Multi-Site Survey of Victims of Crime and Criminal Justice Professionals Across Canada

5. Summary (continued)

5. Summary (continued)

5.2 Results from the Victim Interviews

Services Received by Victims

Almost nine-tenths of victims who participate in these services received some sort of assistance, mostly from police-based, community-based, or court-based victim services. In terms of the types of assistance received, almost all victims received information about their case or the justice system, about half received assistance with counselling and witness support, and about 40% received help with preparing a victim impact statement. Victims considered counselling and emotional support, the provision of information, and general assistance from victim services as the most helpful aspects of the assistance they received.

Almost all victims were referred to the victim services organizations where they received services. The police served as most common referral source for police-based, court-based, system-based, and, to a lesser extent, community-based organizations. Over two-thirds of system-based and police-based organizations and just over half of court-based services initiated contact with the victims. For four-fifths of community-based organizations, victims reported initiating the contact.

Initiating contact with victims must be treated carefully. While half of victims said they would prefer victim services to take the initiative, about one-quarter would prefer to contact victim services themselves. Those who preferred to be contacted noted that victims are often too traumatized or embarrassed to call; however, those who would rather initiate contact themselves said that this allowed them to feel more in control and that they do not like being contacted by someone they do not know. Several victims suggested that both options be available to victims and that victim services only initiate contact with those who have given consent or after a reasonable period of time has passed without hearing from the victim. In helping victims find the assistance that they need, victims stressed the importance of giving information about available services shortly after the crime. They also suggested using a variety of methods of communication, although more preferred oral to written, and several thought that more public education and outreach would be beneficial. Over two-thirds of victims who received services said that assistance was generally prompt. About 60% of victims reported receiving assistance within one week after requesting assistance.

Information Received by Victims

Victims were asked a series of questions about the nature of the information they received at various stages of the criminal justice process and how they received it. Overall, at all stages prior to incarceration and parole, between half and all of the victims to whom the questions applied reported that they received the various pieces of relevant information.

Those who were involved in a case where the suspect was charged were asked whether they were informed about their role in court as a witness, about the role of the Crown Attorney, and about the criminal justice system in general. Between 60% and 70% of these victims reported receiving this information, most often in person from victim services personnel. Likewise, two-thirds of victims in these cases reported that they were told whether the accused was released on bail. However, in cases were the accused was released, just over half were informed about when the accused was released and about conditions of release. Police were the main source of information about bail, and the information was most often provided by telephone. With respect to pleas, 60% of victims in cases where charges were laid were told whether the accused pleaded guilty; this information was equally likely to have come from the Crown Attorney, the police, and victim services, and was slightly more likely to have been provided by telephone than in person. However, about half of victims in cases where the accused pleaded guilty were told (most often by the Crown Attorney) whether any agreements had been made with the accused to plead guilty.

With three exceptions, all 36 victims involved in a case that went to trial were told whether there was a trial and about important trial dates. About two-thirds were told about changes in trial dates and given updates on their case, and all except seven were told the outcome of their case. Overall, victim services were the main source of information about trials, followed by the Crown Attorney, and this information was most frequently provided by telephone. However, about half of victims learned the outcome of the trial because they were present in court at the time of the disposition.

A large proportion of victims involved in a case where the accused pleaded guilty or was convicted reported that they were informed about the date of the sentencing hearing and about the sentence. In cases where the offender received probation, 80% of victims said that they were told whether conditions were placed on the offender. Victims most often found out this information from victim services or because they were present in court. If they were not in court, they were about equally likely to receive the information by telephone and in person.

Close to 60% of victims who were involved in a case where the offender was sentenced were told where the offender was incarcerated, while slightly more, 66% were told the date the sentence began and 80% were told the length of the sentence. In cases where the offender was moved, about one-third of victims were told the offender's new location; this latter piece of information most often came from a victim liaison coordinator at a correctional institution, whereas information about where the offender was incarcerated came from a variety of sources, including the police, the Crown Attorney, or the victim liaison coordinator. Victims most often learned about the date the sentence began and the length of the sentence because they were present in court at the sentencing hearing. Except in instances where victims were in court, information about the offender's incarceration was most often provided by telephone.

Just under half of victims involved in a case where the offender was eligible for parole received information about the offender's eligibility. Of those involved in a case where a parole hearing had been set or had occurred, one-third were informed of the dates; and in instances where parole had been granted, about one-third were informed about release dates, conditions imposed on release, and the destination of the offender on release.

Overall, more than 60% of victims agreed that, in general, they received a sufficient amount and type of information, and that they received the information in a timely manner. Those who were dissatisfied most often explained that the information they received was limited, inaccurate, or confusing. Other sources of dissatisfaction included having to initiate contact with a criminal justice professional or seek out information on their own; and receiving inconsistent information because of turnover in the investigating officer, Crown Attorney, or victim services worker dealing with their case. Suggestions for improvement in information provision included, most commonly, regular contact and follow-up by police and Crown Attorneys to keep victims abreast of developments in their case; as well as providing information through a single source; providing information at the outset of the victim's involvement with the system; and providing more detailed information and more in print form.

When asked what kinds of information victims of crime most want to receive, victims most often mentioned updates on the status of the police investigation and their court case, followed by information about the criminal justice system in general. Victims were divided on the best way to provide the information; approximately equal numbers prefer to receive it in person and by telephone.

Consideration of Victim Safety at Bail

While 75% of victims were aware that conditions of release could be placed on the accused, only 40% were aware that victim safety must be considered in release decisions. Victims disagreed about the clarity and completeness of the information they received about release decisions, with approximately equal proportions saying that some aspect of the information was unclear or incomplete and that there was nothing unclear or incomplete about it. Almost all of those in the former group explained that the problem was a lack of any information whatsoever on the subject.

About 40% of victims in cases where the accused was charged believe that their safety was considered in the decision about the possible release of the accused; about one-quarter believe that their safety was not considered. The latter group most commonly explained that the conditions placed on the accused were either insufficient or were not respected. About 70% of those who had safety concerns made these concerns known, most often by mentioning them to police.

Experience with Testifying

One-third of the victims who participated in this study were involved in cases that went to trial, and of these, two-thirds testified at the trial. With only a few exceptions, all of those who testified received help in preparing for testimony, most often from victim services. Just over half of those who testified reported that they felt prepared for it, and almost all of these victims attributed their preparedness to the support they received prior to and during testimony. Those who felt unprepared either felt frightened, threatened, or re-victimized, or said that they had inadequate time to prepare. Victims who did not testify at trial most commonly reported that their testimony was unnecessary because the Crown had sufficient physical evidence or that they were not witnesses to the crime.

When asked for ways to make testifying less stressful, victims most often suggested better explanations of the court process and of what to expect in the courtroom, and improved protections or wider availability of existing protections.

Nine victims received information about provisions to facilitate testimony. Four of these victims actually received one or more of the protections (the remaining five did not testify, have not yet testified, or declined the aids). Of the four who received protections, three had publication bans and one was accompanied by a support person and granted a ban on cross-examination by the self-represented accused under section 486 (2.3). In addition, one victim who was not given information about the protections subsequently received a publication ban. The five victims were divided on the question of the effectiveness of these protections. Only two said that the protections helped them to testify.

Victim Impact Statements

Almost four-fifths of victims received information on victim impact statements. Victim services usually provided the information, although one-fifth of victims received the information from police. This information was usually given in person or by brochure. The timing for the provision of this information varied. The most common times for receiving the information were: within one month after the crime occurred, around the time of the accused's arrest, and just before final disposition.

While most victims said that victim impact statements were adequately explained to them, about 40% reported that they found some aspect of the information on victim impact statements unclear or incomplete in some way. Those who found the information unclear offered a variety of reasons, however, none of the reasons were held by more than one-tenth of victims. These reasons included lack of clarity on what information could be included in the statement; not understanding how the court would use the statement; failure to notify about disclosure; and conflicting advice on when to complete the statement. However, when asked about specific types of information, at least two-thirds of victims said that the information adequately explained what could be included in their statement, that the statement would be provided to the defence counsel and the accused, and how to complete the statement.

When discussing how best to provide victims with information on impact statements, about half of victims whose accused was charged said that information about victim impact statements should be provided through verbal communications (in person or telephone) so that victims can ask questions if needed. Opinion varied as to when victims should receive this information. One-quarter said that the information should be provided shortly after the crime is reported and one-tenth immediately after the arrest of the accused so that victims can keep records of the crime's effect on them; however, one-tenth want victim services to let some time to pass so that the victim is less overwhelmed by the experience. About one-fifth of victims thought that the information should be provided close to the time of final disposition.

Almost two-thirds (66%) of victims involved in cases where someone was charged with the crime prepared a victim impact statement for sentencing. Close to two-thirds of these victims received some form of assistance, usually from victim services. Over two-thirds of these victims received a variety of types of assistance, including getting the forms, instructions on how to complete the statement, a review of their statement, and assistance with submission of the statement. In spite of this assistance, about half of victims who prepared a statement said that they had problems completing it. The most common problem was feeling unable to describe how the crime affected them; but several victims also mentioned not knowing what information they could include, having to revise their statement because of inappropriate information, and not knowing where to submit their statement. When asked about submitting their statement, two-thirds said that they gave it to victim services. One-fifth submitted it early in the process, shortly after either the crime, the arrest of the accused or the laying of charges; and 54% submitted it just prior to the guilty plea or conviction.

Victims were asked a few questions about presenting their victim impact statement. Since 1999 victims can read their victim impact statements in court. Two-thirds (n=42) of eligible victims were told about this opportunity, and nine victims chose to read their statement. The most common reasons for not reading the statement were that the accused was not convicted and that the victim did not feel emotionally able to read his or her statement. Nine said that they were not made aware of this opportunity.

Two-thirds of victims who submitted a victim impact statement reported that they were satisfied with their opportunity to give their statement. One-third expressed dissatisfaction because they either objected to the content restrictions or wished they had read their statement. Seven victims in cases after 1998 wanted to read their statement but did not have the opportunity. Some were not informed that they could read their statement; others were not allowed to read their statement because of inappropriate content or because the accused was already receiving the maximum sentence. One victim was too intimidated by the offender's presence.

Eighty percent of the victims who prepared a statement were pleased that they did. About half commented that the statement gave them a voice, and about one-fifth valued the chance to let the judge and the accused know the effect of the crime. About 40% of victims whose victim impact statement was submitted to the court thought that the judge considered their statement. The most common reason for believing that the judge did not consider the statement was the perception that the offender's sentence did not reflect the impact of the crime.

Other Criminal Code Provisions and Restorative Justice

Very few victims had experience with restitution, the victim surcharge, conditional sentences, and restorative justice. For example, 11 of 72 victims involved in a case where there was a conviction or guilty plea reported that restitution was ordered in their case; one reported that the offender paid the full amount of the order. Victims who were granted restitution mentioned encountering several difficulties with enforcing these orders, including not receiving the payment or the full amount of the payment; waiting longer than expected to receive the payment; not knowing what to do to enforce the orders; and not being informed of a payment schedule.

With respect to the victim surcharge, nine of 72 victims involved in a case where there was a conviction or guilty plea reported being aware of the surcharge, and of these, three reported that the offender in their case was ordered to pay the surcharge. As for conditional sentences, just under one-quarter of victims (n=17) involved in cases where the accused was convicted or pleaded guilty reported that such a sentence was imposed in their case. These victims were equally split between those who agreed with the sentence and those who disagreed. Almost all of the victims said that they were informed of the details of the sentence.

Finally, three victims reported that they received information about restorative justice, and none reported that restorative justice was used in their case.

Overview of Victim Experiences in the Criminal Justice System

Victims were divided on the consideration victims are given by the criminal justice system. Half rated the system as good, while just over one-quarter considered it to be poor. One-fifth said that the system's consideration of victims fell somewhere in between. Most of the remaining victims did not respond. Those who gave the system positive marks based this impression largely on their experiences with individuals in the system (i.e., their victim service provider, the Crown Attorney, the police). Most of the victims who commented on police and victim services said that they were helpful and understanding of victim needs. Victims were split in their views of the Crown Attorneys. Some appreciated the job done by the Crown Attorney, but others wanted more time with the Crown Attorney and more explanation of the process.

When commenting on the system as a whole, most victims provided critical comments that covered a range of issues. About one-fifth of victims believe that the system favours the accused and does not hold criminals accountable for their actions. About the same number believe that the system does not treat victims with respect. These victims felt ignored by the system and believe that a lack of understanding and compassion permeates the criminal justice process. About one-tenth of victims mentioned the need for more financial assistance or victim compensation for victims, such as paying for transportation to court, and the need for more information about the criminal justice system.

To conclude, this multi-site survey was undertaken to provide information on a broad range of issues related to victims and criminal justice professionals with respect to the criminal justice system and recent reforms to benefit victims of crime. These findings are intended to inform the work of the Policy Centre for Victim Issues, Department of Justice Canada, and assist in identifying new areas of research as well as potential areas for future reforms.