Summary Justice Reform: Victims, Witnesses and Public Perceptions Evaluation

Executive Summary

Introduction

This report presents the findings from an evaluation of victims', witnesses' and public perceptions of the reforms to summary criminal justice in Scotland. The evaluation took place between January 2010 and August 2011, and ran alongside separate evaluations of the specific reforms to direct measures, summary criminal legal assistance and disclosure, bail and undertakings, fines enforcement and lay justice.

The overarching objectives of the summary justice reforms are to create a summary justice system that is fair, effective, efficient and quick and simple in delivery. Each of the reforms target different specific points within the summary justice system which collectively seek to contribute towards meeting these objectives.

Aims and Objectives

The main aim of the evaluation was to explore the impact of the whole package of reforms on victims and witnesses, as well as to gauge public perceptions of the summary justice system, and the reforms overall.

In particular, the work sought to establish if a number of specific policy objectives that were set out for victims, witnesses and the public had been met. These were:

• improved effectiveness and speed of the system - both court and non-court disposals;
• victims, witnesses and the public will see the reformed system as fair, effective, efficient, quick and simple;
• victim, witness and public confidence in summary justice will increase; and
• summary justice will be perceived to be credible by victims, witnesses and the public.

Methodology

The evaluation comprised desk based research and review of key performance indicator data, alongside primary data collection by way of interviews with a range of stakeholders. Principally, this included victim and witness information, support and advice agencies/organisations (e.g. Victim Support Scotland), professional and expert witnesses (e.g. police and forensic staff), civilian witnesses and victims, and members of the general public. An innovative deliberative workshop approach was used to obtain views from the general public, and produced some of the most robust data available to date on general public views of the summary criminal justice system in Scotland. The work was undertaken in three case study Local Criminal Justice Board areas: Glasgow and Strathkelvin, Lothian and Borders and Grampian.

Main Findings

Among those interviewed, awareness and understanding of the reforms varied considerably, both at the overall level and for specific areas of change. Police and expert witnesses and information, support and advice professionals were more informed than lay witnesses, victims and members of the public, for whom there was almost no awareness of the summary justice reforms and quite limited understanding of the system overall.

Among information, support and advice professionals, there was consensus that victims, and particularly witnesses, are still subject to inconvenience during their case due, primarily, to waiting times for trial to come to court, adjournments (colloquially known as 'churn') and waiting times in court. There was also consensus that the system was neither quick nor simple for victims or witnesses, and in some cases, the reforms had introduced new concepts which needed to be more clearly explained to victims, which staff sometimes found challenging. Fairness for people using information, support and advice services was still largely felt to be determined by case outcomes, although the way that victims and witnesses were treated in court had perhaps the greatest impact on overall perceptions of the system.

For police and expert witnesses, there seemed to be agreement that there was little change in terms of effectiveness or efficiency of the summary justice system. On speed, expert witnesses were the only group consulted in the evaluation that did not consider that an increase in speed was necessarily desirable since it was adding to their work pressures. The biggest issue that remains for this group is inconvenience due to: being cited at inconvenient times; difficulties informing the court that they were unable to attend on the designated days; being cited when not needed; and being cited for long periods of time, when the actual time input required is far less. Possible options for reducing police time in court as witnesses are currently being considered as part of the Making Justice Work programme.

For victims and lay witnesses, most did not perceive their journey from the incident to case closure to have been efficient or speedy, and participants cited examples of being called to attend on multiple occasions due to court business being cancelled at the last minute. Factors which influence witness attendance and possible options for improving attendance and experience are also currently being considered as part of the ACPOS led multi-agency national criminal justice efficiency 'Making Justice Work' programme within the 'Getting People to Court' project.

A key unmet need for victims was not knowing case outcomes and, because not many of the respondents knew the case outcome, some made general statements that sentences per se did not seem to be acting as a deterrent to future offending. Even where people did know the outcome, sentences were generally not perceived to be proportionate and so were considered unfair to victims. Fairness also seems to be perceived in terms of personal satisfaction with the outcome of the case for the victim or witness (including an apology or a sense of justice) and there is some evidence that people felt a need for personal or community compensation in order to believe that the system was truly fair.

For members of the public, proportionality seemed to be a key driver of whether the system was considered to be fair, with a general consensus that sentences needed to fit the crime. The overwhelming view on the way accused were treated was that they received more favourable treatment in the system than either victims or witnesses. This was in terms of their court appearance and the information that victims and witnesses received as cases progressed through court, as well as in the sentencing outcomes. Most participants felt that the system was neither quick nor simple, and this was based largely on their own lack of understanding or knowledge of the system. This translated in many cases to the conclusion that the system was not transparent. Perceived high levels of re-offending, based largely on media accounts, also seem to be contributing to a general perception that the system is not as effective as it could be.

Views of Specific Reforms

The package of reforms to the summary justice system included specific process changes to the system in a number of key areas (described in Chapter 1).

Overall, there was general support among all of the different stakeholder groups interviewed for direct measures (including all used by the police and fiscals), although there was some feeling that fines present a lenient option in some cases, especially for repeat offenders and for those where the fine was easily affordable.

Both police and expert witnesses suggested that disclosure of prosecution evidence (gathered by the police and the Procurator Fiscal) to defence solicitors, before court hearings begin was perhaps impacting negatively in their workloads, and that there may be some room to improve efficiencies in terms of not generating information which they perceived to be 'useless'. In contrast, one of the main gaps in information and support for witnesses was not being able to access the statements that they had previously given to the police. In most cases, months will have passed between the incident occurring and the trial going ahead. This was perceived to potentially add to the intimidating prospect and anxiety about appearing in court as a witness since they could not remember exactly what had been said.^[1]

There were mixed views regarding early guilty pleas as a result of changes to payment rates for solicitors under legal aid. Among those providing information, support and advice to victims and witnesses, the view was that both churn and waiting times in court have not improved as a result of legal aid and disclosure and so, even though cases may be appearing in court more quickly, the actual court experience for victims and witnesses (on the day) remained in need of improvement.

For members of the public, views of legal aid suggest that they prefer the new payment method to the old (information about which was received with some surprise). However, the main point of contention for the public was whether early pleas should necessarily result in discounted sentences. The general feeling was that they should not.

Overall, views suggest that changes to bail, including the more serious treatment of breach of bail, were not having the desired effect, and it was believed that many accused would simply choose to ignore bail conditions, regardless of the perceived consequences. There was concern about the continued likelihood of breaches of bail by a core of accused, including the commission of other offences. There was general consensus about this across all groups consulted and, correspondingly, strong feelings that bail should not be given to people who have previously failed to comply with bail conditions.

Other than the police, most of those consulted did not know anything about people being released by the police on written undertakings to appear at court, but there was a general consensus that they seemed to present a common sense approach. There was also some suggestion that their use was fairer to the accused (than, for example, custody), although it was perceived by most stakeholders that breach of undertakings would continue to occur in some cases since they would not be taken seriously by the accused (in much the same way as bail). As with bail, there was no appetite for allowing undertakings to be used for people who have previously demonstrated a lack of willingness to comply.

The evaluation suggests that there is perhaps some confusion among victims over the shift of business to Justice of the Peace (JP) courts. Some victims had reported to support service staff that they felt their case had been 'downgraded' when it was heard in a JP court, and this view was supported by experts and support and advice organisation staff. For police witnesses, experiences of appearing in JP courts do not seem to have been positive, and this is perhaps leading to negative perceptions of the appropriateness of more summary cases being moved to JP courts. The same is true for lay witnesses and victims who reported disappointment in the way that proceedings were both allocated to and managed in JP courts.

Finally, although all those consulted were in favour of changes to the recruitment, training and appraisal of lay justices, there were some doubts about how representative of the community this group would ever be. Importantly, for members of the public, there was a poor understanding of the existence and role of JPs and JP courts at all, suggesting that this in itself might present a barrier to recruitment of a broad spectrum of JP applicants.

Messages for Policy

The reforms had specific ambitions for victims, witnesses and the general public and it was hoped that many of the other system changes would also indirectly increase their confidence in the system and its perceived credibility.

The research shows that whilst victims and witnesses support the principles of the reforms, they still do not perceive that the system meets their needs. The use of direct measures and changes to both legal aid and the system of disclosure of evidence are designed to mean that fewer cases come to court that require victims and witnesses to attend. However, those that do still seem to be subject to instances of repeat citation, and waiting times that are still too long. The reforms have not, as yet, improved the victim and witness experience in this regard.

The reforms also sought to generate a greater focus on the needs of victims, witnesses and the accused at the heart of the system. Perhaps the main message to emerge from the work is that victims and witnesses are perceived, by almost all those consulted, as being treated less fairly than accused. Thus, the reforms have not achieved the focus they sought.

The evaluation findings point to several areas where victims' and witnesses' experiences could be improved which were not part of the reforms. These might change perceptions and increase public confidence in the system, ensuring that it is seen to be credible by all.

For police and expert witnesses, the key messages seem to be that:

• there is still scope for increasing effectiveness of the system in terms of the guidelines around what is required for reports and for disclosure purposes; and
• there is room for greater efficiency around citing witnesses to court at times that are most convenient for all those concerned.

For victims and lay witnesses, it was felt that their experiences would be improved if:

• they were subject to fewer instances of repeat citation to court, and waiting times at court were kept to a minimum on the day;
• they were made to feel more valued during any court appearance experience;
• they could be kept separate from accused at court;
• they were kept up-to-date with case progress and supported throughout the system if required;
• explanations were given to them about the allocation of cases to different court jurisdictions;
• bail was not seen to be used in cases where the accused was known previously to have breached bail;
• sentences were perceived to more appropriately match the offence;
• cases were concluded as quickly as possible, and ideally within six months of the offence, whilst still being fair; and
• arrangements were made to always notify victims and witnesses of case outcomes in writing.

While not the function of the adversarial nature of the justice system, victims and witnesses indicated that their experience of the justice system would also be greatly improved if they had the opportunity to ensure that their perspective was fully heard and understood during the case.

For members of the public, confidence in the system and perceived credibility may be further improved if:

• they perceived that tougher sentences were being used for repeat offenders;
• sentences were seen to be effective in deterring re-offending
• the system was more transparent so that the public had a greater awareness of the true prevalence of crime and victimisation, and understood better how sentencing decisions were made; and
• the system was seen to be more supportive of victims and witnesses throughout.

Across all of the groups, some key commonalities also emerged. These included the view that the system is still currently perceived to be heavily weighted in favour of the accused, that more could be done to improve communications with victims and witnesses at all stages in the justice process and that there remained considerable room for improvement in the efficiencies of getting people to and through court.

Conclusions

The reforms have sought to create a summary justice system that is fair, effective, efficient and quick and simple in delivery for all those involved. This evaluation has uncovered generally good levels of support for the ambitions of summary justice reform, even if there remains some doubt about whether all of the specific objectives will be achieved. The evaluation has also provided evidence of which of the reforms are directly and indirectly impacting on victims and witnesses to date, and has provided valuable insight into the main issues that are important to victims, witnesses and the public with regards to the delivery of summary justice now and in the future.