PowerPoint slides from my conference paper delivered with Jo Boylan-Kemp at the Criminal Law and Criminal Justice stream of the SLSA Annual Conference 2013.

1. Utilising the Victim Personal Statement
Scheme as a Vulnerable and Intimidated
Victim Early Detection Device
Louise Taylor and Jo Boylan-Kemp
Nottingham Law School

2. 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 Scheme
Identifying
victims
Methodology
Findings
Conclusions

3. 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
o
o
o
o
Our research
focus
Participation rates.
Potential to raise then dashes victims’ expectations.
Effect on sentencing outcomes.
Impact on due process rights of defendants.
Scheme’s purpose.
VPS Scheme
Identifying
victims
Methodology
Findings
Conclusions

4. 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 Scheme
Identifying
victims
Methodology
Findings
Conclusions

5. 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 Scheme
Identifying
victims
Methodology
Findings
Conclusions

6. 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 Scheme
Identifying
victims
Methodology
Findings
Conclusions

7. 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 Scheme
Identifying
victims
Methodology
Findings
Conclusions

8. 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 Scheme
Identifying
victims
Methodology
Findings
Conclusions

9. Vulnerability indicators
• Age
• Offence type
• Mental illness/disability
• Physical illness/disability
Our research
focus
VPS Scheme
Identifying
victims
Methodology
Findings
Conclusions

10. 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 Scheme
Identifying
victims
Methodology
Findings
Conclusions

11. Sample overview
60
No. of victims by offence type
• Age
50
o Under 18 = 10%
o Over 18 = 89%
o Unknown = 1%
40
30
• Sex
o Male = 43%
o Female = 55%
o Unknown = 2%
20
10
0
OAPA (51) Crim Dam
(27)
Our research
focus
VPS Scheme
Identifying
victims
Property
(18)
Methodology
Fraud (1)
Public
Order (21)
Findings
Motoring
(1)
Drugs (1)
Conclusions

12. % of statements containing
intimidation indicator(s)
Our research
focus
VPS Scheme
Identifying
victims
Methodology
Findings
Conclusions

13. Incidence of intimidation
indicator by statement type
30
25
20
15
10
Evidential
5
VPS
0
Our research
focus
VPS Scheme
Identifying
victims
Methodology
Findings
Conclusions

14. 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 Scheme
Identifying
victims
Methodology
Findings
Conclusions

15. 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 Scheme
Identifying
victims
Methodology
Findings
Conclusions

16. 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 Scheme
Identifying
victims
Methodology
Findings
Conclusions

17. Recommendations for
changes to the VPS scheme
• National media campaign.
• Increased police training.
Our research
focus
VPS Scheme
Identifying
victims
Methodology
Findings
Conclusions

18. 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 Scheme
Identifying
victims
Methodology
Findings
Conclusions