Memorandum submitted by Victim Support
Victim Support is the national charity for people
affected by crime. Staff and volunteers offer free and confidential
information and support for victims of any crime, whether or not
it has been reported and regardless of when it happened. Victim
Support works to increase awareness of the effects of crime and
to achieve greater recognition of victims' and witnesses' rights.
The organisation also operates the Witness Service and the Victim
Supportline (0845 30 30 900).
Justice Committee inquiry into Justice issues
in Europe into Justice issues in Europe
EVIDENCE FROM
VICTIM SUPPORT
Executive Summary
1. Victim Support welcomes the opportunity
to provide evidence to this inquiry. Victim Support has been involved
in the debate about victim issues at EU level for a number of
years, and is represented, by Chief Executive, Gillian Guy, on
the Executive Board of Victim Support Europe (formerly the European
Forum for Victim Services). Victim Support Europe is a network
of non-governmental organisations providing assistance and information
to victims of crime.
2. Noting the speed with which Member States
appear to have implemented existing EU instruments, depending
on their status as "directive" or "framework decision",
we are hopeful that the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty will
provide the impetus required to achieve parity for victims across
the EU, at least in terms of victims' standing in criminal proceedings
(Framework Decision, 2001). While we recognise that the UK, and
specifically England and Wales, has a relatively strong track
record in transposing the articles of the 2001 Framework Decision,
we have highlighted areas for improvement and suggest that the
forthcoming consultation on the Code of Practice for Victims of
Crime might be a suitable opportunity to address these.
3. Victim Support welcomes the current enthusiasm
shown at EU level for addressing issues affecting victims of crime,
expressed in both the Stockholm Programme and the recent Council
Conclusions. However we urge caution in identifying priority groups
of victims for attention. We appreciate that those victims of
crime perpetrated across borders should demand particular support
from the EU. However, our experience of supporting all victims
of all crime types tells us that where universal services are
not in place for all victims, it is the most vulnerable victims,
such as those identified by the Stockholm Programme, who tend
to suffer most.
4. We are pleased to note the progress of
the Commission in applying pressure to those Member States which
have proved slow to implement the 2004 directive regarding compensation
for victims. We are however concerned that work now needs to be
done to ensure that victims are made fully aware of the enhanced
opportunity to seek compensation that this directive has achieved.
1. How has action taken at European level
on justice issues affected people?
Victim Support believes that provision for victims
(and witnesses) has improved significantly in recent years and
would cite such initiatives as the Code of Practice for Victims
of Crime, No Witness No Justice and the introduction, with financial
support from government, of Victim Support Plus as key steps forward.
While it is not possible to say to what degree action at European
level has influenced these changes it is encouraging that both
national and European level developments appear to be moving in
similar directions.
2. Victim Support welcomes the current enthusiasm
shown in recent EU documents including the Stockholm Programme
(December 2009) and the Council Conclusions (October 2009), which
highlight, respectively, the central role that victims of crime
need to play in EU policy and the specific areas which the EU
and its member states need to address to meet their existing obligations
to victims of crime.
3. Framework Decision of 15 March 2001 on
the standing of victims in criminal proceedings
We await with interest the impact on victim
policy in England and Wales of both the ratification of the Lisbon
Treaty and the forthcoming revision of the Code of Practice for
Victims of Crime. While the former could potentially lead to the
UK government being forced to implement the outstanding articles
in the Framework Decision of 15 March 2001 on the standing of
victims in criminal proceedings, the revision of the Code of Practice
may offer the opportunity for making these changes relatively
soon.
4. Victim Support has followed with interest
the degree to which Member States have, since 2001, transposed
the articles in the Framework Decision, and notes that improvement
does appear to have taken place. Our position on the Framework
Decision, since it was taken, has been one of regret that it did
not enjoy the status of a Directive. Because of this, we are hopeful
that the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty will provide the Framework
Decision with the "teeth" it has hitherto lacked.
5. There are two perspectives from which
Victim Support would like to see the 2001 Framework Decision more
rigorously enforced. One perspective is that of those individuals
who are resident in England and Wales but are victims of crimes
committed in other Member States. Because we support all victims
of crime, whether or not they have reported to the police, we
are often approached for advice about or practical support in
accessing justice abroad. Unfortunately, on some occasions, when,
due to a Member State's failure to meet the requirements of the
Framework Decision (Greece being notable example and a popular
destination for British travellers), we have no way of referring
the victim to an organisation which can offer assistance. Without
the funds to accompany individual victims, in person, to a court
case in another country, we are left with no option but to refuse
support.
6. The main perspective from which we have
an interest in the Framework Decision is however that of victims
of crimes committed in England and Wales. These victims represent
the bulk of our clients and we believe their experience could
be greatly improved if the following articles were fully transposed:
6.1 Article 4—(Right to receive information)
Paragraph 3 of article 4 states that "member
states shall take the necessary measures to ensure that, at least
in cases where there might be danger to the victims, when the
person prosecuted or sentenced for an offence is released, a decision
may be taken to notify the victim if necessary".
This article is not fully transposed as victims
in England & Wales are only entitled to information on the
offender's release in relation to certain offences, and if the
sentence is at least 12 months.
6.2 Article 5—(Communication safeguards)
This article states that Member States must
ensure that they take measures to minimise communication difficulties
for witnesses in criminal proceedings.
The Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act
1999 introduced special measures for certain victims who appear
as witnesses and are classified as vulnerable and intimidated
witnesses (VIWs). However, access to special measures is subject
to VIWs being correctly identified by either the police or the
Witness Care Unit, a (timely) application being made by the prosecutor,
consent being given by the judge and the facilities being available
in the court. Victim Support is aware of many cases in which one
or more of these conditions are not met.
6.3 Article 8—(Right to protection)
Paragraph 3 of article 8 states that each Member
State will ensure that "contact between victims and offenders
within court premises may be avoided, unless criminal proceedings
require such contact. Where appropriate for that purpose, each
Member State shall progressively provide that court premises have
special waiting areas for victims".
Most crown courts do have separate waiting areas
but they are only required to provide these, according to the
Code of Practice for Victims of Crime, "as far as possible".
Victim Support takes issue with the inclusion of this caveat as
it has encountered such arguments as a court being housed in a
listed building as justification for separate waiting areas not
being possible. Victim Support is of the view that if victims
cannot be spared the indignity of having to await a case in the
same room as the defendant's family and friends, the trial should
be held in premises that can provide this security.
6.4 Article 9—(Right to compensation
in the course of criminal proceedings)
Paragraph 3 of this article states that "Unless
urgently required for the purpose of criminal proceedings, recoverable
property belonging to victims which is seized in the course of
criminal proceedings shall be returned to them without delay".
The arrangement for this in England and Wales
is non statutory, and therefore this article is not fully transposed.
6.5 Article 10—(Penal mediation in the
course of criminal proceedings)
This article states that "Each Member State
shall seek to promote mediation in criminal cases for offences
which it considers appropriate for this sort of measure. Each
Member State shall ensure that any agreement between the victim
and the offender reached in the course of such mediation in criminal
cases can be taken into account".
The inclusion of reparation in the purposes
of sentencing and the placing of restorative cautioning by police
on a statutory footing (both Criminal Justice Act 2003) could
be argued to have fulfilled this article. However, Victim Support
has concerns that, in practice, restorative justice remains available
to victims in a relatively small number of cases, generally where
the perpetrator is a young offender. This may be related to an
offender-driven, rather than victim-driven interpretation of which
cases are considered "appropriate" for this measure.
6.6 Article 11—(Victims resident in
another Member State)
This article relates to victims who are resident
in a State other than that where the offence occurred. It states
that authorities should be able to decide whether the victim can
make a statement immediately after the offence, and that video
conferencing and telephone conference calls should be available.
Further, if the victim is not able to make a complaint in the
country where the offence occurred they should be able to do so
in the Member State in which they are resident. That Member State
will then inform the competent authority in the territory in which
the offence was committed.
This article has not been fully transposed.
6.7 Article 12—(Cooperation between
Member States)
This requires all Member State to foster, develop
and improve cooperation between them with the aim of protecting
victims' interests more effectively, "whether in the form
of networks directly linked to the judicial system or of links
between victim support organisations".
We would not say that this article had been
fully transposed: cooperation at EU level is, in our experience,
generally led by the victim support organisations, which are largely
NGOs.
6.8 Article 14—(Training for personnel
involved in proceedings or otherwise in contact with victims)
This article states that personnel who come
into contact with victims should have suitable training.
Many personnel who come into contact with victims,
in the criminal justice system although not consistently in other
public services, eg health, do receive training, and Victim Support
is sometimes involved in developing and delivering this. All Victim
Support personnel are fully trained before working directly with
victims. However the training for personnel in public services
is not, as yet, provided on a statutory basis.
7. COUNCIL CONCLUSIONS
The Council Conclusions (October 2009) give
a welcome boost to the victims' agenda. We are particularly pleased
that the need for increased support for Victim Support services,
greater awareness of these services, and training for professionals
working with victims have been included.
8. We also welcome the helpful analysis
provided by the Council Conclusions of the impact of EU instruments
for victims of crime. As the list of Council Conclusions points
out, evaluation both the 2001 Framework Decision and the Council
Directive relating to compensation to victims of crime in cross-border
situations (2004) indicate that fulfilment of the obligations
these documents place on member states remains incomplete. The
rallying cry to the EU and its members to take these issues more
seriously is timely as we consider the impact of the Lisbon Treaty
on the potential for this challenge to be met.
9. THE STOCKHOLM
PROGRAMME
The Stockholm Programme goes some way towards
responding to the call of the Council Conclusions. We are particularly
pleased to see victim issues expressly highlighted in the Stockholm
Programme, which explicitly states that "[a]n important issue
is how to offer better support to victims, possibly through European
networks that provide practical help".
10. The detail of the Stockholm Programme
focuses on particular groups of victims, including victims of
gender based violence and child exploitation, trafficking, terrorism
and "cyber crime".
11. Victim Support applauds the commitment
expressed in the Stockholm Programme to respond to the needs of
the unintended victims of increased cross-border cooperation.
We are currently particularly concerned by the growing problem
of fraud crimes, many of which are facilitated by the Internet,
and on which it is not always clear where the jurisdiction for
investigation—if indeed there is an investigation—lies.
One of the reasons for our concern about this group of victims
is that without an investigation, participation in criminal proceedings
becomes a purely academic prospect.
12. We are concerned however, that this
focus on certain groups of victims could result in a "two-tier"
approach to victim policy in Member States, particularly those
without an established infrastructure of victim support. Victim
Support endorses the conclusions of the recent report by the Victims'
Champion that the support needs of victims cannot be determined
by the crime type alone: while there may be specific needs arising
from being a victim of, say, sexual violence, everyone's reaction
to being a victim of crime will be highly individual. Moreover,
our experience shows that where provision for victims—all
victims—is lacking, this affects the most vulnerable victims
disproportionately. Victim Support practitioners will, for example,
regularly cite rape victims as those most traumatised by failures
by representatives if the criminal justice system to follow procedure
correctly and sensitively.
13. Council Directive relating to compensation
to victims of crime in cross-border situations (2004)
Victim Support welcomed the introduction of
this Council Directive, and was particularly pleased that it was
afforded the status of a directive, for the reasons outlined above
in the context of the Framework Decision. We note with interest
both the 2008 Matrix study91 and the 2009 report, from the Commission
itself, 92 into the impact of the Directive.
14. It is encouraging that almost all Member
States have responded to the Directive by putting processes in
place for victims to make applications for compensation across
national borders. We are also encouraged that action has been
taken and, in the case of Greece, continues to be taken, against
those Member States which have failed to comply with the Directive.
15. We are however concerned to note that
despite the arrangements that have been made in most Member States
to allow victims to apply for compensation in cross-border situations,
take-up of this opportunity has, to date, been low. We agree with
the possible explanations put forward for this in the Commission's
report, including perceived language barriers, absences of a central
source of information and the involvement of two agencies. However
in our experience the greatest barrier to compensation, whether
at home or in another Member State is victims' lack of awareness
of the existence of the provision.
16. We agree with the Commission's position
not to propose amendments to the Directive at the current time:
the priority ought to be to ensure that arrangements are in place
in all Member States first. However we would welcome in future
the opportunity to review the reach of the Directive, measured
by numbers of victims helped: it is critical that the structural
investment in applying this Directive is not wasted for want of
effective publicity of compensation opportunities to victims.
17. The Commission's 2009 report provides
a useful insight into some of the differences between the compensation
schemes in Member States. For example, it highlights that the
UK is, for example, in the minority in reserving the right to
reduce a victim's compensation on the basis of previous convictions,
a characteristic which Victim Support has always believed to be
unfair. We would therefore be interested, at some point in the
future, to explore what opportunities exist, in this period of
renewed EU-level interest in victims, to replicate the best practices
of individual schemes in all Member States.
January 2010
91 http://www.matrixknowledge.com/wp-content/uploads/study_compensation_to_crime_victims_en.pdf
92 http://www.asser.nl/eurowarrant-webroot/documents/cms_eaw_id1897_1_52009DC0170.pdf
| 
