Summary Justice Reform: Victims, Witnesses and Public Perceptions Evaluation

5 The Views of Members of the General Public

5.1 The final strand of the evaluation involved speaking with members of the public to explore both their knowledge and understanding of the Scottish summary criminal justice system, and to canvass their views about the reforms that had been introduced.

5.2 Recognising that a large-scale general public consultation was not within the scope of the current work, a qualitative approach was taken. As a result, three separate workshops were held - one in Ayr, one in Livingston and one in Aberdeen with small, mixed samples of the general public.

5.3 Also recognising that knowledge and experience of the summary justice system among members of the general public may be limited or variable, a deliberative approach was favoured. This enabled the research to capture 'uninformed' views of the public, and then, through providing further information and detail about the specific reforms at the workshops, to gather more 'informed' views. The workshop events were attended by expert panellists from the summary justice community, including police, Victim Support Scotland staff, solicitors and others working in the field, who were able to inform discussions at the events and answer questions that arose from members of the public.

5.4 A total of 56 people took part in the general public workshops: for numbers in each area and socio-demographic status see Appendix C. All respondents completed a pre and post-event questionnaire which captured their views of the summary justice system. The quantitative data captured as part of these questionnaires should not be considered as representative or statistically robust. It is presented only to provide an indication of the strength of sentiments that were expressed in the surveys and to support the qualitative data that is summarised thematically below.

Knowledge of the Summary Criminal Justice System

5.5 Overall, participants suggested that their knowledge of the Scottish summary criminal justice system was limited. The pre-event questionnaires showed that the mean rating for how much people felt they knew about the system was 1.8 out of 5 (where 1 was 'nothing at all' and 5 was 'a lot').

5.6 When asked specifically what they knew of the system, typical responses included "not a lot", "not a great deal" or "I don't know anything about it". For the most part, people explained that they had never been involved and so really had no basis on which to comment about what the system entailed or how it worked.

5.7 Even where people did have an awareness of how justice was administered in the courts, there was little awareness of the distinction between 'summary criminal justice' and other types of justice, and the tag of 'summary justice' seemed to be a distraction for some:

"I've heard of criminal justice, but not this 'summary' thing. Criminal justice just means the courts, I think, like the High Court and the Procurator Fiscal, but that's it."

"Never heard of it before, and I've lived here for 19 years. There's a court case, somebody's prosecuted and somebody's charged as a result. End of the system as far as I'm concerned, that's all it is. But I didn't know it was called the 'Scottish summary criminal justice system', as far I was concerned, it was 'go on trial, get tried', so it's rather highfalutin."

5.8 Indeed, a general issue regarding the complexity of terms and language involved in the justice system was raised suggesting that terms in the system, (such as Procurator Fiscal, intermediate diet, unification, Stipendiary Magistrate, etc.) acted as a barrier to making the justice system 'simple' to understand.

5.9 People had no grasp of the range of cases that could be dealt with by summary criminal justice, and there was some surprise that the range included such things as breach of the peace (which people considered as 'minor') to assault, with the latter being considered as far more serious and so in need of a different way of being dealt with. People also felt that drugs offences were quite serious and were surprised to hear them classified alongside such incidents as breach of the peace.

5.10 One of the main things that 'surprised' people about the system when given just a little detail about what fell within the scope of 'summary' justice, was that some cases were heard without a jury:

"I didn't realise that all of the lesser crimes were dealt with without juries and in a different kind of court. I just simply didn't know that."

5.11 For all cases that involved personal harm there was a perception that they would perhaps involve a jury and that they would certainly be heard in court. Overall, there was no-one who expressed a clear understanding of the difference between summary or solemn criminal justice:

"I wasn't even sure about the difference between this and solemn. I had a quick look on the internet before I came out, and I didn't even know they were different until then."

5.12 Information about criminal justice in general largely came from newspapers, the news on television, word of mouth or in some cases through people's working lives. For example, participants included a nurse, a security guard and a social worker who had all had some previous involvement with accused or the courts in a working capacity. Table 5.1 shows the number of people who said that they received their information from a variety of different sources, as detailed in the pre-event questionnaires completed before the workshops.

Table 5.1 Sources of Information about the Summary Justice System^[15]

Source	Number of Responses
Newspapers	29
TV - factual programmes such as the news or documentaries	32
TV - drama, e.g. Taggart	9
Friends'/family's experience	9
Own personal experience	6

Base: 56

5.13 Some participants also commented that their views on the system came directly from things they had witnessed first hand in their local communities.

5.14 Some of the workshop participants had accessed the internet to search for information about summary justice and the reforms before attending on the night, and commented on how much information was available if people went looking.

Knowledge of the Reforms

5.15 From both the surveys and workshops, it was clear that there was almost no awareness of the reforms to summary justice, or any of the specific reform areas among the general public who took part. Only 5 of the 56 people who completed a pre-event questionnaire said that they had heard of summary justice reform, and three of those had been online to find out about it only after they had been recruited to the workshop. The other two said that their awareness of the reforms came from the news/work/internet.

5.16 Despite this, a couple of comments were put forward during the workshops which suggested that there was some insight into the reforms, including:

"I get the impression it's about trying to get a fine or something dealt with as quickly as possible so that justice is done as quickly as possible. So, to save people a lot of hassle and paperwork, pay a fine, then it's over, as far as I'm aware."

"I've heard of people getting Procurator Fiscal fines more instead of going to court these days. In fact, I know people that have got them [fiscal fines]."

"Recent legislation, I think, trying to keep people out of courts, like, on the spot fines. 'Cause the Sheriff courts are so busy these days, there must be some alternatives."

5.17 The few people who offered these comments said that their awareness came from knowing people who had been through the system, or who worked in the system.

5.18 Again, as with victims, police and expert witnesses and information, support and advice organisation representatives, members of the public were asked to define and to comment on their perceptions of the four concepts at the heart of the SJR overarching objectives, namely fairness; effectiveness; efficiency; speed and simplicity. It is worth noting that this task proved quite difficult for members of the public who took part and most only felt comfortable when speaking about fairness. Responses provided in the questionnaires showed that people had little or no knowledge or experience on which to base their answers and this resulted in quite limited feedback in relation to most of the objectives.

A Fair System?

5.19 Fairness of the current system for the general public was largely defined in terms of sentencing, with a view that sentences needed to fit the crime:

"Fair is just that the punishment fits the crime."

5.20 As part of both the pre and post-event questionnaires, people were asked how fair they thought the Scottish summary criminal justice system was overall, for victims, witnesses and the accused. Their responses indicated that victims and witnesses were perceived as being treated less fairly overall than accused, and this was supported by the comments made during workshop discussions. Only one person provided a neutral view that, "Based on the very little I know it seems that the justice system tries to treat all 3 with fairness." Post event there was little movement in views, except that people seemed to be more confident in their responses (with fewer people saying that they 'didn't know') and a slight upward move in perceived fairness for all groups.

5.21 The main sentiment expressed at the events appeared to be that victims are treated 'less fairly' than accused:

"I think there's still holes that a lot of people slip through, and are not dealt with properly. And it's usually the victims that are left to feel vulnerable, and the accused, sometimes it looks like they've got away 'scot free'. I think that definitely, the victim seems to become more of a victim, cause they're put through so much and then, a lot of the time, the person who has done something to them, or the criminal, nothing much seems to happen to them, and it seems like the victim, they can't really move on with their life, and the criminal, can just go on and do it again and again and nothing's gonna happen to them."

5.22 Consistent with comments provided by support and advice professionals, the public expressed views that victims are often 'victimised again' as a consequence of having to go to court and that they may feel that they are the offender in some cases:

"I think the victim is very often treated as the person who has done something wrong."

5.23 People generally felt less able to comment in relation to the way in which witnesses were dealt with, but some participants did know others who had been called to court as a witness which helped them to comment in general terms:

"The woman at work, she was a witness, and it was quite stressful for her. Just the waiting, and the waiting, and not knowing if she was going to be called. And so that affected her work, and it just, for herself, she was pretty uptight about it."

5.24 Some members of the public who took part in the research had been called as witnesses in the past. Generally, people reported that while they had not been required to actually give evidence, they had still encountered inconvenience through travelling to court and then being told that they were not required on the day. This left people with generally negative views of the witness experience:

"I was quite annoyed because, even though you don't lose any money or anything, with the expenses, it's a bit of hassle."

"I used to be a bar manager and I was called a couple of times in relation to incidents that happened in the bar, but I never actually got called up. You turn up and then obviously, they've changed their plea, and you end up going home."

5.25 Some comments were also provided in the questionnaires which indicated that people felt that some witnesses were treated in a negative and hostile way (as were victims) in relation to court appearances in that, "witnesses are made to feel as if they are on trial" and "witnesses face disruption" (through frequently being not required). There was also strong support for better protection of witnesses at court so that they were not exposed to potential intimidation from accused and people felt disappointed that this sometimes did not happen:

"They are interrogated. They are treated as if they are the accused. They possibly feel like they have committed the crime."

5.26 Many participants were surprised by accounts from others in the group of situations where the witness, or victim, had to sit in the same waiting room as the accused on the day of the trial; and come and go via the same door and at the same time. They felt this was incredibly insensitive and created an environment and opportunity for additional threat and emotional stress for the victim or witness. Furthermore, it seemed to play into the hands of the accused who were being given the opportunity to see whether the victim/witness had turned up and plead guilty/not guilty accordingly:

"You just imagine that they go out of different doors - 'the good', and 'the bad', you know."

5.27 This feeling of disappointment amongst some participants that the system created a second wave of anguish for the victim/witness was exacerbated when advised by expert panellists that, in some cases, this was because of the age and design of many court buildings. Participants felt that improvements in facilities were needed in order to prevent infrastructure obstacles hampering justice and putting off victims and witnesses from attending court.

5.28 Indeed, there was also a strong sense from the workshops that many potential witnesses may be put off reporting crimes for fear of repercussion and a lack of protection or care for witnesses once they have come forward:

"I think a lot of the time, people who would be witnesses maybe don't want to report an incident. So, more support for people coming forward is needed."

5.29 As with victims, views were also put forward that witnesses did not get compensated enough for their time and troubles.

5.30 The overwhelming view of the way accused were treated was that they received more favourable treatment in the system than either victims or witnesses. This was both in terms of their court appearance and the information they received as cases progressed through court, as well as in the sentencing outcomes. At court, there was a feeling that:

"It's only the accused that get defended."

5.31 People also commented that offenders "know how to work the system" and that this puts them at an advantage over the victims or witnesses who may be less comfortable and familiar with the court environment.

5.32 On sentencing, the view was that sentences also often favoured the accused and were not appropriate, as they were not perceived to be sufficiently serious to reflect the nature of the crime:

"I think they get a 'wee slap on the bum' and off lightly….It's almost like the accused are victims these days."

5.33 Whilst people generally felt that the accused were treated more fairly in the system than victims or witnesses, there was also some recognition that the system could do more to be 'fair' to the accused in terms of rehabilitation. Although outwith the remit of summary justice reforms, several people felt that the current prison system did not do enough to rehabilitate offenders, which was thus impacting on the perceived high rates of re-offending:

"I think more needs to be done on the rehabilitation side. If they just keep punishing them and it's not working, then they need to do more."

5.34 In both the questionnaires and group discussions there was also some suggestion that the presumption of guilt was made too quickly and early on in proceedings in some cases, and that not all accused were treated fairly as a result. Views were expressed at each of the workshop events which suggest that people did want the system to be fair to the accused in that regard:

"I suppose, I mean, there will be innocent people accused of things, and so it would be wrong if they were given very little chance to defend themselves, and so you need to strike a balance."

5.35 People described cases in which an accused was named and later found not guilty and commented that they perceived this as unfair and potentially damaging to the accused:

"I don't think they should be reporting on things until they know what's happened. I don't think the press should be able to report on things until they're sorted."

5.36 This aside, the general view was that accused were definitely currently treated more fairly than victims or witnessed.

"The accused just seems to have more rights than the victim."

An Effective System?

5.37 The main reasons why people perceived that the system was not effective was that "criminals always re-offend". Although people were more liberal in their views of addressing offending overall, and stressed that proportionality was important in sentencing, the need for punishment (and harsh punishment) seemed to be regarded as absolutely necessary to deter repeat offending:

"Money is being wasted on people who constantly appear in court when they should be properly reprimanded the first time."

"There are too many repeat offenders, suggesting they are not being deterred, punished or prevented very effectively."

5.38 Among a core of participants, there was also a feeling that even prison sentences were too lenient and they were resigned to the fact that imprisonment would not prevent re-offending. As one participant described:

"TVs, games consoles, recreational time, private cells, 3 cooked meals a day - very comfortable!"

5.39 A number of suggestions for the imposition of very harsh sentences were put forward by participants and there was, at each of the workshop events, a small number of people who had a very punitive, 'flog 'em and hang 'em' outlook in relation to offenders. Most others were more liberal and considered that individual cases should be dealt with on their own merit, including a consideration of extenuating circumstances.

5.40 There was also a view among some participants that some offenders are beyond 'learning' from short, sharp sentences, and that more serious sentences needed to be handed out to repeat offenders as the only way to put an end to their offending:

"Everybody thinks that we should give them as many opportunities as we can. But sometimes, there needs to be a last chance."

5.41 Some people expressed a view that examples of people being 'punished' should be more widely publicised to act as a deterrent. There was, as it stands, a view that the news only reports cases where the sentences are perceived to be too light for the crime:

"If a victim tries to defend themselves, they are the ones that end up getting charged. I mean, you read about that all the time."

5.42 In addition to re-offending, people felt that the most reliable indicator of effectiveness was a reduction in crime.

"I think if things are working effectively, there should be less crime."

5.43 It is worth stressing that none of the participants believed that there had been any reduction in crime in recent years, despite evidence in the public domain which shows that there has^[16]. This may suggest that media coverage of reductions in crime and victimisation either has not reached or registered with the wider public or that people's own experiences and anecdotal evidence play a greater role in informing their overall views of the levels of crime and victimisation than formal statistics.

An Efficient System?

5.44 Efficiency was the one area where people felt least able to comment on how the system was currently performing. There was a view that it must be working reasonably well otherwise the public would be aware that it was not, but that, in all likelihood, things could always be improved.

5.45 It is worth noting that participants were encouraged by the KPI findings that showed substantial improvements in numbers of direct measures; percentage of cases with an early guilty plea; and time from caution and charge to verdict between 2007 and 2011. Although direct measures were generally welcomed as an improvement to efficiency, there was still a minority who were not supportive of their use and would prefer harsher measures in all cases. Some people suggested a need for a more transparent and accessible reporting of performance measures by criminal justice agencies so that the public had a greater awareness of how the system was performing, and suggested that regular feedback on system performance in local media would be welcomed by the public at large.

A Quick and Simple System?

5.46 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.

5.47 Before the workshops, people generally felt that they had little idea of how long it took for cases to progress from the time the incident occurs to the final result. That said, people's estimates ranged from 6 weeks to 24 months with most people guessing at around 6 months. This shows that, despite feeling that they did not know how long it took, their perceptions were, in fact, quite accurate.

5.48 Again, people's perceptions appear to have been informed by the newspapers and television, which seemed to convey that it took a long time for people to be brought to justice. Many of the cases that will have been referred to in such TV or news articles will most likely have been solemn cases with longer turnaround periods, and this may well have influenced people's perceptions.

5.49 In relation to speed, some people observed that the system was currently too long for victims, who may attempt to recover normality in their lives during the period between the incident and the court appearance, but who then may have any progress undone when they are then required to appear at court. One person suggested that, regardless of the time taken, it was "too long for the victim" and another explained that:

"If cases were dealt with quicker, all three [victims, witnesses and accused] would be able to put it behind them and move on with life."

5.50 The main points in the process where people felt more speed could be achieved were with the police investigations and in court.

5.51 As with earlier comments, the use of jargon and technical terminology was seen as something which made the system difficult to understand. As one respondent commented, the system is full of "A lot of jargon and big words (for some people)".

5.52 People also commented that, even if they wanted to find out more about the system, it was not easy to find the information they wanted in amongst the plethora of documents and data available through the various websites of criminal justice agencies. As one participant summarised:

"There is too much information to take in and it's not always easy to find the information you want."

5.53 Although, after the events, people generally expressed that they 'knew more', there also remained a feeling that the system was "still hard for a 'normal' person to understand."

Confidence in the System

5.54 As with victims and witnesses, among participants, the police seemed to be considered as the 'public face' of justice, and their response seemed to have a large influence over confidence in the system at the general level. Generally, members of the public expressed confidence in the police at the early stages of the summary justice system and in their ability to identify offenders. Although confident with current policing, people did feel that police resources were stretched:

"When you see the police about, and you actually see them driving past you, or walking down the street, that gives you confidence."

"I think that the police do their best with what little resources they do have. They are doing their best, but they're under too much pressure. There's too few just now and the cut backs are gonna make it worse."

5.55 Little else was mentioned in the context of what gave people confidence in the system and instead, most people focussed on the need for harsher sentencing and reduced re-offending to give them more confidence overall.

General Public Views of Specific Reform Areas

5.56 On non-court disposals, or direct measures, participants were asked to what extent they thought that all people accused of summary offences should be dealt with by being put through the court system, instead of being dealt with without going to court. Pre-event, the mean score for agreement with this sentiment was 2.85 and post-event there was only a small increase in agreement with this statement to 3.1, showing little change among the group before and after receiving information about the purpose, pros and cons of using non-court disposals. Indeed, for this question, opposing views were expressed, with some participants feeling that direct measures offered quicker and cheaper solutions for lesser crimes, whilst others felt that direct measures for any crime were an 'easy option' for the accused. A number of people also felt unable to decide or provide a ranking for this question.

5.57 Participants were asked for their views on the use of fines at the generic and specific level (including non-court fiscal fines and police fixed penalty notices as well as fines handed out in court), although it is worth stressing that some of the detail and differentiation between the two forms of fines; were lost when it came to people's comments. Views in respect of fines overall were split quite evenly among participants, with some people feeling that direct measures simply did not work as a deterrent, but others recognising that they played a valuable role in freeing up court time and allowing more serious cases to be dealt with that way.

5.58 For those who felt that fines did not work, there was a perception in particular that they would allow for repeat offending due to offenders not taking the punishment seriously enough, compared to having to go to court:

"I don't think fines work. For some things they do, but generally, they don't work. I'm generalising, and I think fines are good for some things. But I think people will re-offend if they are just fined."

"By putting all accused people through the court system may make them think twice initially."

"If you've never done anything bad before and you get a fine, then that's fine [okay], but not if you've done that kind of thing before."

5.59 For those in support of fines, their views seemed to be based on a perception that their use was cost and time effective and that this would benefit the public purse:

"Fine people on the door-step instead of taking them through court. If they get caught red handed, why waste time?"

"Some of the cases that are coming through, I think they are just a waste of time….Especially when you consider legal aid, and who pays for that legal aid."

"Small offences are a waste of taxpayers' money if they go to court when a police fine would be sufficient."

5.60 Interestingly, when discussing direct measures, the public seemed to want a system that was 'fair' to the accused in the sense that fines were proportionate, not only to the crime, but also to the individual means of the offender. There was a feeling that a 'fixed fine value' for the same type of offence would act as a bigger punishment to those without money than those with money and, accordingly, be more likely to deter those less well off.

5.61 There was also a view among several participants that the use of fines (either fiscal or police) in some cases would not provide the accused an opportunity to be heard in court, and that the deemed acceptance in cases where fines were offered was not fair^[17]. Recognising that non-court fines could be refused, and that an accused may opt to go to court instead, people felt that this scenario was still unlikely, and may be acting as an unfair part of the system for the accused:

"Depends on the crime, but I think all people should have a right to a court case."

5.62 Generally speaking, people were less inclined to view most forms of direct measures as suitable for repeat offenders, and there was a preference to see all repeat offenders being sent to court, with a view that they may receive a harsher sentence as a result. There was also no support for fines being used in cases that potentially involved injury to the person (for example, stranger assault or reckless driving). Overall, however, the view was that individual cases needed to be considered on merit.

5.63 It is worth noting that a number of participants showed some surprise that not all criminal cases went to court.

5.64 Again, there was some surprise that fines enforcement officers were not in place before the reforms and people seemed to suggest that they assumed that an enforcement role was essential for the fines system to work. Knowing that fines enforcement officers were in place seemed intuitively sensible to people but people did not feel that enforcement officers would necessarily result in more people paying their fines.

5.65 Other than this, people were very pragmatic in respect of direct measures and expressed views that the appropriateness of their use should be "dependent on circumstances" of the crime.

5.66 People expressed some surprise at the pre-reform situation with regard to legal aid and disclosure and the absence of incentives to encourage solicitors to deal with cases quickly. There was a feeling that prior to the reforms the system could have been easily manipulated by solicitors to their personal financial benefit. Everyone agreed that evidence should be shared equally in order to be fair to both the defence and prosecution. It was also felt that the new system would benefit victims more:

"Disclosure of evidence, if they know they must plead guilty, will save victims a lot of grief."

5.67 Discounts in sentencing, although not a result of SJR, are more likely to occur as a consequence of more early guilty pleas being tendered (through reforms to legal aid). Although people did not appear to object to the encouragement of early pleas, there was some difference of opinion in whether early pleas should result in a discounted sentence. Some people recognised that it would save time and money, whilst others (and perhaps the majority), felt that the sentence should remain the same regardless of the time of plea:

"I understand why it's there, but I don't agree with it….Just because someone says one word instead of two, they should still get the same sentence."

5.68 People put forward suggestions that, instead of getting a one third reduction in sentence for pleading guilty, those who pled not guilty and were later found guilty should instead have a third added on. This, they suggested, seemed fairer than people receiving favourable treatment for an early plea.

5.69 Perhaps the most important underlying principle for members of the public in respect of pleas was that the plea was 'truthful'.

5.70 On bail there were few people who did not think that the changes post-2007 were a change for the better. Some comments were made about bail being too lenient with a suggestion that bail allowed too much freedom to the accused, but generally, people acknowledged that bail was the most cost effective way of dealing with accused until case outcomes were known. In relation to the tougher treatment of breach of bail, all felt that this was a good idea and people felt that accused who had breached bail on any previous occasion should not be permitted the same liberty on subsequent occasions. Again, repeat offenders received little sympathy among the public.

5.71 People also agreed with the principles of undertakings and supported their increased use describing it as a "common sense option". There were no perceived 'drawbacks' for victims or witnesses given that undertakings would not be used instead of custody, and people generally felt that the system was fair to the accused since it meant that they were given an opportunity to enter into a contract on the basis of a shared understanding of what was required of them.

5.72 People expressed a view that "if they're not gonna turn up, they're not gonna turn up" and so felt that it was better to use the cheapest and quickest option for getting people to court, i.e. undertakings instead of citation. As with bail they did, however, feel that someone who breached an undertaking should not be permitted this option on future occasions.

5.73 A number of people had not heard of JP courts and were surprised to learn that they existed alongside the High Court and Sheriff courts. This aside, people seemed generally supportive of the reforms to lay justice and in particular the idea that less serious cases could be handled by them. They viewed this as freeing up time for more serious cases in the Sheriff court which they described as being potentially beneficial for victims and witnesses in that cases would conclude more quickly.

5.74 There was also generally limited awareness of JPs and overall some surprise that Justices were not legally qualified. When the role of Legal Advisers was explained, this did not generally generate any further enquiry. There was nothing that people objected to, or criticised in respect of the new recruitment and training procedures although some were surprised at how quickly training could be undertaken.

5.75 Surprise was also expressed that JPs worked on a voluntary, non-salaried basis. This was also seen as a potential barrier for some people to apply and also as a barrier to employed people who might want to be a JP but would need to balance their duties alongside a paying job:

"Working people are almost out of the system, 'cause they can't fit it in around their job. So, therefore, the scope for change is not great, on the whole, anyway. I don't know how anyone can work and fulfil their duties as a JP."

5.76 When asked if they knew of anyone who may be willing to apply for a JP position, most people seemed to think not. They questioned who would want to get involved in sentencing people on an unpaid basis and few were convinced that the sense of 'serving the community' would be a sufficient incentive for most 'ordinary people' to volunteer. Related to this, people felt unsure that JPs would ever truly represent their communities, since they perceived that it would always be older, more middle class and more educated people who would be likely to apply.

5.77 In contrast, some of the workshop attendees did express an interest in the JP role themselves, but again, their participation in the event may mean that they were unusual in their interest in the summary criminal justice system and may not be representative of the wider community.

5.78 Overall, the general public appear to have been generally supportive of all reform areas and it was considered by the majority of people that all areas would contribute considerably towards the intended outcomes.

What the Public Want from the Summary Justice System

5.79 Proportionate sentencing for repeat offenders and, generally, sentencing that reflects the nature and severity of the crime seemed to be two of the main things that people wanted from the system.

5.80 Overall, the 'typical' sentences that were presented to participants did not meet with any real objection, and the only thing that people wanted to see elevated in sentencing decisions was consideration of offending history, because they generally perceived that repeat offenders were being treated too leniently. In these cases, proportionality to the crime seemed less important than if the person had committed similar acts before and had not been dissuaded from future offending as a result of their previous sentence. Much of this was based on media coverage of cases where the accused had a prior criminal record:

"You read reports of some criminals, and it's the umpteenth offence for them, and normally it's the same thing they're doing. So, there's obviously no deterrent there for them…Tougher sentences are needed for repeat offenders."

5.81 Linked to this was an expressed need to remove perceived 'red tape' which was seen to be allowing guilty people to get off on technicalities.

5.82 As highlighted above, speed also emerged as one of the main things that people wanted from the system i.e. "criminals should be dealt with quickly" with "fast sentencing". It was felt that, as well as being constructive in its own right, speed would also help bring about fairness for victims, witnesses and the accused as it enables all to move on.

5.83 Compensation for victims was also mentioned frequently in both the questionnaires and during workshops and fines and community service seemed to be welcomed outcomes for 'less serious' cases:

"I think community service would be the best thing if it was organised in a way that worked, and to benefit the people who are affected by crime….Things that make the community better."

5.84 Better support for victims and their families was also something that people wanted from the system and, in particular, a number of people commented that victims and witnesses needed to be better 'protected' in the system. One participant responded that, for members of the public, confidence was associated with "feeling safe when reporting a crime".

5.85 Honesty and integrity from the police and the courts were also cited as requirements and finally, a number of people said that the main thing they wanted from a system was one that was flexible and which allowed cases to be dealt with on a case by case basis and demonstrated "fairness to all parties".

Other Observations

5.86 Finally, as part of the workshops and included in the post-event questionnaires, members of the general public were invited to provide comments or feedback on the sessions they had attended.

5.87 The feedback received indicated that people had found the sessions 'enjoyable', 'interesting' and 'informative' and there was a view that more people would be interested in learning about the Scottish summary criminal justice system and the reforms, if delivered in a similar accessible way.

5.88 Some people made comments to suggest that they felt embarrassed at how little they knew of the system, and that they felt they should now find out more. Perhaps the clearest message, however, was that that most people felt it unlikely that members of the public would know much about the system unless/until they had reason to become involved in it:

"In general, nobody's gonna really have an opinion until it affects you."