Perceptions of Summary Criminal Justice in Scotland

5 other emerging issues

Protecting Victims and Witnesses

5.1 As discussed earlier, there was an appetite amongst participants to see more information provided to victims and witnesses as part of their court experience. This was coupled with strong views that more support should be made available routinely to victims and witnesses at all stages of the court journey. Current perceptions that victims and witnesses were not well treated by the system were seen as potentially deterring people from coming forward to the police to report crimes:

“I think a lot of the times, people who are witnesses maybe wouldn’t report things, because they’re scared. More support for witnesses would maybe make them come forward. I think they would be more likely to report then. If they were protected.” (Ayr)

“Witnesses are left very much to their own devices now. …. If there’s a gang of lads smashing things up, and you get called as a witness, you know that you’re gonna get targeted. And you tell the police and they say they can’t do anything until something actually happens.” (Livingston)

5.2 Some participants also expressed views that victims and witnesses may not come forward to report crimes if they perceived that they would not be properly dealt with, in terms of punishments or disposals:

“Victims will be affected by the way that the system treats the accused as well. You know, they won’t want to come forward if they think that accused won’t be treated in the way that they should be.” (Ayr)

5.3 Sentiments of surprise and incredulity were expressed that some victims and witnesses have to share public spaces in court with the accused and their supporters:

“Many, many years ago I had to go as a witness… but I was surprised that there were people in the same room that were witnesses, people giving evidence, victims, all mixing about in the same room, and I thought, “Surely there would be some kind of protection for these people from each other”. Not just about getting to know who they are but also about prejudicing the case in advance, before it even opened. I find that a really strange situation, and I don’t know if that still goes on, but if it does, it should be stopped.” (Livingston)

5.4 Indeed, participants across all workshops felt that there was an inherent need for support and protection at all stages of the court journey (pre court, during court and post court), but confidence in whether this was currently in place was varied:

“I think in most cases they are treated okay [witnesses], but you would think there could be more support, cause I know that witnesses can be intimidated very easily in this day and age so, more support definitely.” (Aberdeen)

“I know someone who went to court, and they really needed the support, to be given information about the courts and things. They couldn’t have got through it without it.” (Ayr)

“I can’t really comment on the way that the victims and witnesses are treated, ‘cause I don’t know. I would hope that the criminal justice system provides some form of support. I know that there are organisations like Victim Support, and that’s great. I would hope that they are supported and steered through the criminal justice system.” (Livingston)

5.5 As a minimum, participants felt it essential that victims routinely receive case outcome information without having to attend court in person:

“I think if the victims have to go to court in order to have to find out what’s happened to somebody, they’re then going to have to run a gauntlet of the supporters of the person who committed the crime. So, that’s probably a good reason why they wouldn’t be there, in a court to find that out.” (Aberdeen)

5.6 The potential for coming into contact with accused and their supporters when attending court to find out the case result, was cited as yet another facet of the current system that made it appear daunting to members of the public.

Protecting the Rights of Accused

5.7 Overwhelmingly, there was consensus that a fair justice system needed to ensure that any person accused of a crime or offence should have access to a fair trial and the right to be heard:

“Even if someone is guilty, there are also circumstances, you have to look at circumstances as well, whatever that may be. So, absolutely, they have to be given their voice. As far as I’m aware, I don’t think they are treated badly, or unfairly.” (Livingston)

5.8 Where there was less agreement was on whether the system had, over time, become too sensitive to the rights of the accused, something that was perceived to be associated with changes in Human Rights legislation over the years:

“It’s almost like the accused are victims these days. Even the government talks about them that way.” (Ayr)

“They’re not frightened of their parents, they’re not frightened of anyone. At the moment, if the police arrest someone for assault and the policeman puts their hands on someone, they say, “They’ve breached my human rights.” And you need to get rid of human rights legislation before you can tackle any of this.” (Livingston)

5.9 Similarly, views were expressed that the current system may protect people too much because of the need to be treated as innocent until proven guilty, although it was recognised that this was an inevitable part of a fair system:

“They used to say, innocent until proved guilty, but a lot of the time, you can see these people on CCTV and things, so you know they’re guilty. So, that doesn’t work anymore. You know they’re guilty, so they should go to jail.” (Ayr)

“I think, just frustration that you [the witness] can only answer the questions. But then that’s the nature of advocacy, the solicitor has to defend their client… the accused needs to have a fair trial as well or else the whole system just isn’t fair.” (Livingston)

5.10 There was also some strong feelings put forward that the identities of accused persons should be protected in case they were later found to be not guilty, and that even guilty people should have the right to a degree of anonymity. The following discussion between three participants at the Aberdeen workshop highlights this case:

P1: “I don’t think people should be named until they are actually proven. I mean, sometimes you see papers and there’s a name. I wouldn’t want to be named if I’d not done it.”

P2: “And sometimes it will name them and give their address. And you just think, even if you are guilty and you’ve done something horrible, they should never put your address. It’s a breach of confidentiality. Depending what it is, you just wonder what the repercussions are of putting the address.”

P3: “The victim is not gonna know the name and address of who did it, but once their family read that, if they read it in the paper, it may cause more trouble which would be another court case.” (Aberdeen)

5.11 Comments such as these related mainly to widespread public knowledge of accused/offender’s personal details, and were not necessarily related to the fairly limited, yet still public, details about accused that can be found in public court records. Nonetheless, this presents an interesting comparison to views presented about people found guilty, for whom there was an appetite for ‘public punishment’, or greater visibility of guilt and prosecution (discussed above).

Social Attitudes Towards Punishment and Authority

5.12 Among the participants, there was a recognition that wider social change would be required, rather than tackling the system alone in order to reduce crime and anti-social behaviour in its entirety:

“I think it’s something to do with society in that, 20 years ago when I was younger going out, the streets weren’t awash with pee. And now, they are putting urinals on the street on a Friday and Saturday night. There was no more or less toilets now than there were 20/30 years ago. So, we’re just less respectful, and there’s less fear about what will happen and it’s just, “Pee where you like!” Why have attitudes changed so much?” (Aberdeen)

5.13 Suggested strategies for restoring social order included work with parents and carers to make them responsible for the actions of children:

“You can’t do things with some of the young people, but you could deal with the parents.” (Ayr)

“They should make parents more responsible for what happens as well.” (Livingston)

5.14 While there was widespread support for more visible policing, and many people said that high visibility policing offered them considerable reassurance, there was also a resignation that, for some, a lack of respect for the law included a lack of respect for the police and this was something that also needed to be tackled:

“I think it would be better if there were police out and about and it would be a lot more reassuring. Nobody’s got any morals any more. People just walk all over them [the police], just like they walk over everybody else.” (Ayr)

Cost Effective Justice

5.15 As with wider knowledge and understanding of the system, people felt generally unaware of the costs of administering justice in Scotland. That said, they did express little confidence that public money was currently being spent wisely:

“They go, shoplifters, who go to court and get a slap on the wrists and they do it again. A hundred times, they show up a hundred times. They go to the court, a £10 fine, a £20 fine, £200 fine. It’s nothing to them. That’s wasting of time.” (Aberdeen)

“There’s so much money and time. So, one parking ticket could cost the country a £100,000 pounds for a £60 parking ticket. Just write the thing off!” (Livingston)

5.16 Interestingly, showing a somewhat pre-emptive insight into one of the main aims of SJR, several people commented that they perceived that money could be saved by removing some lower tariff offences from the courts:

“I think it could be a lot more cost effective. In the cases that they could do, it probably would be financially beneficial to take them out of court.” (Aberdeen)

“I think a lot of things that go through what is classed as a ‘small court’ is a waste of time and money. I would say they are more suited to an on the spot fine. Some of the cases that are going through are a waste of time and resources.” (Aberdeen)

“And, they probably get a £100 fine or something. It costs more to put them through the court.” (Aberdeen)

5.17 When advised that many cases had indeed been removed from the courts as part of SJR, people showed initial support but, as the earlier chapters have shown, there was also comment that fines may not really act to deter offending and, as such, savings in court time may be countered by increasing costs to society caused by future offending.

5.18 Finally, participants generally felt that the police were doing a good job in the face of budget cuts and already stretched resources, and comments were made in discussions around various different aspects of the system that the police were generally reliable and steadfast. Comments were made that the police perhaps also bore the brunt of public criticism of the system, not because of any wrongdoing on their part, but because they were the most visible representatives of the law. Overall, however, there was little perception that the police did anything wrong, and this supports the views that were put forward by victims and witnesses who had had direct contact with the police, as reported in the earlier SJR evaluation report. It also supports the findings reported by Wilson (2012) that people tend to be more confident in the police than in other parts of the system, like the courts.