Utilising the Victim Personal Statement Scheme as a Vulnerable and Intimidated

Victim Early Detection Device

Louise Taylor and Jo Boylan-Kemp

Nottingham Law School

Our research focus• In light of current practice is the UK capable of meeting

the individual needs assessment as required by the new

EU Victims Directive Directive 2012/29/EU)?

• In any event, could the process of early identification of

vulnerable and intimidated victims be improved?

• Would the Victim Personal Statement (VPS) Scheme be

a useful device in improving that identification process?

How does it compare as against the evidential

statement?

Our research focus

VPS SchemeIdentifying

victimsMethodology Findings Conclusions

The Victim Personal Statement Scheme

• Overview: o National scheme introduced in Oct 2001.

o Voluntary.

o Usually in written form and given to the police at the same time as the

evidential statement.

o Outlines the impact that the crime has had upon the victim.

o Becomes part of the case papers.

• Literature has focused on:o Participation rates.

o Potential to raise then dashes victims’ expectations.

o Effect on sentencing outcomes.

o Impact on due process rights of defendants.

o Scheme’s purpose.

Our research focus

VPS SchemeIdentifying

victimsMethodology Findings Conclusions

The importance of early identification

• The identification of a vulnerable or intimidated witness at an early stage of an investigation is of paramount importance. It will improve the quality of an investigation by assisting the witness to give information to the police; it will assist the legal process by helping the witness to give their best evidence in court. It can help to ensure that the witness has been adequately supported so that they turn up at the trial to give evidence and is, therefore, likely to maximise the likelihood of fair and equitable trials.

Vulnerable and Intimidated Witnesses.

A Police Service Guide, 2011, para 17

Our research focus

VPS SchemeIdentifying

victimsMethodology Findings Conclusions

What is meant by vulnerable and intimidated?

• Definitions of witnesses who may be vulnerable or

intimidated for the purposes of special measures

assistance are contained in the Youth Justice and

Criminal Evidence Act 1999.

• Vulnerable witnesses are defined by s. 16.

• Intimidated witnesses are defined by s. 17.

Our research focus

VPS SchemeIdentifying

victimsMethodology Findings Conclusions

Are current identification practices adequate?

• In practice decision-makers apply a three-stage

test: o 1) Is the witness potentially vulnerable/intimidated? If yes:

o 2) Is this likely to affect their willingness or capacity to give ‘best evidence’

in court, and to cause them undue stress in or before court? If yes:

o 3) What type of support or assistance will be most likely to alleviate these

difficulties?

• Speaking up for Justice (Home Office, 1998)o Official estimate that between 7-10% of witnesses are vulnerable or

intimidated.

• Burton et al (2006)o 54% of all witnesses are possibly vulnerable or intimidated.

Our research focus

VPS SchemeIdentifying

victimsMethodology Findings Conclusions

Special measures• Screens (s 23);

• Live TV link (s 24);

• Giving evidence in private (limited to sexual offences

and those involving intimidation) (s 25)

• Removal of wigs and gowns (s 26)

• Video recorded interviews as evidence-in-chief (s 27)

• Communication through an intermediary (available for

vulnerable witnesses)(s 29)

• Special communication aids (s30) (available for

vulnerable witnesses)

• Video recorded cross-examination (s 28).

Our research focus

VPS SchemeIdentifying

victimsMethodology Findings Conclusions

Methodology• Content analysis of 100 evidential statements and

corresponding victim personal statements.

• Taken from Magistrates’ Court files for Cannock Chase police division in Staffordshire.

• Sub-sample of 10 files used to refine research focus.

• Statements were coded and categorised to identify vulnerability and intimidation indicators. This process was informed by findings from the sub-sample and themes from the literature.

Our research focus

VPS SchemeIdentifying

victimsMethodology Findings Conclusions

Vulnerability indicators

• Age

• Offence type

• Mental illness/disability

• Physical illness/disability

Our research focus

VPS SchemeIdentifying

victimsMethodology Findings Conclusions

Intimidation indicators• Fear of returning to the scene of the crime

• Fear of meeting the offender

• Fear of retribution

• Threats from the offender / associates

• Fear of reoffending

• Fear of going out

• Difficulty sleeping

• Fear of being alone

• Request for relocation

• Reluctance to attend court

• Statement of general intimidation

Our research focus

VPS SchemeIdentifying

victimsMethodology Findings Conclusions

Sample overview

• Ageo Under 18 = 10%

o Over 18 = 89%

o Unknown = 1%

• Sexo Male = 43%

o Female = 55%

o Unknown = 2%

Our research focus

VPS SchemeIdentifying

victimsMethodology Findings Conclusions

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

OAPA (51) Crim Dam

(27)

Property

(18)

Fraud (1) Public

Order (21)

Motoring

(1)

Drugs (1)

No. of victims by offence type

% of statements containing

intimidation indicator(s)

Our research focus

VPS SchemeIdentifying

victimsMethodology Findings Conclusions

Incidence of intimidation

indicator by statement type

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Evidential

VPS

Our research focus

VPS SchemeIdentifying

victimsMethodology Findings Conclusions

Vulnerability• 10 victims were under 18; one victim’s age was

unknown. This means a total of 11 victims were potentially vulnerable due to age.

• Offence type = None of the files used in the sample contained offences of the type highlighted in YJCEA as giving rise to vulnerability.

• Physical disability = 5 (VPS = 3 ; evidential = 2)

• Mental disability = 9 (VPS = 8 ; evidential =4)

Our research focus

VPS SchemeIdentifying

victimsMethodology Findings Conclusions

Conclusions• Total no. of victims flagged as potentially vulnerable

= 25

• Total no. of victims flagged as potentially

intimidated = 65

• Accounting for victims who fell into both

categories, total no. of victims who are vulnerable

or intimidated = 72

Our research focus

VPS SchemeIdentifying

victimsMethodology Findings Conclusions

Conclusions• Overall the VPS is better than the evidential

statement as a device to detect intimidated

victims.

• VPS (and evidential statements) are probably not

well suited to identifying vulnerable victims.

Our research focus

VPS SchemeIdentifying

victimsMethodology Findings Conclusions

Recommendations for changes to the VPS scheme

• National media campaign.

• Increased police training.

Our research focus

VPS SchemeIdentifying

victimsMethodology Findings Conclusions

Further research

• Replication of the current study using files from

Nottinghamshire CPS.

• Expanding to include Crown Court files.

• Investigation of police practices in the

administration of the VPS scheme and the

identification of vulnerable and intimidated victims.

Our research focus

VPS SchemeIdentifying

victimsMethodology Findings Conclusions