme was operated
• Information entitlements
• Participation in the parole process
• How victims receive information
• Access to support
• How complaints and feedback are handled
• Improvement plans

The key points we noted were:

Eligibility

• was normally for a direct victim or close family members, if the victim was deceased. Some models allowed for discretion over the number and relationship of registrants to the victim and several allow a victim to nominate a person to receive information on their behalf. There was an example of a jurisdiction that allows a third party with a legitimate interest to register (Switzerland).
• Most schemes were confined to post conviction and custodial sentences, mainly with no qualifying length, though some did have one. In England and Wales, the threshold is a custodial sentence of over 12 months. In Northern Ireland, it is a custodial sentence of over 6 months. There were examples of schemes that extended to community sentences and home detention.
• We received only limited information about children and young people. Generally, victims were able to receive information themselves from the age of 18. Under that age, most schemes provided for a parent or guardian to receive information on their behalf.

Enrolment

• The majority of the schemes we examined were 'opt-in', although we were informed that some, such as Canada and New Zealand are looking to move to an 'opt-out' system to improve take-up. In the devolved jurisdiction of Catalonia, where a court issues a Protection Order for victims of domestic and gender violence, they are automatically enrolled, whereas victims of other offences are 'opt-in'. Others, including Sweden and the Slovak Republic prioritise domestic abuse. Croatia has a system of automatic enrolment.
• The Netherlands, which has a positive victim support culture, has a fully 'opt-out' system.
• Victim notification in England and Wales has a system of automatic referral to a Victim Liaison Officer. Northern Ireland also has a system of automatic referral, to enable the victim then to decide to opt in or not.

Who Operates

• Most schemes were operated by 'Corrections' (prisons and probation services). We noted that some victim contact schemes were run by highly skilled teams, such as experienced social workers and psychologists (Croatia, Catalonia in Spain). There were examples of multi-agency teams and also of NGOs operating under the auspices of the Ministry of Justice (Croatia). In The Netherlands, victim notification has been transferred from the prosecuting authorities to the Ministry of Justice Central Fine Collection Agency, who have responsibility for court and criminal compensation orders. This change will result in increased staffing and training for staff.
• There were 2 examples of teams that also had an involvement in delivering restorative justice (Northern Ireland and Catalonia).

Information entitlement

• The type of information provided was fairly uniform: Full release, escape, death and some forms of temporary release. Some schemes go further than the scheme in Scotland currently. In Manitoba, Canada any temporary release may be notified. Croatia may also inform the victim of all instances of temporary release. Some provide regular touchpoints rather than relying solely on trigger events.
• Several examples emphasised safety considerations, particularly if domestic abuse is concerned.

Participation in Parole processes

• Only Sweden indicated that they do not have provision to participate in some way in parole hearings. The opportunity exists in several of the countries consulted to provide victim impact statements and be provided with information about parole decisions and the outcome of appeals.

Communication

• Methods included telephoning, writing to and emailing victims as standard procedure, and also included face to face meetings and digital options, such as automated notifications and portals.

• The Netherlands introduced an on-line portal in 2020. All information provided by Police, Prosecution, Victim Support Netherlands, the Central Fine Collection Agency and the Criminal Injuries Compensation Fund can be accessed on-line in a single central location, 'My Case as a Victim'. This provides a timeline of case progression and victims can retrieve messages from various organisations, information on their rights and what assistance is available, and also frequently asked questions. They log in using their DigiD. They have also produced videos to provide accessible information.

• There were examples of the police being involved in contacting victims if there was a time imperative (e.g. Croatia).
• Norway has national guidelines about how notifications should be made and about checking receipt.
• In some schemes, initial contact is made by telephone or letter and once the victim has made a decision about registration, they can decide on their preferred means of communication (Catalonia, England and Wales, Northern Ireland).

Support

• A number of jurisdictions described providing victims with information about support services and referring victims to services. In British Columbia, Canada a support worker can be requested.
• Examples were also given about national call centres and specific links to NGOs.

Complaints and Feedback

• A number of schemes routinely seek feedback from victims but a number acknowledge that response rates are low.
• Victoria, Australia strengthened complaints processes and accountability mechanisms following a review in 2014.
• In Canada, Victims Bill of Rights ensures a formal complaints process for victims. In Manitoba, complaints may be made to the Director of Victim Services.
• Some refer to the complaints procedures in each of the CJ agencies.
• A number of jurisdictions administer a victims' survey.

Improvement Plans

• New Zealand reviewed victims policy in 2019 and have a number of improvement ambitions set out in their 'Reframe' programme. They have a 'lessons learnt' database.
• Canada is considering improvement recommendations arising from a review (2020) of their Victims Bill of Rights Act and a report from the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime about information rights (2021).
• Norway and Sweden are looking currently at potential improvements.
• Croatia has new legislation being introduced soon and The Netherlands updated their Victims Rights Act in 2022.
• Northern Ireland and New Zealand are considering improvement to the data they collect about victims and benchmarking.

We are grateful to colleagues from around the world for providing information and taking the time to speak with us, sharing their knowledge about the delivery of information schemes and related services for victims. Their input has been extremely useful in helping us to consider the potential future shape of the VNS in Scotland.