|
| In February 1996, in response to a bid from Victim Support Scotland, The Scottish Office agreed to fund three pilot Victim Witness Support pilot projects, in Ayr, Hamilton and Kirkcaldy Sheriff Courts. The evaluation of the projects was carried out between December 1996 and April 1998 and was based on interviews with relevant criminal justice staff and witnesses, a postal questionnaire, and analysis of the contacts recorded by each of the projects on monitoring forms developed by Victim Support Scotland. |
|
| Main Findings |
|
- The projects were based on two distinct models. The Ayr and Kirkcaldy projects aimed to provide a universal service of advice and support; the Hamilton project aimed to provide a service to victim witnesses in particular, and to promote an improved service from all agencies to victims in court.
- In the period from the start of the projects' work to 31 March 1998, there were 2,838 recorded contacts in Ayr, 2,628 in Kirkcaldy, and 273 in Hamilton.
- In Ayr and Kirkcaldy a slight majority (58%) of contacts were with males, but the reverse was true in Hamilton, where 62% of contacts were with females.
- The great majority of contacts occurred before the trial, and were face-to-face rather than by telephone or letter.
- At least 70% of all contacts in Ayr and Kirkcaldy, and all contacts in Hamilton, were with prosecution witnesses (including victims) or the victim's family or friends.
- Over 90% of all contacts lasted for under an hour in Ayr and Kirkcaldy, and over half lasted for under ten minutes; longer contacts were more common in Hamilton.
- Very few people contacted in Ayr and Kirkcaldy had more than one contact; in Hamilton 50% had more than one.
- The help provided was usually practical advice and information about the court and its procedures, but this was often seen by witnesses as also conveying emotional support.
- The great majority of witnesses who had contacted the projects were satisfied with the service they had received.
- Many people find the experience of being a witness anxious and stressful, and a court-based service, staffed by volunteers, seems likely to be the best means of reducing these pressures.
- A court-based support service is likely to be used by a substantial proportion of witnesses (over one-third of those written to by the Ayr and Kirkcaldy schemes used the service), and could increase willingness among the public to give evidence for the prosecution.
- Victim Support is an appropriate organisation to provide a witness service, because of its credibility with other criminal justice agencies and its experience in recruiting, training, and supporting volunteers.
- A service based on the model of the Ayr and Kirkcaldy projects could be provided in all Sheriff Courts for a minimum of £640,000 per annum at current prices.
|
|
| Introduction |
|
| During the 1980's recognition grew amongst the criminal justice agencies that the needs of victims had tended to be neglected. The Scottish Office commissioned research on the experiences of witnesses, the report of which was produced in 1992, and in 1990 Victim Support Scotland had approached the Procurator Fiscal at Hamilton to suggest that it would be useful to review the difficulties experienced by victim witnesses. The result, in 1994, was a working party report on supporting victims in the criminal justice system which, while making detailed proposals for improvements in Hamilton, also suggested that these might have a more general application. On the basis of local initiatives at Ayr and Kirkcaldy, Victim Support Scotland organised a conference in 1995 to discuss the needs and problems of victims in court and witnesses more generally, from which emerged an inter-agency steering group which helped to establish the codes of practice which underpinned the work of the three pilot projects. Victim Support Scotland submitted a bid for funding for the three projects to The Scottish Office, which agreed the proposal in February 1996. |
|
| The work of the projects |
|
| The Ayr project began offering a service to witnesses in October 1996; the Kirkcaldy project began operating in November 1996; and the Hamilton project in May 1997. In the period from the start of each project to 31 March 1998 2,838 contacts were recorded by the project in Ayr, 2,628 in Kirkcaldy, and 273 in Hamilton. In Ayr and Kirkcaldy a slight majority of contacts were with males, while the reverse was true in Hamilton. There was considerable monthly variation in the number of contacts in all three courts (the range in Ayr, for example, was 81 to 299), but the mean monthly figures were 157 in Ayr, 149 in Kirkcaldy, and 24 in Hamilton. Volunteers were asked to note their estimate of the age of each person contacted: almost three-quarters of all contacts in Ayr, where an estimate of age was missing in the smallest proportion of cases, were with people thought to be between 21 and 60. The great majority of recorded contacts in Ayr, and 80% of those in Kirkcaldy, were recorded as 'in person'; in Hamilton, while most contacts were of this type, 42% were recorded as being 'by telephone' - not surprisingly, since a much higher proportion of witnesses in Hamilton had more than one contact with the project. 'Pre trial' contacts accounted for the great majority (70-80%) of all contacts in all three projects, though in some cases this could mean only that the initial contact was before the trial, with support continuing during and after it. |
|
| Around 70% of all contacts in Ayr and Kirkcaldy were recorded as having been with prosecution witnesses or the family or friends of the victim, and since the reason for a person's being at court was not recorded in a substantial proportion of cases, it is likely that the true figure is higher; in Hamilton, with its different focus, these categories accounted for 100% of contacts. About 5% of prosecution witnesses contacted in Ayr, and about 9% in Kirkcaldy, are known to have been victims, but again the true figure will have been higher, since the volunteers were trained not to ask about a person's relationship to the case being tried. For the same reason, the nature of the crime involved was usually not known to the volunteers in Ayr and Kirkcaldy, though it was always known in Hamilton. There were indications that people attending court in connection with serious crimes, and especially crimes of violence, were more likely than others to have more than one contact with the project, and their contacts tended to be longer. Nevertheless, most contacts (over 90% in Ayr and Kirkcaldy, and well over half even in Hamilton) were brief (lasting under an hour), and 60% in Ayr and 50% in Kirkcaldy lasted under ten minutes. A very small proportion of people at Ayr and Kirkcaldy were recorded as having more than one contact. In Hamilton, exactly half of the 124 identified individuals were recorded as having more than one contact (and in eighteen cases there were four contacts or more). |
|
| The brevity of the contacts arose from the nature of the help sought and provided, which in almost all cases was recorded as giving information and practical help. Those contacted by the projects wanted to know about court procedures and facilities, what to expect when they had to give evidence, how to claim expenses, how to find their way around the court, where to get tea and coffee. A smaller but substantial number of contacts involved giving information on the progress or outcome of cases, and in all three projects, and most notably at Hamilton, a significant minority of contacts were concerned with questions of intimidation and safety. Emotional support was rarely recorded as a separate category, but it would be misleading to draw any sharp distinction between practical and emotional support, since volunteers could and did engage with people on an emotional level while also giving them information or practical advice. |
|
| Witnesses' views and experiences |
|
| Of five witnesses interviewed after they had been cited but before the court hearing, only one, the victim of an assault, was seriously worried about giving evidence and the possible repercussions of doing so. Fifty-seven witnesses were interviewed in court on the day of the hearing. Only in Ayr had the majority had some contact with the project, and in most cases this meant only a look at the court-room before the start of business. All those who had made contact had found the volunteers helpful: they welcomed the practical help and information, but also the sense that there was at least one 'friendly face' in an alien environment. The principal pressure on witnesses was anxiety about giving evidence, which could be exacerbated by long periods of waiting, uncertainty about what would happen, and a sense of being intimidated by the accused or their associates. Thirty-three witnesses who had had some contact with the projects were interviewed after the hearing, and all but two said that the contact had been helpful, providing both practical advice and a sense of comfort and security in what for some was a crisis situation. The fact of having been to court before did not necessarily make the prospect of giving evidence any less daunting. Much the same results came from the questionnaire survey. |
|
| Models of practice |
|
| There is strong evidence to suggest that the most relevant and effective support requires a court-based service, which was not available in Hamilton. The project there worked with far fewer people than those in Ayr and Kirkcaldy, which was to be expected; but the 'take-up' rate of the service by those to whom it was offered was only 19%, suggesting that many witnesses feel a need for support only when they actually enter the court building. The working party which met at Hamilton almost throughout the period of evaluation made slow progress in refining a 'code of practice for crime victims', and there was some uncertainty among participants about what the code would actually achieve. Some of the project's volunteers, as well as some criminal justice personnel, felt that it had never been resolved whether the project was intended to provide a service to victims or to all witnesses. The fact that the service at Ayr and Kirkcaldy was universal and impartial was seen by members of their advisory groups and other criminal justice staff as important for the projects' acceptance and legitimacy. |
|
| Service provision, demand and costs |
|
| The research considered the question of who should provide a service to witnesses. Judging by the responses of criminal justice personnel, Victim Support is the most obvious candidate to provide a national service, should it be decided to introduce one. The organisation has the advantages of credibility and an established place in the criminal justice process, and has experience of recruiting, training and supporting volunteers. The voluntary basis of the service in court was seen as symbolically important by some witnesses, as an expression of genuine care, and has the obvious advantage of lower cost. The full research report includes various estimates of the cost of a national service, on the basis of different assumptions about its organisation and coverage, and concludes that the cost of a service in every Sheriff Court in the country, operated on a 'cluster' basis and extrapolating from the experience of Ayr and Kirkcaldy, could be between £640,000 and £740,000 at current prices. |
|
| There would, of course, be other costs associated with the provision of a national service which it is difficult to estimate, for example, the cost to Scottish Courts Service of making accommodation available for the witness support service in the courts. |
|
| Conclusions |
|
| The pilot projects have established that if an advice and support service is provided in court for witnesses it will be used. This is particularly the case for prosecution witnesses, but others also used the service, as the most obvious source of practical advice and information. The more accessible the service is, the more it will be used. Most contacts with witnesses were brief and over half lasted for under ten minutes, but this brief intervention seems to have been appropriate to the situation: witnesses who contacted the projects were overwhelmingly positive about the service they received, which in many cases they experienced as emotionally sustaining as well as practically helpful. The projects seem to have succeeded in identifying people who might benefit from more intensive or prolonged work; these were usually victims and witnesses in more serious cases. Most criminal justice personnel also spoke approvingly of the projects' work, seeing it as an overdue expression of care and concern for witnesses. The universal character of the service was an important element in gaining legitimacy. It is possible, judging from the responses of our interviewees, that if it were generally known that such a service was available in Sheriff Courts, more people might be willing to come forward as witnesses to crime. |
|
| This Research Findings paper may be photocopied. Further free copies, or information about the Central Research Unit Programme, can be obtained by contacting: The Scottish Office Central Research Unit, Room J1-0, Saughton House, Broomhouse Drive, EDINBURGH, EH11 3XA Telephone 0131 244 2112 or fax: 0131 244 2109 or from the publications section of The Scottish Office website: www.scotland.gov.uk/cru Copies of the full research report "Victim Witness Support in Scotland: an Evaluation of 3 Pilot Projects" by David Lobley and David Smith may be purchased (price £5) from: The Stationery Office, 71 Lothian Road, Edinburgh EH3 9AZ. Telephone: 0131 228 4181 or Fax: 0131 622 7017. Quote ISBN No. 0 7480 7734 0 |