Making Justice Work for Victims and Witnesses

7 Feeling Involved

Victims' Interests

7.1 The Scottish Government is keen to ensure that the justice system acknowledges what has happened to victims and bereaved families in the most serious cases, and reflects their legitimate interests in the investigation, prosecution and outcome. The SG believes that victims' interests can be acknowledged and given a legitimate hearing on a par with the rights of accused and offenders.

Sentencing Policy

7.2 The SG is proposing to reflect victim interests by considering how the views of victims could help inform development of sentencing policy, in both custodial and non-custodial cases; in terms of how general sentencing policy develops, rather than individual sentencing decisions. Question 33 of the consultation paper asked 'what mechanisms could be used to ensure victims' interests are taken into account when sentencing policy is developed?' A wide range of suggestions emerged and those made by two or more consultees were:

• Consultation among victims and their representative organisations (18 consultees: 7 local authorities, 6 voluntary sector organisations, 2 police organisations, one organisation in the 'other' category and 2 individuals); one of the voluntary sector organisations noted that victims, members of the public, offenders and others involved in the justice system should all have an opportunity to be consulted on sentencing policy;
• Representation from victim support groups at meetings on sentencing policy (12 consultees: 5 local authorities, 2 police organisations, a public body, a voluntary sector organisation and 3 individuals);
• Research and evidence to feed into sentencing policy (11 consultees: 4 local authorities, 5 voluntary sector organisations, an individual and one organisation in the 'other' category); one of the voluntary organisations referred to research published by SmartJustice and Victim Support, conducted among victims;
• Impact statements / victim statements (8 consultees: 3 voluntary sector organisations, 2 police organisations and 3 individuals);
• Greater clarity in sentencing policy (5 consultees: 2 voluntary organisations and 3 individuals);
• Work in conjunction with Scottish Sentencing Council / establish Sentencing Commission for Scotland (5 consultees: one voluntary sector organisation, one public body, one legal body and 2 individuals);
• Advocacy for victims (3 consultees: one police organisation, one voluntary organisation and one individual);
• Victim support statements (3 consultees: one police organisation, one local authority and an individual);
• One stop shop providing information and support to victims and witnesses (2 voluntary sector organisations);
• Establish a Victims' Commissioner (2 consultees: one local authority and an individual);
• Better preparation for victims on possible outcomes (2 consultees: both individuals);
• Less frequent use of automatic release of prisoners/ early release (2 consultees: one voluntary sector organisation and one individual);
• Consider victim's safety prior to offender release from prison (2 consultees: one voluntary sector organisation and one individual);
• Involve victim's interests when sentencing (2 consultees: both voluntary organisations);
• Criminal Justice System to contact victims to invite their views on the offender's sentence (2 consultees: a local authority and an individual).

7.3 A legal organisation asked how the proposal to allow victims of crime greater opportunities to have an input into sentencing would work in practice and whether there would be obligations placed upon the Council; if so, there could be an issue with resources.

7.4 Three consultees (a local authority, a voluntary sector organisation and an individual) referred to Australia's Sentencing Advisory Council as a good example. A voluntary sector organisation referred to the process of consultation developed by The Sentencing Council for England and Wales which enables the views of all those involved in the justice system to be consulted in the formation of sentencing policy and suggested the SG should introduce a Scottish Sentencing Council.

7.5 Other suggestions, from only one consultee were:

• Means of separating victims and their offender's family at court (voluntary sector organisation);
• Direct consultation with victims on sentencing policy (voluntary sector organisation);
• Mock trials (voluntary sector organisation);
• Introduction of Sentencing Guidelines as per Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010 (public body);
• Victims' forums (local authority);
• Witness statements (individual);
• GP reports (individual);
• Managing victim expectations (individual);
• CJS to contact victims with information on the offender's sentence (individual);
• Clear simple language used in explanations (individual);
• Bring into force Part 1 of the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010 (individual).

7.6 A legal organisation noted that the need for sentences to reflect public concerns and that the rights of victims would already be considered by sentencing commissions and councils and the Scottish Government and Parliament. A public body referred to previous work undertaken by the Sentencing Commission for Scotland and suggested that further work could be undertaken to see how aggravated factors are reflected in sentencing. A local authority noted that children and young adults would have been supported through the GIRFEC (Getting it Right for Every Child) process and that vulnerable adults and their needs and requirements should be taken into consideration in a similar way.

Oral representation to the Parole Board

7.7 The Parole Board for Scotland is not concerned with punishment but in assessing the risk to the public if a prisoner is released. Section 17 of the Criminal justice (Scotland) Act 2003 provided victims with the opportunity to make written representation to the Parole Board before any decision is taken to release an offender. Since then there has been debate on a number of options on how to provide the opportunity for victims to be heard while ensuring safety and that any process is not unfair to the prisoner. The SG has considered that in the first instance any change should apply to life sentence prisoners. The SG is proposing to implement a scheme which will allow victims (or relatives in instances where the victim is a child or is deceased) to meet and put their views to a member of the Parole Board who is not a member of the Life Prisoner Tribunal that will make the decision in a particular case.

7.8 Question 34 in the consultation paper asked 'do you agree with the proposal to allow victims (or relatives in appropriate cases) to speak to a member of the Parole Board before a Life Prisoner Tribunal considers the release of an offender on licence?' and those who responded were invited to provide comments on the reason for their answer.

7.9 A total of 55 consultees responded to this question, with 44 agreeing and only 3 disagreeing; a further 8 consultees provided commentary only.

Support for oral representation

7.10 Thirteen consultees (6 voluntary organisations, 4 local authorities and 3 individuals) noted their specific support for this proposal. Two of these voluntary sector organisations additionally noted that this is valuable as a protective mechanism for women, children and young people; and another that this proposal presents a fair balance between the rights of the offender and the victim. Two individuals noted that it is important for victims / their families to be given the opportunity to speak; another individual that it is already common practice in many EU countries.

7.11 Six consultees (2 public bodies, a police organisation, a voluntary sector organisation and 2 individuals) felt that this would help victims to feel that their views count and respected in the process. A further four consultees (a voluntary sector organisation and 3 individuals) noted that it is important for victims to be consulted by Parole Boards or that victims should be kept informed and their views listened to.

7.12 Three consultees (a public body, a local authority and an individual) felt this would allow for greater understanding on the part of victims and the Parole Board.

7.13 Other suggested benefits to this proposal were that it would:

• Provide opportunities for victims to be a source of relevant information prior to release of an offender (a police organisation and 2 individuals);
• Help with the recovery of the victim (2 local authorities);
• Help the Parole Board to understand the full impact of the offender's actions (local authority);
• Help a victim to be aware of the current position and give them an opportunity to highlight issues they perceive to be of relevance (police organisation);
• Help to increase the victim (or family's) understanding of the Parole Board (local authority);
• Provide an opportunity for victims to highlight any concerns they may have, for example, the impact of the release upon them and their safety (local authority).

7.14 A local authority agreed that an independent board member should act as an intermediary with no direct oral presentation from a victim to the Parole Board (local authority), and an individual felt that information should be provided to the victim as to how an offender has responded to treatment or support while in prison.

7.15 Five consultees referred specifically to victim impact statements (VIS), with 2 police organisations and an individual noting that a VIS will be available and / or that this will reflect concerns prior to the release of a prisoner; one of these police organisations also queried what weight will be given to a VIS. A local authority perceived that it could be more appropriate to have a VIS than oral representation and noted that support to the victim would be needed. A voluntary sector organisation suggested there should be a VIS prior to the sentencing of offenders.

7.16 While most of those responding to this question were supportive of the proposal, there were a number of qualifications noted by some. The key issue related to the need for victims to understand that they are only part of the process and that all information needs to be considered (cited by 2 police organisations, a public body, a voluntary sector organisation and 2 individuals). The voluntary sector organisation also went on to say that it is important that the Parole Board's main aim is to ensure that prisoners are no longer regarded as presenting a risk to society and it is not the responsibility of the board to consider the questions of punishment and deterrence. Three consultees (a public body, a police organisation and an individual) also noted that victims need support during this process. Other issues raised were:

• Any decision taken must be made in relation to the offender's rehabilitation and risk assessment (2 local authorities);
• Comments should be restricted to the safety of the victim, their family or any special information they hold about the offender that may not have been available to the original court (local authority);
• This could present new trauma for a victim or their family (police organisation);
• Concern over logistics, such as the location of any consultation with the victim, travel etc. (voluntary organisation);
• The structure of the victim's family will have changed over time and it may present logistical difficulties to hold consultations or that someone serving a life sentence can repeatedly apply for parole and this could cause repeated stress to the victim's family (local authority);
• Pilot this scheme and monitor outcomes before introducing this on a national basis (voluntary sector organisation);
• Victims should not have to see the offender at a consultation (individual);
• Victim information should be kept confidential if this is desired by the victim (individual);
• There may be victim reticence because of a real or perceived threat to their safety (individual).

7.17 Of those disagreeing with this proposal, a legal organisation noted that this could be unfair to the accused; a police organisation that victim input would not add anything to an experienced Parole Board and that this could cause distress to a victim. An individual felt that the current system of written submissions should remain.

7.18 Six consultees provided comments only at this question and these largely echoed issues already noted:

• A need for victims to realise they are part of the process and that all information needs to be considered (2 local authorities);
• Concern over the logistics eg data protection or the weight of the evidence given and a need for offenders to be able to challenge information presented by a victim (public body);
• Request for further information on this proposal (local authority);
• A need to ensure that representations made available to offenders does not contain unnecessary information about the victim or others affected by the potential release (public body);
• A need for proportionate weighting of representations "the balance of victims' needs and safety, offenders' punishment, restriction, reparation and rehabilitation needs to be sustained" (local authority).

7.19 This sentiment was also echoed by a legal organisation concerned that oral representations could take the focus away from the offender's rehabilitation. They went onto suggest that the current system allowing for written representation should be sufficient for decision making. They felt that if this proposal was adopted, then consideration should be given to the operational practicalities.

7.20 One voluntary sector organisation felt it should be the duty of all Parole Board members to hear all submissions. Another voluntary sector organisation requested a review of parole board processes.

Victim Statements

7.21 Currently, Section 14 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2003 provides for Victim Statements to be submitted when the prosecutor moves for sentence (solemn) or when a guilty plea is tendered or the accused is convicted (summary). At present they are only used in solemn cases; this is considered by the judge or sheriff although it will not always have an effect on the sentence. There are occasions when the Victim Statement may not be available for the court at the relevant time and the SG is proposing to amend the legislation so that Victim Statements can be submitted to the court prior to sentence. This will ensure that, if the statement is not available at the time of the guilty plea, this does not prejudicially affect the victim.

7.22 Question 35 of the consultation paper asked 'Do you agree with the proposal to allow Victim Statements to be submitted to the court at any time after the prosecutor moves for sentence (or the accused pleads guilty or is found guilty), but before sentence is passed?' and invited comments.

7.23 A total of 49 consultees responded to this question, all of whom agreed with this proposal; 44 of these consultees also provided additional comment.

7.24 The key comment, from 20 consultees (7 voluntary sector organisations, 3 local authorities, 3 police organisations, a public body and 6 individuals) was that this allows for the victim's views to be heard or for others to hear about the impact of the offence upon the victim. One of these voluntary sector organisations also noted that it provides an opportunity for an offender to understand the harm they have done and take responsibility for this. Three individuals noted that victim statements are valuable in that they help to prevent distortions or misrepresentations and a local authority also noted that this ensures that the victim is not disadvantaged. A police organisation commented that this allows greater flexibility and a local authority that this will ensure the victim statement will be available at any time regardless of the circumstances.

7.25 Another 2 consultees (a legal organisation and a local authority) noted that this would be a logical extension of the current position and another 2 individuals that victim statements should be mandatory in all serious cases or that they should be an integral part of the process. An individual also noted that this proposal would bring Scottish courts into line with those in England.

7.26 A local authority and a voluntary sector organisation also noted that a victim statement can have a direct bearing on the sentence.

7.27 There was support for the victim's statement to be presented at any time before sentence is passed from 7 consultees (4 voluntary sector organisations and 3 local authorities). An additional 6 consultees (2 voluntary sector organisations, a local authority and 3 individuals) felt that victims should not be deprived of the right to submit a victim statement simply because of court processes or early pleading by the accused. Three individuals also felt that victims should have the right - if they request it - to be able to read their statement out in open court or at sentencing.

7.28 A number of suggestions were made by consultees and these were that:

• Specialist support services should be an integral part of the process (a local authority, a voluntary sector organisation and an individual);
• Victims should be able to submit updated statements, for example for consideration by the Parole Board (3 voluntary sector organisations) or that victim statements should be able to be submitted to the court any time following admittance or establishment of guilt (individual); although 2 local authorities felt there should be a finite time period for submission of a victim statement;
• If requested, victim statements should be available at the intermediate diet stage for the court (2 local authorities);
• Victim statements should be available to the defence (legal organisation);
• Victim statements should not form part of the case papers (voluntary sector organisation);
• The right to a victim impact statement should be extended to the appeals process (individual).

7.29 A number of suggestions, from local authorities and a public body were made in relation to the victim specifically and these were:

• A need to set parameters for information from victims;
• Information on the impact of the statements should be given to the victim so they understand the wider considerations of the sentencing process;
• Information about writing the victim statement should be raised with the victim as quickly as possible after the alleged offence.
• Victims need to be aware that their statement will only be part of the information laid before, and considered by, the court;

7.30 Two individuals asked for more detailed consideration or information on the mechanisms for this process. A legal organisation noted that the impact and effect of this would be minimal.

Child under 14

7.31 Under current legislation, children under 14 years are entitled to have a victim statement made on their behalf by their carer if they are a direct victim of the crime. However, where the victim has died, children under 14 are not eligible to make a statement or have one made on their behalf by a carer, although relatives over 14 years can make a statement in these cases. Until the Criminal Proceedings (Reform) (Scotland) Act 2007, this also applied under the Victim Notification Scheme (VNS), where the carer of a child under 14 who was the direct victim of a crime could apply to join the VNS on the child's behalf but if the victim was dead, there is no such right. Once this Act was passed, it allowed the carer of a child to apply to receive information on their behalf whether or not the child was the direct victim of the crime.

7.32 The SG is proposing greater consistency between the two schemes and is proposing to extend eligibility to reflect victim interests by allowing the carer of a child under 14 the right to make a victim statement on the child's behalf where the victim has died. Question 36 asked 'do you agree with the proposal to extend eligibility for the Victim Statement scheme so that a carer of a child under age 14, who is not the direct victim of the crime, can make a Victim Statement on their behalf?' and invited comments.

7.33 Forty-nine consultees responded to this question; of which 47 agreed with the proposal. Two consultees provided commentary but no definitive answer. Twenty-two consultees (across all sub-groups with the exception of legal organisations and public bodies) noted their support for this proposal. Five (a police organisation and 4 individuals) also noted that this proposal would ensure the views of victims and the impact of the crime upon them will be heard; one of these individuals also commented that parents or relatives can identify the impact of a crime on a child and present this to court as evidence.

7.34 Once again, while there was almost universal agreement with this proposal, there were also some qualifying comments made. Three consultees (a police organisation, a voluntary sector organisation and an individual) felt that if a child aged under 14 years wants to make their victim statement, they should be allowed to; and another 5 consultees (3 voluntary sector organisations and 2 individuals) noted that children should still be encouraged to express their own feelings about the impact of the crime. One individual noted that it is routine practice in family cases for children aged under 14 years to be consulted on their opinions.

7.35 Seven consultees (4 voluntary sector agencies, 2 local authorities and an individual) made general comments about the need to have appropriate support mechanisms in place and / or that support agencies are needed. A further 3 consultees (a voluntary sector organisation and 2 individuals) suggested that there is a need to also take into account reports from professionals and support agencies as they will be in a position to comment on the health and wellbeing of a child. One local authority also felt that support needs to be in place for carers.

7.36 Five consultees (2 police organisations, a legal organisation, a voluntary sector organisation and a local authority) referred to the issues raised in paragraph 121 of the consultation paper which noted a number of sensitivities around this issues and the need to take account of these; for example, the trauma that could be experienced in revisiting the crime.

7.37 There was also some commentary about the need to extend this proposal to include other appropriate adults; for example, 5 consultees noted that if there are no relatives there will be a need to be able to use another appropriate adult; 2 voluntary sector organisations simply noted that in some cases a carer might not be the best person to present a victim statement. Two local authorities also suggested that consideration should be given to the appointment of an independent person who could help the child complete the statement and prevent any bias in attitude from the carer.

7.38 Finally, one local authority queried why the age had been set at 14.

Extending eligibility

7.39 Another anomaly in the 2003 Act is the definition of the carer eligible to make statements on a child's behalf. Under Section 14(6)(a)(ii) of this Act, the carer was defined as being the person who cared for the child immediately before the (apparent) offence took place. However, this does not allow for situations where a child might have no eligible parent or carer. Question 37 asked 'do you agree with the proposal to amend the definition of carer in relation to the Victim Statement scheme so that the carer who makes the statement on behalf of a child under 14 does not have to have been the carer at the time of the (alleged) offence?' and invited comments on the reasons behind responses.

7.40 Forty-five consultees responded to this question, of whom 44 agreed with the proposal. Thirteen of these consultees (5 local authorities, 2 voluntary sector organisations, 2 police organisations and 4 individuals) reiterated their support that this would be a reasonable change, or that there is no need for the carer to have been there at the time of the offence. Another 4 consultees (a local authority, a voluntary sector organisation and 2 individuals) noted the importance of every victim having the right to have their voice heard, either directly or indirectly or that this ensures that children are not disadvantaged.

7.41 Three consultees (a police organisation, a voluntary sector organisation and an individual) commented that if there are no relatives to take on a carer role, then a person who has a close relationship with the child should be considered. A further 5 consultees (2 local authorities, 2 police organisations and an individual) also felt that this would help in situations where children are looked after, in kinship care, foster care or where a carer is not the most appropriate person.

7.42 However, 9 consultees noted concerns and these were:

• Victim statements should only be presented if a young person has agreed to be represented in this way (a local authority and a voluntary sector organisation);
• The carer should have more than 3 months day to day caring responsibility for the child (local authority);
• This proposal needs further discussion and to be approached with caution (voluntary sector organisation);
• The carer must be someone the child trusts (other organisation and an individual);
• All relevant information about the carer and their role in the child's life should be made available (individual);
• Courts would need to refer to other care professionals such as schools, social workers, G.P.s etc for further evidence (individual);
• A need to ensure the carer has detailed knowledge of the child (an individual).

7.43 There were suggestions from some consultees in relation to support and these were:

• An independent person should be appointed (2 local authorities);
• There may be professionals other than the carer who are more appropriate to represent the child (a voluntary sector organisation and other organisation);
• There needs to be victim centres (a local authority);
• Carers also need support (a local authority);
• Local authorities have corporate parent responsibilities that need to be taken into account (a local authority).

7.44 Question 38 then went onto ask 'what more could be done to acknowledge and take into account the interests of victims and witnesses?' Forty-five consultees provided comment and a number of key themes emerged.

7.45 Perhaps not surprisingly, a general theme cited by 19 consultees was that of provisions for victims or witnesses; within this theme a number of sub-themes were mentioned by 2 or more consultees:

• Improved information for victims and witnesses (mentioned by 6 consultees; a police organisation, a public body, 2 voluntary sector organisations and 2 individuals);
• A need to ensure human dignity is offered to victims / witnesses and increased awareness of victim issues (2 voluntary sector organisations, a public body and an individual);
• A need for mediation, counselling, workshops or events to help support victims and minimum standards to access information, support, protection and compensation (3 voluntary sector organisations and an individual);
• The need to implement special measures and standards (a local authority), wider access to / implementation of special measures or making all special measures into standard measures (2 voluntary sector organisations); another voluntary sector organisation noted that the absence of the same range of special measures for vulnerable witnesses is an anomaly;
• Concerns over the terminology used within the criminal justice system (2 voluntary sector organisations and an individual);
• Victims and witnesses should have the same rights as offenders such as the right to choose representation, the right to mental health professionals and so on (2 voluntary sector organisations and an individual); one legal body also called for a balance to be struck between the rights of the victim and the rights of the accused;
• For agencies working alongside victims to full their requirements under the EU Directive (3 voluntary sector organisations);
• Training on how to deal with media intrusion (2 voluntary sector organisations and an individual);
• Encouragement for victims to participate in working groups and committees so that they can provide evidence for the criminal justice system (a local authority and an individual);
• Greater recognition of the rights of victims such as privacy (3 voluntary sector organisations) and protection or personal safety (2 individuals); one legal organisation made specific reference to the needs to protect the interest of the young child; and a public body noted the need to involve victims appropriately when the offender is a child;
• Access to court transcripts free of charge (2 individuals).

7.46 Other issues mentioned by only one consultee, all of whom were individuals or voluntary sector organisations were:

• Access to legal aid for victims;
• The right to a review of the decision not to prosecute;
• A need for greater understanding of gender-based violence among those working in the CJS in Scotland, especially links between child abuse and domestic abuse;
• A concern of a lack of identification of individuals requiring additional support;
• That many prisoners, former prisoners and ex-offenders will have also been victims and deserve the same services as those not convicted of offences and that currently there is no support available to victims in prison, unless an offence is serious;
• The need for a Victims' Charter;
• Increased understanding by the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission on the needs of bereaved families;
• Support that is tailored to individual needs;
• No limit to the number of victim statements that can be made;
• Support tailored to individual needs.

7.47 Sixteen consultees referred to partnership working and training in some form; with calls from 8 organisations for joint conferences, the sharing of good practice and training for professionals (4 voluntary sector organisations, a public body, a police organisation and 2 individuals). A further 4 consultees (2 voluntary sector organisations and 2 individuals) suggested co-operative working and integrated support provision; another 4 consultees (a public body, a police organisation, a voluntary sector organisation and an 'other' organisation) requested improved sharing of information between partner agencies and / or with the voluntary sector. Two other suggestions were the monitoring and evaluation of the availability and quality of support (2 voluntary sector organisations) and guidance on how to decide who and how to present a statement (local authority).

7.48 Data recording and research was cited by 14 consultees, with calls from 5 consultees for better data recording such as the impact of service delivery, mandatory surveys of victims or how many victims a support organisation has worked with (3 voluntary sector organisations, a police organisation and an individual). Two local authorities also requested a system of feedback and consultation when new standards and services are piloted. A local authority and a public body noted the need for the volume and rate of victimisation to be included as an outcome and performance measure within relevant local and national strategies and plans.

7.49 Two other consultees (a voluntary sector organisation and an individual) requested reviews of what is done in other countries to support victims and witnesses; one of whom referred to an insurance scheme such as that offered in Sweden to cover victims' legal aid costs. Other suggestions, each made by only one consultee were for:

• Research to ascertain the impact of different elements of the justice process such as sentencing on victims or early release;
• Summaries of evidence and witness statements provided to the authorities of criminal justice social work to help understand the impact of crime;
• Obtaining feedback from victims / witnesses;
• Analysis of victim personal statements;
• Annual reporting to the Scottish Parliament.

7.50 A specific form of support suggested by 7 consultees was a Victims' Commissioner or an independent, non-government agency to represent victims and witnesses (3 voluntary sector organisations, a public body and 3 individuals). Another individual noted support for an alliance between support organisations and 2 voluntary sector organisations suggested the creation of a centralised hub service specifically for children.

7.51 Seven consultees referred to an aspect of the court process, with 3 organisations and an individual calling for the prevention of unregulated contact between victims/ witnesses and offenders, for example, offering separate facilities and court entrances. A local authority and a voluntary sector organisation suggested streamlining the court process to avoid delays.

7.52 Suggestions for further improvements included a witness service being available in all criminal courts (a voluntary sector organisation); greater use of digital technologies (an 'other' organisation) and more agreement of witness evidence at the preliminary hearing and intermediate diets to help witnesses avoid having to attend court (an individual). One voluntary sector organisation noted their concern over the impact of court closures.

7.53 Logistical issues were raised by 6 consultees, with 4 of these referring specifically to the need for more financial support for victims (2 voluntary sector organisations and 2 individuals). A voluntary sector organisation noted concerns over accessibility issues and an individual suggested that statutory agencies should offer telephone lines charged at local rates.

7.54 There were some specific references to restorative justice from 7 consultees, with 2 voluntary sector organisations and an 'other' organisation calling for a review of restorative practices. A public body called for more direct restorative justice approaches and cited the VOYCE project as an example and an individual asked for adult restorative justice schemes to be introduced. Another individual commented that the consultation did not refer to the possibility of victims' access to restorative justice and noted that in England and Wales there is currently consideration being given to incorporating restorative justice into a Victims' Code. A voluntary sector organisation commented that there is a postcode lottery for participation in restorative justice. Another voluntary sector organisation requested increased opportunities for restorative justice, quoting research data to back this up, as well as noting that the number of restorative justice warnings issues in Scotland has reduced in recent years.

7.55 Two voluntary sector organisations referred to independent legal representation (ILR), with one asking for an examination of the principle of ILR and another suggested this should be introduced for complainers of sexual offences.

7.56 Seven consultees referred to their support for the proposals in the consultation; 4 commented that this would help to create a more central role for victims in the criminal justice system (2 local authorities, a police organisation and an individual); 3 that this would provide greater transparency in decision making and empowering victims (a voluntary sector organisation, a police organisation and an individual). A police organisation simply noted that the consultation paper identified most of the major factors impacting on the experiences of victims and witnesses in the criminal justice system. However, a voluntary sector organisation commented that the proposals offer limited scope to address the experiences and treatment of victims in the court process.

7.57 Three consultees referred to examples of initiatives they felt had been successful and these were:

• Amethyst in Edinburgh - a multi agency purpose built facility;
• Making Amends: restorative youth justice in Northern Ireland;
• Dundee on Call project which had a Witness Care model.

7.58 There were suggestions from three consultees for further changes to be introduced and these were:

• An overhaul of Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority;
• Use of Post Offices to provide some services;
• Use of safety audits to ensure that support services and organisations are able to respond to victim needs;
• The introduction of domestic homicide reviews as in England and Wales.