Victims are sidelined in the criminal justice system. This is perhaps the most unfortunate failing of our justice system – and yet the easiest to fix.
The view that victims should sit at the heart of any criminal justice reform is shared by Jenny Chapman MP and Jacqui Smith, the co-authors of the Purple Book chapter on crime & justice. At Tuesday’s event to discuss criminal justice issues the co-authors, alongside Juliet Lyon of the Prison Reform Trust and Simon Reed of the Police Federation, gave their ambitions for our criminal justice system (CJS) and presented a broad range of ideas to increase the focus on victims without compromising the rights or needs of offenders.
Jenny Chapman, who recently joined the shadow justice team, put forward ideas including the extension of crime maps to ‘justice map’ – adding an extra layer of data to show justice outcomes at local level. Jenny also suggested that victims should be able to influence the type of community sentences the offender receives. This last point was one that Simon could not support, arguing that victims get enough of a say through the victim personal statement (VPS). Though there is no doubt that for some victims, the VPS is an accessible and beneficial element of their experience, many do not even get the chance to make one. In fact, as was presented in Summing Up: a strategic audit of the criminal justice system, of those whose case reaches court, less than half recall being offered the opportunity to make a VPS. Moreover, of those who did make a VPS, only two-thirds felt it was taken into account. Though ambiguity remains over the best way to take the VPS and the most appropriate way to use it, there can be no question that too many people are left without the opportunity to communicate the impact of the crime on their lives.
No discussion of today’s justice landscape would be complete without mention of Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs). Jacqui Smith made clear that Labour should stand candidates and they should be emphasising community engagement and accountability at a local, rather than force, level.
Accountability is key here and it is crucial that we do not assume elections alone will ensure PCCs are fully aware of and accountable to the needs and views of their constituents. Every PCC has a duty to obtain the views of victims. The good news is that this is a major shift in the legal relationship between victims and the police, and both Jenny and Jacqui told us that this duty is ‘at the heart’ of what the party will ask of candidates. The bad news is that the legal duty falls short of requiring that commissioners respond to and act on victims’ views. To have a beneficial impact on victims and the public, this duty needs to be accompanied by robust mechanisms to ensure that all victims’ voices are heard – not just the loudest or most confirmatory. Moreover, the PCC leadership must be transparent in how these views are applied to effect change, and the body designed to hold them to account, the Police and Crime Panels, should ensure theirs is not an institution of smoke and mirrors. Whether your PCC is taking everyone’s views into account, or tossing them out with the trash, you should know.
The Purple Book chapter and the discussions it will spark are essential to the debate on how to better our justice system, but it is through the leadership of PCCs that we can begin to turn talk into action.
Giselle Cory is public policy analyst at Victim Support
Photo: Steve Calcott
Although Giselle, Jenny and Jacqui all make good points about accountability and it is absolutely essential I am not convinced that the accountability sought of Police Commissioners will be that successful because of what falls within their remits.
Getting rid of ‘a failing commissioner’ may sound wonderful and ‘a result for the community /people power’ but, as a considerable amount of crime can be dealt with by tools available to be used by partners of the Police, if those partners, especially those within local authorities, do not use the tools then holding a commissioner accountable if they have no powers to deal with failures within local authorities or any other partner is futile.
There is a very real danger of creating a scapegoat here, not just for when things go wrong but if things don’t improve and while it is absolutely vital that Labour makes sure that we put candidates forward we should do our very best to ensure what is suggested as the remit for Commissioners includes everything needed to prevent less victims not just sanction another tier of bureaucracy.
I do agree with Andy Farrell’s critique. We also need to realise that crime is not just about numbers. There are real victims involved in both sides. Listening to the victim is a useful exercise and should be used as a tool for any future remedial measure, however, the victim’s feelings must not influence individual cases they are involved in.
Jacqui Smith was certainly one of the toughest Labour Home Secretaries, however I wonder why she did not come up with similar initiatives when in power?
What is the point of the ‘personal victim statement’ if it has no bearing on sentencing? None – apart from providing an empty inconsequential opportunity for victims to become emotional in court. It certainly goes nowhere to influence decisions: the judge will block his ears during a PVS.
As for Police Commissioners – what on earth is Labour doing giving any consideration to the politicizing of our constabulary? Labour should not only condemn this move but vigorously oppose it, encourage everyone to boycott elections and promise to abolish them when they return to power.