Summary Justice Reform: Victims, Witnesses and Public Perceptions Evaluation

1 Introduction

Background

1.1 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.

1.2 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.

1.3 The report is designed to be read in conjunction with the other evaluation reports to provide a victim, witness and public perception dimension to the other evaluation findings.

Summary Justice Reform

1.4 In 2001, the Scottish Ministers established an independent committee (the McInnes Committee), to review the operation of the summary criminal justice system in Scotland and explore ways that it could be improved. It concluded that the summary justice system was in need of a comprehensive overhaul and that the need for change was due to:

• problems with the overall speed in dealing with cases;
• wasted court attendances for victims and witnesses;
• little difference in the way that minor and more serious cases were being dealt with by the system;
• no incentives to encourage solicitors to deal with cases quickly;
• inconsistencies in the way that the police, courts and Procurator Fiscal dealt with cases; and
• waste of public funds.

1.5 The report of the McInnes Committee^[2], which was independent of the then Scottish Executive and represented a wide range of interests and experience in summary justice, was published in March 2004.

1.6 Following consideration of the Committee's report and an extensive public consultation, Scottish Ministers published Smarter Justice, Safer Communities: Summary Justice Reform Next Steps^[3] in March 2005, outlining the Scottish Executive's proposals for summary justice reform, with a Summary Justice System Model Paper^[4], published in September 2007, providing further details. The reforms that required legislation formed the basis of the Criminal Proceedings etc (Reform) (Scotland) Act 2007. Subsequently, a package of changes or 'reforms' were introduced. These are referred to as 'Summary Justice Reforms' or 'SJR'.

The Package of Reforms

1.7 The package of reforms essentially involved:

• The introduction of police formal adult warnings and fixed penalty notices for anti-social behaviour, so that some of the least serious cases do not have to be reported to the Procurator Fiscal or go to court;
• Encouraging greater use by Procurators Fiscal of fiscal fines, and the introduction of fiscal compensation orders (FCOs) and fiscal work orders (FWOs), where appropriate, so that some other less serious cases do not have to go to court;
• The new role of Fines Enforcement Officers to enhance the collection and enforcement of fines;
• Introduction of early 'disclosure of prosecution evidence' (gathered by the police and the Procurator Fiscal) to defence solicitors, before court hearings begin;
• Introduction of a new payment system for solicitors so that they are paid the same standard, set fee regardless of what plea their client makes and when. This was designed to encourage accused and their solicitors to conclude cases as soon as possible including, where appropriate, by the accused pleading guilty;
• Encouraging the use of more offers of undertakings issued by the police whereby accused agree to attend court within 28 days instead of being formally cited by post at a later date (so the accused appears at court more quickly) and allowing special conditions to be attached to undertakings;
• More conditions attached to bail and treating breach of bail more seriously in the courts;
• Moving a greater number of appropriate cases from the Sheriff court to the Justice of the Peace court;
• Increasing sentencing powers of a Justice of the Peace, so they can now disqualify someone from driving for road traffic offences; and
• Providing more consistent, transparent and open recruitment and training of Justices of the Peace.

1.8 Together, these reforms sought to improve the system and address the gaps and main issues that had been identified in the 2004 Summary Justice Review report.

Overarching Objectives and Intended Outcomes for Summary Justice Reform

1.9 The overarching objectives of the summary justice reforms are to create a summary justice system that is:

• fair to the accused, victims and witnesses;
• effective in deterring, punishing and helping to rehabilitate offenders;
• efficient in the use of time and resources; and
• quick and simple in delivery.

1.10 Each of the reforms target different specific points within the summary justice system which collectively seek to contribute towards meeting these objectives.

1.11 The Smarter Justice, Safer Communities: Summary Justice Reform Next Steps^[5] document emphasised the role of the reforms in increasing community and public confidence in summary justice, and the importance of the reforms and the system being credible to the public. It also stated that SJR must "generate a greater focus on the needs of victims, witnesses and the accused - not service providers - at the heart of the system".

1.12 As a result, and in addition to the overarching objectives and intended outcomes as a whole, a number of specific policy objectives were set out for victims, witnesses and the public. 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.

Previous Research

1.13 In 2003, the Summary Justice Review: Public Views on Key Issues^[6], published for the Review Committee, reported the findings of both a survey of the general public and the views of participants at a number of focus groups. Together, these were undertaken to capture views of the Scottish public on aspects of contemporary summary justice. The research found that people had limited knowledge of the infrastructure of summary justice and were often more familiar with Sheriff courts than District courts. Public perceptions of summary courts and judges were often inaccurate and confused. Further, the perception was that cases were being handled appropriately and fairly, but that inconsistency and leniency in sentencing were a problem. Most people considered that both lay and professional judges treated people equally, fairly, and impartially.

1.14 Almost half (47%) of those who took part in the 2003 survey stated that they were 'not at all confident' that the summary justice system was fair in dealing with victims. As many as 79% of the respondents favoured prioritisation of cases, with cases involving what they perceived to be vulnerable victims and witnesses seen as the highest priority. Respondents felt that cases involving a child victim should be seen as the highest priority (84%), followed by cases with vulnerable witnesses (71%). Overwhelmingly, people wanted summary justice to achieve appropriate punishment and consistency in sentencing, alongside fairness to victims and the community.

1.15 The Report of the Summary Justice Review Committee: Supplementary Research^[7], published in 2005, also reported that there was a general perception that the police, prosecution and the courts gave low priority to minor offending and that it was rarely taken into account by the authorities. There was some confusion around the term 'alternatives to prosecution' among many respondents who felt this really meant 'alternatives to prison'. However, most respondents accepted all proposed alternatives to prosecution as suitable punishments but that the actual success of a punishment working depended on a number of factors, including that the offence had not been carried out by a repeat offender; the age of the offender; whether the offender had showed contrition; and the nature of the offence.

1.16 Respondents welcomed the expansion of reparation to victims or community schemes and were generally strongly in favour of a "right to reply" for victims of minor crime within the court system. This would, they felt, detail the effect of the crime on the victim's quality of life in addition to physical damage/injury and cost.

1.17 This previous research has, until now, provided the main source of evidence on victims, witnesses and general public perceptions of summary criminal justice in Scotland. Both research studies were, however, general in scope and they were conducted before the specifics of the summary justice reforms were agreed upon. This current research sought to provide a more up to date and more focussed account of the views of these system end users.

Evaluation Approach

1.18 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 support agencies/organisations (e.g. Victim Support Scotland), police and expert witnesses, civilian witnesses and victims. Members of the general public took part via a series of deliberative workshops. The work was undertaken in three case study Local Criminal Justice Board areas across Scotland, these being Glasgow and Strathkelvin; Lothian and Borders; and Grampian. A full methodology is included in Appendix A.

1.19 Within each case study area, a variety of methods were used to recruit interviewees. Victim and witness support and advice staff, and police and expert witnesses were recruited via an invitation sent to their employers. This resulted in a sample that was somewhat skewed by availability, although it is worth stressing that the numbers of staff who were in scope for the research was relatively limited in each of the case study areas from the start. A total of 11 support and advice staff took part in the research, along with 22 police and expert witnesses.

1.20 Victims and lay witnesses in each area were recruited primarily via an invitation to take part in the research issued by the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) to a sample of people in each case study area, as well as via invitations issued by Victim Support Scotland to a sample of their service users in each area. Using these methods, a total of 26 victims and lay witnesses were recruited and subsequently took part in one-to-one interviews.

1.21 Members of the public were recruited on street and door-to-door in each of the areas, using quotas to ensure a wide range of people of differing socio-demographic status (see Appendix A). In each area, 20 people were invited to take part in each of three workshop events with 56 people actually taking part.

1.22 The key performance indicator data that were analysed as part of the work came exclusively from the Scottish Government's National Criminal Justice Board Management Information System (CJBMIS) and included analysis of the total number of witness citations issued nationally and the percentage of repeat witness citations. No other data held on the system was deemed to be of direct relevance to this evaluation.

Research Caveats

1.23 During the analysis of data, attention was given to identifying any differences that arose in responses from participants living and working in each of the separate case study locations. Across all stakeholder groups, no noticeable geographical variations were noted and so, for reporting purposes, all data have been presented at the aggregate level.

1.24 As a general note, although the research also managed to engage with over 100 individual participants from a variety of backgrounds, the evaluation was always intended to be qualitative in nature and no attempt is made to draw statistically robust conclusions from the work. What the report does seek to do is to provide an in-depth insight into the views of those interviewed, who may or may not represent the wider stakeholder communities. This approach was taken purposefully since the evaluation sought to generate an understanding of the issues that affect these groups rather than to quantify their presence.

1.25 Related to this, as the work progressed, it became apparent that there was an overwhelming lack of awareness or understanding of the justice system among participants. As a result, many of the views and opinions expressed cannot reliably be considered as fully informed opinions on system reform, but rather opinions on what is perceived to be the system and what are perceived to be the reforms. The subjective nature of the comments is acknowledged by the researchers, yet participants' views are still vitally important in showing what further needs to be done to make justice more accessible for all. The views also have clear implications for public confidence in the system more generally.

1.26 It must also be recognised at the outset that there will inevitably be some bias in the findings presented below due to the unique experiences of those who took part and an element of self-selection. For example, findings to emerge from support and advice organisations will be based on the experiences of those individuals who took part and on the relayed experiences of the victims and witnesses who choose to engage with their services. This may not be representative of the whole victim and witness population or reflect the experiences of support workers in other areas who were not able to take part because of the geographical case study approach that was taken.

1.27 Similarly, in relation to victims and witnesses, the research has also only been able to reach those who opted to participate, and so there will be a community of victims and witnesses whose views are not represented by virtue of their choosing not to take part. This may include, for example, those who felt less affected by the crime and so not interested in discussing its impact and those who were affected to such a degree that reliving the experience for research purposes was too off-putting. Although a limitation of the work, it is recognised that the experiences of victims, witnesses and the members of the public will, in reality, vary greatly depending on a number of social, personal and environmental influences and so research of this kind can never truly claim to be representative of the views of all such groups. It can, however, offer an insight into the views and experiences of those who feel able to convey them.

1.28 Finally, it is important to stress that the interpretation and reflections on the research findings set out in this report are those of the researchers, and not of the Scottish Government. Further, the views put forward by the various respondents which are presented in this report are those of the individuals who took part, and should not be taken as being representative of the organisations for whom they worked.

1.29 With these general caveats in mind, the remainder of this report goes on to present the findings of the evaluation, setting out the views of each of the main stakeholder groups who took part, in turn.