Perceptions of Summary Criminal Justice in Scotland

3 responses to information about the system

Information Provision to Victims and Witnesses

3.1 Half-way through the workshop discussions, participants were provided with information on how the Summary Justice System works. Based on these expert insights, and their own more limited experience of the system, one of the main feelings that was expressed was disappointment at the lack of information provided at key stages throughout the justice process to all those who needed it:

“But when you are not told anything, you don’t know why ‘X’ is happening, you don’t know why your court date has been put back, you don’t know why you are being called as a witness, then you’re not, then you are again, and then you don’t know why that’s gonna be cancelled again. Nobody is telling you anything, that’s the frustrating bit. If people know how the whole process is working. It’s the not knowing.” (Aberdeen)

3.2 The lack of information for victims and witnesses in particular was something which seemed to be compounded by a perception that their adversaries (the accused), in some cases, have an unfair advantage of knowing the system, especially if they have been involved with it before:

“Even letting somebody know that it was gonna take four weeks or six weeks, even letting someone know what stage of the process it’s going through cause, I mean, the people at the other end [the accused] know what they did bad and how the process works, but normal people don’t have access to knowing what’s going on and how it works.” (Aberdeen)

“There’s a system they’ve been through [the accused]. They know how to work it.” (Livingston)

3.3 Without exception, participants wanted victims and witnesses to feel that they were the most important element in the process (i.e. the ‘customer’ that the system was there to serve), and so felt that they must be kept informed. It was suggested that, with modern technology and efficient administration processes, there could be no excuses for not keeping key people informed of case progress:

“The worst communication is silence. The best communication I would think is a regular call from the Case Officer to say it’s moving ahead - however slowly. Because if they’re not telling me anything and I see the guy [the offender] out in the street I have to assume he’s been let off, and I’m still going to have to mend my car, or whatever it happens to be”. (Livingston)

“The problem is just getting the admin sorted out. They need to say “Okay, we’ve got to let Peter know every 5 o’clock on a Friday what the situation is regarding his case”. Now it might be that in the system there is a method of sending a text message, just as they do in schools for parents of children playing truant, saying “Case number 73 - progressing”. Now it might not be a lot but at least you know you’ve not been forgotten or lost in the system. Silence doesn’t help!” (Livingston)

3.4 It was suggested by one participant that even basic communication, once a week would be sufficient to ensure victims and witnesses did not feel that no-one cared, or that their case might have been forgotten, or fallen through.

The Public Court Experience

3.5 In addition to lack of information, and perceived delays in the system of administering justice, almost all participants expressed views that the public court experience was one which was potentially very daunting.

3.6 Some of the strength of feeling amongst participants followed personal accounts expressed by individuals during the group discussions:

“My family were a witness to a crime and the way our family is, straight away 999, it’s just an automatic thing….And the problems we had! They [accused] tried to burn our house down…I feel for victims and witnesses - there’s not enough protection!” (Ayr)

“We had a business. And some girls… came into the shop and were stealing…So it went to court and it finished up costing us money and time. We went into court one at a time. My husband got such a tough time that, in the end, he said ‘I’m not the accused, I’m the innocent party’, but the way he was treated was as if he was the guilty party.” (Ayr)

“My friend was called as a witness recently and he’s really not looking forward to it. He feels really intimidated by the whole process…. and I guess he feels like he’s gonna say the wrong thing…He’s having to deal with that [appearing at court], it seems to be taking a long time to go through and he’s not done anything. He was just in the wrong place at the wrong time.” (Aberdeen)

3.7 Perceptions that witnesses may find the experience daunting as a whole were often influenced by perceptions that prosecution and defence agents made appearing as a witness an uncomfortable experience:

“The victims and witnesses system is, I think, pathetic actually. ‘Cause they intimidate witnesses…the prosecution.” (Aberdeen)

“I personally think they’ll feel like they have committed a crime.” (Ayr)

“I used to work in retail management and I was in court all the time because of shop-lifting cases. I was surprised at what an ‘eye-opener’ it was. ’Cause I always felt that, even though you were the one giving evidence, you felt like the accused, because you could only answer the question that you were asked. And you couldn’t say, “Ah, but”, because, “No, no, you’re not allowed to say that”, and it’s so frustrating.” (Livingston)

3.8 One group of participants were incredulous when informed that the older court buildings made it difficult for court staff to keep separate the accused from victims and witnesses. The fact that the state of the building dictated the experience of victims and witnesses, increasing their stress and fear, led to participants concluding that such buildings could not be considered fit-for-purpose:

P1 [Expert]: “Most of them [courts] are listed buildings, with single entrances which you can’t do anything about. After that, perhaps we should say that if you are a Crown witness, you should go to a separate area [i.e. away from the accused]?”

P2: “You are actually saying that the building is ruling some of the down-sides for witnesses being with the accused. … Who is monitoring these witnesses non-appearing and the delays?”

P1 [Expert]: “This is why this [workshop with the public] is really valuable because, how can I ask the witnesses why they don’t come if they don’t come? Once I get there [to court] they can tell me why they come; but those that don’t come, I’ve got no way of finding out why?” We’ve tried on numerous occasions to find out the genuine reasons why they don’t come.” (Livingston)

3.9 Overall, the victim and witness court experience was not one that was positively viewed by anyone, and people felt that more could be done to make the experience more pleasant for anyone unfortunate enough to become involved.

3.10 Moreover, there was strong and sometimes emotional appeals for greater understanding of the victim or witness position. It was perceived that fundamental aspects of fairness and effectiveness are currently jeopardised if/when the public perceive that victims and witnesses are treated badly in court. Indeed, many participants felt that such unpleasant treatment of victims and witnesses must put off some from attending court, thereby undermining confidence in the system - since justice cannot possibly be being served in such circumstances.

The Perceived Offender Bias

3.11 The consensus amongst those at the workshops was that the system needed to be equally fair to all three parties: accused, victims and witnesses - but not many participants felt that this was currently the case:

“It should be [fair], but I don’t think it is. I think the victim gets the worst [treatment], and the accused gets the best.” (Livingston)

3.12 Even after being informed about the way in which the summary justice system operates, and the processes for administering justice at various stages in case trajectories, there remained a strong sentiment among most participants that the system favoured accused over victims:

“It’s disgusting, the way they treat victims…they are having to protect the accused’s human rights and it makes it appear that the criminal is being looked after.” (Livingston)

3.13 The main driver behind such views was a perception that offenders are currently treated too leniently in the system:

“I think it’s more for the accused than the victim. That’s what you read in the newspapers and that. And people seem to get off lightly.” (Ayr)

“Sometimes the accused get away lightly with things. That’s just my opinion.” (Aberdeen)

“I think probably people think that they [the accused] are sometimes treated too fairly. I think if you think of yourself as a law abiding citizen, then you maybe think it’s lenient.” (Livingston)

3.14 Indeed, among a number of participants, there was suggestion that the system was currently seen as laughable by some accused:

P1: “They know what the punishment is gonna be when they do it, but it doesn’t put them off.”

P2: “They know they’re gonna get a slap on the wrists…And these guys are laughing at the system.” (Livingston)

3.15 Views were expressed that the relaxed attitudes of some accused to their court proceedings could be seen in their demeanour:

“If it was me and I had to go to court I would be terrified. But for these people [accused], it’s an everyday experience.” (Aberdeen)

“I was in court once. It’s amazing the different people, their attitude towards the whole thing, some people had obviously been through the system a lot. Even how they dress for the event, whether they were paying attention, coming in-and-out and laughing. It was amazing.” (Aberdeen)

“A lot of the people I work with, it’s a big part of their life, “Look at me, I’m going to court.” It’s like a status symbol.” (Livingston)

3.16 Such behaviour was seen as a visible sign of defiance and lack of respect for the law. There was also a perception that the current protocol allowed offenders to ‘work the system’ to their own advantage. One area of particular concern was persistent failure to appear at court among accused:

“I mean, they fair get away with not turning up at court. And they are having it pretty easy in that respect because they, of all people, should be there. If everybody else has made the effort to be there then they should be [the accused]. There should be system or way to get them there and make sure that they turn up, rather than just trusting them to, ‘cause I mean…?” (Aberdeen)

“All the legal people turn up, and the person who has been charged with the crime doesn’t turn up. All of these legal people still need to be paid.” (Livingston)

3.17 Suggestions for improving attendance rates included tagging, or escorted travel to court from home along with stiffer penalties for failure to appear to incentivise compliance:

“It’s not just about the waste of time either, it’s the money. Everyone who goes to court that day gets their expenses. A police officer or someone to physically go and get the accused and bring them there on the morning. Would that be more cost effective? Probably, it’s a funny thing, it probably would be more cost effective. But, is that taking away someone’s human rights? The more you think about it, you can talk yourself into a corner.” (Livingston)

3.18 In the same way that participants seemed to desire greater policing of failure to appear at court, and the introduction of strategies to improve appearance rates, there was also a desire expressed for better monitoring of accused when released on bail because they perceived that those on bail were currently given too much freedom:

“Sometimes, people are given a bit too much freedom on bail as well. I think if you are on bail for a crime, a more serious crime, I think, I don’t know what they do just now, but I think they could do a wee bit more, knowing exactly where that person is, what they are doing all the time. ‘Cause, they’re roaming the streets [accused]. I know you’re not guilty until proven, but…” (Aberdeen)

“I think if they breach bail [accused], and they’re not turning up at court, it’s a waste of money. It makes witnesses feel bad as well. They know that the person probably won’t turn up.” (Ayr)

“It’s like saying to a kid, “If you do that you won’t get your sweetie”, and then they do it and they get the sweetie anyway. It won’t work.” (Livingston)

3.19 One group were vocal in their calls for a fixed penalty fine for failure to appear such that all accused were incentivised to appear when asked, even recognising that accused are innocent until proven guilty. Others suggested that use of tagging for accused on bail may make victims, witnesses and the public feel safer. In essence, people felt that more needed to be done to monitor bail so that accused were not perceived to be roaming free and without restraint in the period awaiting their court appearances.

3.20 Having summarised perceptions of the system overall for the main lay actors involved (victims, witnesses and accused), the following chapter goes on to discuss in more detail participant perceptions of the range of sentencing options that are available, including community payback, financial penalties and prison sentences.