What is the victim's role in criminal proceedings?

Focusing on the entitlement of victims to read their statements in court, it certainly makes a nice policy announcement and a nice sound bite for the 10 o’clock news. Many are of the view that it goes no further than that.

There has been a growing trend in recent times surrounding the involvement of the victim in criminal proceedings. Where once they were seen as – and made to feel – ancillary to proceedings, there has over a number of years been a change of direction.

Both Labour and the Government have sought to gain political capital from championing the victim. The government announced there would be a victims’ code. This was trashed by Labour as toothless, promising to go one better and make it a law. At first this appears to be one-upmanship, but is there any substance?

The key promises

The key promise hitting the headlines today is that where a person is found guilty, victims will now be able to read their victim personal statements aloud in court, if they wish to do so.

Among other ‘entitlements’ are to be kept informed about the police investigation, such as if a suspect is arrested and charged and any bail conditions imposed;of any appeal against the offender’s conviction or sentence; and of how to seek a review of a CPS decision not to prosecute.

Victims will also be able to opt into the Victim Contact Scheme (VCS) if the offender is sentenced to 12 months or more for a specified violent or sexual offence where they will be able to make a VPS for consideration by the Parole Board if the offender is considered for release or transfer and apply to the Parole Board to read it out at the hearing.

These all seem like decent ideas, giving a voice to the victim and ensuring they will be heard.

Politicking?

Is this new Code an exercise in PR for a government gearing up for an election? Probably. Is there anything of substance to it? I think so.

Focusing on the entitlement of victims to read their statements in court, it certainly makes a nice policy announcement and a nice sound bite for the 10 o’clock news. Many are of the view that it goes no further than that. The truth is that as the law stands at the moment, prior to the code coming into force, victims can, where appropriate, read their statement aloud in court (though the courts have stated that this will be rare). This announcement is likely to make that a more regular occurrence, though I doubt many will take up the opportunity to read their statements aloud. However, in terms of substance, if it helps a few victims with the process of coming to terms with being a victim of crime, then surely it is to be welcomed?

Is this a cosmetic change, raising the hopes of victims? The sceptics say that this changes nothing and unrealistically creates the impression of ‘ownership’ by a victim of a criminal case, which it does not. Decisions (to prosecute etc) are made by the CPS and will remain so. The Judge will decide, for example, whether a VPS should be read aloud at all, and if so, which sections are appropriate. However, those in favour see the importance for victims in being a part of the process, being kept informed, asked their opinion and given the opportunity to read their statement aloud, even if many will decline – and that is not cosmetic. It is a statement of intention, underlining that victims are no longer ancillary to proceedings, but that they have a say. This is the culmination of the rise of the victims’ voice. And why not? Judicial discretion is the ultimate safeguard against the inappropriate.

The Conservatives state that they are ‘making changes to ensure that the justice system is always on the side of victims’. Surely the point of justice is that it isn’t on anyone’s side? Let’s make sure this doesn’t go too far.

Where victims were once seen as ancillary to proceedings, they now play a bigger role. Image: Getty
Getty
Show Hide image

The 5 things the Tories aren't telling you about their manifesto

Turns out the NHS is something you really have to pay for after all. 

When Theresa May launched the Conservative 2017 manifesto, she borrowed the most popular policies from across the political spectrum. Some anti-immigrant rhetoric? Some strong action on rip-off energy firms? The message is clear - you can have it all if you vote Tory.

But can you? The respected thinktank the Institute for Fiscal Studies has now been through the manifesto with a fine tooth comb, and it turns out there are some things the Tory manifesto just doesn't mention...

1. How budgeting works

They say: "a balanced budget by the middle of the next decade"

What they don't say: The Conservatives don't talk very much about new taxes or spending commitments in the manifesto. But the IFS argues that balancing the budget "would likely require more spending cuts or tax rises even beyond the end of the next parliament."

2. How this isn't the end of austerity

They say: "We will always be guided by what matters to the ordinary, working families of this nation."

What they don't say: The manifesto does not backtrack on existing planned cuts to working-age welfare benefits. According to the IFS, these cuts will "reduce the incomes of the lowest income working age households significantly – and by more than the cuts seen since 2010".

3. Why some policies don't make a difference

They say: "The Triple Lock has worked: it is now time to set pensions on an even course."

What they don't say: The argument behind scrapping the "triple lock" on pensions is that it provides an unneccessarily generous subsidy to pensioners (including superbly wealthy ones) at the expense of the taxpayer.

However, the IFS found that the Conservatives' proposed solution - a "double lock" which rises with earnings or inflation - will cost the taxpayer just as much over the coming Parliament. After all, Brexit has caused a drop in the value of sterling, which is now causing price inflation...

4. That healthcare can't be done cheap

They say: "The next Conservative government will give the NHS the resources it needs."

What they don't say: The £8bn more promised for the NHS over the next five years is a continuation of underinvestment in the NHS. The IFS says: "Conservative plans for NHS spending look very tight indeed and may well be undeliverable."

5. Cutting immigration costs us

They say: "We will therefore establish an immigration policy that allows us to reduce and control the number of people who come to Britain from the European Union, while still allowing us to attract the skilled workers our economy needs." 

What they don't say: The Office for Budget Responsibility has already calculated that lower immigration as a result of the Brexit vote could reduce tax revenues by £6bn a year in four years' time. The IFS calculates that getting net immigration down to the tens of thousands, as the Tories pledge, could double that loss.

Julia Rampen is the digital news editor of the New Statesman (previously editor of The Staggers, The New Statesman's online rolling politics blog). She has also been deputy editor at Mirror Money Online and has worked as a financial journalist for several trade magazines. 

0800 7318496