Victims and Criminal

Justice in Europe
JOANNA SHAPLAND
13
Contents
13.1 Introduction 347
13.2 Do Victims Interact with Criminal Justice? 349
13.2.1 Victims’ Reactions to Crime 351
13.3 The Subsequent Progress of the Case and Decisions
to Prosecute 353
13.4 At Court 355
13.4.1 Initiatives in Relation to Vulnerable and Intimidated
Witnesses 357
13.5 A Role for Victims in Sentencing? 361
13.6 During Sentence 366
13.7 The Changing Conceptions of Victims in Criminal Justice 367
References 370

13.1 Introduction

Although victim participation is essential for the smooth working of

criminal justice, the relationship between victims and criminal justice, in
modern times in Western societies, has been a relatively fraught one. The
increasing use of state prosecutors, rather than individual private prosecu-
tions by victims, has tended to minimize perceptions of the necessity and
importance of all lay witnesses, and particularly victims. Criminal justice
has become seen, by many professionals in criminal justice, as primarily a
matter between the state and the offender. Some theorists, such as Christie
[1977], have argued that this is an inevitable consequence, with the state
and its professionals increasingly “stealing” the original confl ict (the crime)
and its resolution from the victim and offender. Christie suggests that there
is little possibility of reform, with the participants needing to fi nd any sup-
port necessary from outside criminal justice, in civil justice (compensa-
tion or mediation procedures) or in victim assistance and support. Others
are not so pessimistic, although appreciating the difficulty in carving out
an appropriate place for victims in criminal justice, amid the plethora of
347
© 2010 Taylor and Francis Group, LLC

TAF-85476SHOHAM1-09-0702-C013.indd 347 1/19/10 7:51:13 AM

 348 International Handbook of Victimology

official agencies now involved (e.g., police, prosecution, judiciary, and pro-
bation services). Shapland [1988] has referred to these agencies as fiefdoms,
proud of their own territory and prepared to repulse anyone encroaching
on it, such as, potentially, victims. Certainly, the history of criminal justice
reform in Europe in relation to victims is a history of slow progress and
considerable difficulties.
The difficulties seem to be somewhat greater in common law, Anglo-Saxon
jurisdictions (such as England and Wales, the United States, and Australia)
than they do in mainland European countries, whose legal systems are based
on Napoleonic or Roman law principles (such as France or the Netherlands).
In common law countries, procedure has reduced to being a process between
state agencies (in court represented by the prosecutor) and the offender (rep-
resented by a defense legal representative), with, effectively, an umpiring role
for the judge. In mainland European countries, although procedures in dif-
ferent countries vary, more emphasis is placed on building a file (the dossier)
setting out the evidence—which aims to contain all relevant material—and
less on oral evidence. Victim claims (e.g., for compensation) and victim state-
ments about what happened and the effects of the offense can often form part
of the file. In several countries, this has given rise to the possibility of the
victim joining his or her civil claim for compensation to the criminal case
(partie civile) and so becoming a party to the case, required to be notified of
its progress.
Throughout Europe, there has been a gradual and growing appreci-
ation of the effects of the crime and the criminal justice process on vic-
tims and of the need to ameliorate the process to meet some of victims’
justified criticisms. Victim support and assistance programs exist in all
countries, although their scope, coverage, and services vary considerably.
Some attention has been paid to the need to inform victims of the progress
of the criminal case. Certain special measures have been taken to allow
some greater participation, particularly for vulnerable witnesses, in some
countries. However, given the recommendations of the Council of Europe
Recommendation on the Position of the Victim in Criminal Justice (in
1985) and the framework decision of the European Commission in 2001,
progress is slow. The chapter will concentrate on progress in England
and Wales but will also look at the separate jurisdictions of Scotland and
Northern Ireland, as well as make comparisons, where possible, with main-
land European countries, given their different legal framework. In this,
it is important to consider not only legislative change but also what has
occurred in practice (often a very different matter). The difficulty is that
the tradition of evaluation of criminal justice initiatives is very variable
throughout Europe. Most substantial changes in England and Wales have
been evaluated, and the results published. In other countries, information
is patchier. There is a very good review of the position in 2000 by Brienen

© 2010 Taylor and Francis Group, LLC

TAF-85476SHOHAM1-09-0702-C013.indd 348 1/19/10 7:51:13 AM

 Victims and Criminal Justice in Europe 349

and Hoegen [2000] covering many European countries, but an update on

this is only now being undertaken.*
The first question to consider, however, is the extent to which offenses—
and victims—actually come into contact with criminal justice and so the
extent to which provisions for victims in criminal justice impact on victims.

13.2 Do Victims Interact with Criminal Justice?

Although the words victim and criminal justice are often heard in the same
breath, it is not automatic for victims to become involved with criminal
justice. For the criminal justice process to start, normally with the police,
the offense has to be reported to the criminal justice authorities. Most com-
monly, this is done by victims themselves or by witnesses acting on their
behalf. If the assault was in a bar, the bartender will ring the police—or if the
theft took place in the university, the university security staff will ring the
police if the victim requests it. However, the victim may not wish to inform
the police and have the incident recorded as a crime [Ericson, 1982], and
it is unlikely that the police will come across offenses themselves [Hough
and Clarke, 1980]. Maguire and Bennett [1982], for example, found that the
vast majority of the house burglaries he studied in England and Wales were
reported by victims.
The formal legal position when an offense becomes known to the police
varies for different countries in Europe. In England and Wales, for exam-
ple, the police have discretion as to whether to record an offense as a crime,
although they would normally do so if the victim wished it and will cer-
tainly do so for all serious offenses for which there is sufficient evidence that
a criminal offense has occurred. For less serious offenses, however, it can be
a negotiation between victim and police as to whether an offense should be
recorded as a crime and the offender pursued and prosecuted, or whether the
police should treat the offense in a more informal way, or whether they should
merely record it as intelligence about what is happening in the area, with
little attempt to find the perpetrator [Shapland and Vagg, 1988]. Different
outcomes are likely depending on whether the offenders are known, whether
they are young, whether they are local, and whether this is likely to be a
one-off, minor incident.
In Germany, in contrast, the formal position is that the police must
record any offense they consider a crime and investigate it, with the likeli-
hood of prosecuting any offender who is caught. Other European countries
have formal positions between those of Germany and England and Wales
* Tilburg University’s INTERVICT Institute is carrying out an evaluation of the progress
of countries toward the 2001 European Union’s Framework Decision’s provisions, with
the Portuguese victim assistance society. This should be published in 2009.

© 2010 Taylor and Francis Group, LLC

TAF-85476SHOHAM1-09-0702-C013.indd 349 1/19/10 7:51:13 AM

 350 International Handbook of Victimology

[Brienen and Hoegen, 2000]. Everywhere, however, the amount of investiga-

tive effort put into a particular offense is likely to depend on the likelihood of
catching the offender, given the evidence, and the seriousness of the offense,
which includes the emphasis given to it by the victim and the effects on the
victim.
The likelihood of an offense being reported to the police in each country
is not necessarily high. Crime surveys, such as the British Crime Survey
(BCS) [Moley, 2008] and the International Crime Victims Survey (ICVS)
[van Dijk et al., 2007], show that:

The frequency with which victims (or relatives and friends on their behalf)
report offences to the police is strongly related to the type of offence involved.
In most countries, almost all cars and motorcycles stolen were reported, as
well as 75 per cent of burglaries with entry. About two-thirds of thefts from
cars were reported, and rather more than half of bicycle thefts and robberies.
Only about a third of all assaults and threats were drawn to the attention of the
police, although the figure was higher for assaults with force than for threats.
Sexual incidents mentioned to interviewers were least frequently reported
(on average 15%). Where sexual assault was mentioned, though, 28 per cent
of incidents were reported; where offensive behaviour was involved, only
10 per cent were drawn to police attention. [van Dijk et al., 2007:109]

On average, across the 30 countries studied in the 2004–2005 ICVS, 41%

of these crimes were reported to the police—so a majority never came to the
attention of the police. The highest reporting rates in Europe were in Austria
(70%), Belgium (68%), Sweden (64%), and Switzerland (63%), whereas low
rates were found in Bulgaria, Iceland, Estonia, and Poland—although these
were nothing like the low reporting rates found in developing countries in
other parts of the world.
If the offense is not reported to the police and does not come to police
attention, then necessarily the victim does not have any interaction with the
criminal justice system. This means that the victim also will not be able to
benefit from any victim assistance whose gateways are via criminal justice
system personnel (police, prosecutors, courts). We know that the effects of
the offense on the victim are generally less serious in offenses not reported
to the police—but this does not mean that all victims whose cases are not
reported suffer no effects—far from it. Just one example are the cases of rape
and child abuse that may not come to light for many years.
Some have argued that too much attention has been focused on victims
who have contact with criminal justice and that it would be better to turn
from a crime-focused approach to a harm-focused approach, where priori-
ties for action (meaning governmental action) would be set by the amount
of harm experienced by individual victims and society [Garside, 2006]. Part
of the rationale for this approach is the fact that a majority of “traditional”

© 2010 Taylor and Francis Group, LLC

TAF-85476SHOHAM1-09-0702-C013.indd 350 1/19/10 7:51:13 AM

 Victims and Criminal Justice in Europe 351

crimes are not reported to criminal justice, as we saw above, hence little is
offered to the majority of victims. Part is an appreciation that some criminal
offenses, such as health and safety offenses or environmental crimes, can
cause serious harm to both individuals and communities but are rarely dealt
with through traditional criminal justice means [Tombs and Whyte, 2004].
Although these are serious arguments, they do not seem to me to lay aside
the importance of criminal justice. Where victims do report offenses to the
police, it is clear that they have considerable expectations of what the criminal
justice system will do about those offenses, as has been shown in all empirical
studies of victims from the beginning of victimology empirical research in
Europe in the 1980s [Maguire and Bennett, 1982; Shapland et al., 1985].

13.2.1 Victims’ Reactions to Crime

Before discussing the reactions of victims to criminal justice and the ini-
tiatives that have been taken by criminal justice in the past 20 or so years,
it is important to explore victims’ initial reactions to crime. From victims’
reactions to crime come victims’ needs for assistance and victims’ expecta-
tions of criminal justice—and hence their reactions to what criminal justice
personnel do.
In Europe, we are faced with considerable challenges in trying to meet
victims’ needs. The challenges stem from the fact that, for most victims, crime
is not normal. It is not expected; it is a shock. From that stems the feelings of
disruption, of the bubble of our normal lives being punctured, and of guilt
as to how it happened to me, which are reported by many victims of crime
[Shapland et al., 1985; Shapland and Hall, 2007]. The exception to this is of
course where victimization is repeated again and again and becomes a feared
but expected part of people’s lives, which is why child abuse, domestic violence,
and racial harassment are so terrible and why we see them as so serious.
But for most victims of burglary, theft, damage, or assault in the developed
world, crime is not expected. Given that crime rates, particularly property
crime rates, have been decreasing over the past several years by a very con-
siderable amount in many countries in Europe [van Dijk et al., 2007], crime
is becoming even more unexpected. The reaction of people to becoming a
victim is, therefore, normally one of shock. Indeed, when people are burgled,
have goods stolen, or are assaulted, they are not normally in a very good
state to think clearly and rationally about exactly where to go for help. The
emergency health system is likely to function about exactly as it would if
any injuries were caused through an accident. But criminal justice is not pri-
oritized around meeting victim needs—and does not seem to have changed
very substantially in this respect in the past 20 years. It is because the priority
of policing is not crime victims but catching offenders, investigating offenses,
and keeping the peace/preventing further offenses.

© 2010 Taylor and Francis Group, LLC

TAF-85476SHOHAM1-09-0702-C013.indd 351 1/19/10 7:51:13 AM

 352 International Handbook of Victimology

Early research on victim expectations in England and Wales when they

reported offenses to the police emphasized that what was important was not
only efficiency (the police come; the police come quickly; police officers ask
the right questions to catch the offender) but also the manner of the police:
that the police should show interest, should take account of the shocked state
of the victim, and should either refer people to victim assistance or give them
information about it [Shapland et al., 1985].
In England and Wales, the government has set Victim’s Charter
Standards—four of them for the police. Ringham and Salisbury [2004], using
BCS responses, set out to see to what extent victims felt the police were meet-
ing those standards. They found the police were seen as providing a good
response in terms of efficiency and showing interest in the crime, but, after
the initial encounter, feedback was clearly not sufficient:

• Seventy-three percent of victims felt they did not have to wait or

waited a reasonable amount of time for the police response.
• Sixty-five percent said the police showed enough interest in their
crime, and 60% said the police showed enough effort.
• BUT only 51% said the police gave them a phone number to contact
the officer or crime desk responsible for their case.
• Forty-six percent said the police provided the “Victims of Crime”
leaflet.
• Just 34% of victims felt they had been kept very or fairly informed by
the police about the progress of the investigation.

The BCS interviews a sample of the general public, asking everyone who
has been a victim in the past 12 months about their experiences with the police
and criminal justice system. Hence the results above show the experiences of
all those who have had any dealings with the police as a victim. The Witness
and Victim Experience Survey (WAVES) [Moore and Blakeborough, 2008]
deals only with victims and witnesses in cases in which the offender is caught
and is charged—that is, victims whose cases have proceeded further into the
criminal justice system.* The Code of Practice for Victims of Crime [Office for
Criminal Justice Reform, 2005a] says that all victims must be provided by the
police with the leaflet “Victims of Crime,” which tells them what is likely to
happen next and gives them information about victim assistance. Moore and
Blakeborough [2008] found that 74% of victims recalled being given such a
leaflet. This is much higher than the BCS findings above and suggests that the
police may be targeting information and help on particular kinds of victims,
particularly burglary victims and victims of more serious crimes.

* The offenses covered by the WAVES are violence against the person, robbery, burglary,
theft and handling stolen goods, and criminal damage.

© 2010 Taylor and Francis Group, LLC

TAF-85476SHOHAM1-09-0702-C013.indd 352 1/19/10 7:51:13 AM

 Victims and Criminal Justice in Europe 353

A recent review of the needs of victims in the Netherlands has shown

a very similar pattern of needs in relation to criminal justice: Victims need
help in contacting the police; the police should arrive quickly; and victims
should be treated as interested parties. Victims should be kept informed
and, where relevant, consulted [Boom et al., 2008]. Some other European
countries have institutionalized some information to victims. For example,
in France, the police or prosecutor will provide victims with a copy of their
report to the criminal justice authorities on the spot—but requirements
to notify the victim thereafter are the responsibility of the prosecutor, so
it is rare that the police will keep victims informed [Brienen and Hoegen,
2000]. Similarly, in France, concise information leaflets for victims exist—
but they are rarely to be found in police stations; rather, they are in courts
and prosecutors’ offices, town halls, and victim support centers. There is a
disjunction between where victims report and where duties to support vic-
tims lie. There are no automatic referral systems to victim assistance ser-
vices, unlike in the United Kingdom. The position is similar in Germany,
with only victims who have an active role as a party in the criminal case
(an auxiliary prosecutor or claiming compensation) being considered as
in need of information [Brienen and Hoegen, 2000]. In contrast, in the
Netherlands, there are automated computerized procedures for the police
to record victim wishes about referral to victim assistance and to be kept
informed, although it is doubtful that these are used in every case [Brienen
and Hoegen, 2000].

13.3 The Subsequent Progress of the Case

and Decisions to Prosecute

What happens after this first encounter with the police? The early English
research, which interviewed victims of violent crime who had reported to
the police and whose offenders had been caught, found that, after the initial
encounter, when three-quarters of victims were satisfied with what the
police had done, satisfaction started dropping markedly [Shapland et al.,
1985]. The prime reason was lack of feedback on what was happening with
the case and consequent perceptions that the police were not doing much,
were not interested, and did not seem to care. That research, which has been
widely publicized, was done some 30 years ago. It is dispiriting that, despite
feedback to victims becoming an important part of policy responses, similar
results exist today.
So, for example, the WAVES found, for England and Wales, that although
61% of victims were recontacted about their case within 1 month, 1 in 10
victims claimed that they did not hear anything further from the criminal
justice authorities at all [Moore and Blakeborough, 2008]. However, the Code

© 2010 Taylor and Francis Group, LLC

TAF-85476SHOHAM1-09-0702-C013.indd 353 1/19/10 7:51:13 AM

 354 International Handbook of Victimology

of Practice states that victims should be kept informed of case progress at

least monthly. If victims are not themselves contacted by the police to say
what is happening, then many victims will try to contact the police. The
question then is whether they are facilitated to do so. The “No Witness, No
Justice” initiative by the government in England and Wales states that vic-
tims and witnesses should have a nominated key contact person [Cabinet
Office, 2005]. The WAVES found that 74% of victims reported they had been
provided with a contact—but that means one-quarter of victims had not. The
response of the criminal justice authorities is patchy.
Most of the responsibility in England and Wales for notifying victims
is placed on the police, not the prosecutor. Only the prosecutor, however,
can provide reasons why the charge a suspect faces has been changed or
why the prosecution of the case has been discontinued by the prosecutor.
There has been considerable negotiation with the Crown Prosecution Service
(CPS) since their formation about the response they would be able to make
to victims. The most recent initiative is that Witness Care Units have been
set up in each area in England and Wales, staffed by CPS staff and police
personnel (but not necessarily prosecutors or police officers) [CPS, 2008]. The
CPS Code of Practice came into force in 2006 and indicates that vulnerable
or intimidated witnesses should be notified within 1 working day if there
is insufficient evidence to charge the offender* and within 5 working days
for all other victims. If this is happening, it would show very substantially
improved standards of service. The One Stop Shop pilot [Hoyle et al., 1998],
which aimed to provide information at all stages to victims of serious crimes,
fell down largely because of lack of information received from the CPS and
the higher courts (Crown Court).
In France, the public prosecutor has a formal obligation to inform the
victim about the final decision regarding prosecution (if, of course, a sus-
pect has been apprehended). This includes any decision as to whether to
attempt mediation between victim and offender [Brienen and Hoegen, 2000].
Brienen and Hoegen comment, however, that in practice many victims are
not informed. The particular need in France to inform victims expeditiously
is because victims have the right to pursue a claim for compensation along-
side the criminal prosecution but need to lodge that claim in good time. In
Germany, there is a similar duty on the prosecutor if the prosecutor intends
to drop the prosecution—but no provision to tell victims that the case is
going ahead. The Netherlands have set up service desks to provide informa-
tion to victims about the case. This provides a more automatic system that
is likely to be more effective in practice, but it means that, except in serious
cases, there is likely to be less contact with the public prosecutor [Brienen and

* See below for the defi nition and provisions relating to vulnerable and intimidated
witnesses.

© 2010 Taylor and Francis Group, LLC

TAF-85476SHOHAM1-09-0702-C013.indd 354 1/19/10 7:51:13 AM

 Victims and Criminal Justice in Europe 355

Hoegen, 2000]. It is clear that there is no one uniform system for interaction
between police, prosecution, and victim across Europe—and that no system
is currently working in a foolproof way.

13.4 At Court

Few victims attend court—because only a relatively low proportion of

offenders are caught; because many offenders plead guilty and so witnesses
are not required; or because, in civil law countries on the European mainland,
hearing witnesses orally is rare—rather, statements are taken from witnesses
and put together in a dossier laid by the prosecution before the court.
Nonetheless, where witnesses do appear at court, their evidence is vital
for the outcome of the trial. In common law countries (such as England and
Wales and the United States), there is a tradition of oral evidence and, if the
offender does not plead guilty, then the victim is highly likely to need to
testify in court.
Previous research evidence about victims’ own views of testifying
has produced mixed fi ndings. Early British evidence indicated that vic-
tims did not necessarily fi nd the process traumatic if they were well sup-
ported [Shapland et al., 1985]—but it is clear that victims of sexual abuse
or assault have very different reactions, both in the United Kingdom and
in the United States [Holmstrom and Burgess, 1978; Shapland et al., 1985].
Th is is because of aggressive and intrusive cross-examination by defense
lawyers that may probe into intimate details and also may explore the
victim’s previous sexual history. In England and Wales, legal moves have
been made to prohibit such questioning, such that judges can intervene—
but they are discretionary on the judge. Jennifer Temkin’s research [1987;
Temkin and Krahé, 2007] has shown that judges are very loath to inter-
vene and that the experience of giving evidence as a sexual assault victim
remains problematic.
Paralleling the development of initiatives in the United States—where
witness care programs were some of the earliest initiatives to support victims
and help them to testify—major initiatives have been taken in England and
Wales (and are being implemented in the rest of the United Kingdom as well)
to support witnesses at court. We need to notice that these are initiatives for
all witnesses (although they tend to be dominated by prosecution witnesses)
and are not restricted to victims. It is clear that the dominant philosophy
behind these initiatives is to aid criminal justice, rather than to support vic-
tims especially. Nonetheless, they have been among the more successful ini-
tiatives in the area of victim services.
An early initiative in England and Wales was the development of the
Witness Service. Initially provided at the higher courts, it was then rolled out

© 2010 Taylor and Francis Group, LLC

TAF-85476SHOHAM1-09-0702-C013.indd 355 1/19/10 7:51:13 AM

 356 International Handbook of Victimology

to magistrates’ courts. It is run by Victim Support* through the provision of

a separate grant from government. The Witness Service:

• Staffs reception desks or helps to staff reception desks.

• Has a room in which witnesses can wait, with comfortable furniture,
away from the other party.
• Will provide a visit to the court to look around the courtroom before
the trial (a familiarization visit)—although only 60% of those eli-
gible for such a visit in a recent survey were offered one [Moore and
Blakeborough, 2008].
• Will provide help with expense forms and any other bureaucracy.
• Provides support through volunteer staff, although staff are not
counselors or legally trained and so can only give a listening ear
[Victim Support, 2008].

These are many of the services highlighted by surveys of courts in England

and Wales as being very variable before the advent of the Witness Service
[Shapland and Cohen, 1987; Shapland and Bell, 1998]. Earlier research paints
a picture of intimidation by offenders, lack of facilities (including such basic
facilities as refreshments and lavatories), lack of signage to courts, and a general
view that courts were being run for the benefit of the professionals working at
the courthouse, rather than the witnesses attending to give evidence [Shapland
and Cohen, 1987; Rock, 1993]. By 2002, 81% of witnesses had contact with the
Witness Service, a considerable expansion since the equivalent 2000 survey,
when only 51% had contact [Angle et al., 2003]. This was because of the expan-
sion of the Witness Service to all courts in England and Wales.
However, a minority of witnesses still feel intimidated at court. The 2002
survey found that 26% felt intimidated by an individual, whereas 21% felt
intimidated by the process of giving evidence or by the court environment
itself [Angle et al., 2003]. The strongest predictors of dissatisfaction among
witnesses were feeling they were taken for granted at court and feeling intim-
idated by the process or the court environment. Clearly, although there have
been significant improvements, there is still more work to do. This has led to
the special provisions for vulnerable and intimidated witnesses in England
and Wales, as described below.
The Witness Service’s work primarily kicks in when they are notified that
the witness will be attending court. The problem is that there are still difficul-
ties with notification of hearings and information about victim/witness needs
before this. The One Stop Shop pilot was an attempt to address these barriers
to information flowing through the criminal justice process, by providing

* In England and Wales—and by Victim Support Scotland as a free service at all courts in
Scotland.

© 2010 Taylor and Francis Group, LLC

TAF-85476SHOHAM1-09-0702-C013.indd 356 1/19/10 7:51:13 AM

 Victims and Criminal Justice in Europe 357

one information point (at the level of the police) through which victims could
be notified, for serious crime offenses only [Hoyle et al., 1998]. Dates of court
hearings were one of the most important expectations victims had from the
One Stop Shop (together with being informed of the verdict and sentence).
Just over one-fift h said they had not been told about the date of trial (or the
verdict or sentence). Most of those who were told were informed by the One
Stop Shop personnel—but just less than one-half were in fact informed by
other people, primarily other police personnel. Clearly, even when a special
initiative was mounted, there were still difficulties getting information to all
victims, even the relatively small category of victims of serious crimes.
Similar findings occur for other European countries. In France, infor-
mation about the date and location of the hearing should be provided to the
victim who reported the crime—and any victim who has also joined their
civil claim for compensation through the partie civile procedure will be sum-
monsed to court [Brienen and Hoegen, 2000]. However, Brienen and Hoegen
comment that it is common for victims who are not civil claimants not to be
informed, often contacting victim assistance organizations or the prosecu-
tion, only to find that their case has already been heard. This is particularly
true where “speedy justice” measures are being used, whereby the offender
may be tried and sentenced within 1 day. In Germany, the dominance of the
system itself is even more marked. The victim needs only to receive informa-
tion about the date and place of the hearing if he or she has an active role to
play in those proceedings (as a witness or as an auxiliary prosecutor pursuing
a civil claim for compensation alongside the criminal trial in a similar form
of partie civile as in France) [Brienen and Hoegen, 2000]. The Netherlands
places more duties on the prosecution than do France or Germany. The pros-
ecution service should inform victims as soon as possible of the date and
place of the trial and of any change of date. Although information about
the initial trial date seems mostly to occur, postponements are more rarely
notified, with the accompanying danger that victims will come to court,
only to find that the case has been put over to another date [Brienen and
Hoegen, 2000].

13.4.1 Initiatives in Relation to Vulnerable

and Intimidated Witnesses
A major series of initiatives in England and Wales, which are being adopted
subsequently in Scotland and in Northern Ireland, concern special provisions
for vulnerable witnesses called to give evidence at court. The idea that some
witnesses need special treatment so that they are enabled to give their best
evidence is an old one. Children who testify have been treated differently in
relation to oaths and to how they were questioned for many years. Particular
provisions for children giving evidence were discussed in the Pigot report

© 2010 Taylor and Francis Group, LLC

TAF-85476SHOHAM1-09-0702-C013.indd 357 1/19/10 7:51:13 AM

 358 International Handbook of Victimology

[1989], which recommended that evidence from children might be allowed

in court even though taken on video much earlier. This was followed by pro-
visions to allow judges to remove wigs and gowns when dealing with child
witnesses and oral evidence at the trial, where necessary via a remote televi-
sion link, and so forth.
These provisions became standard practice in relation to child witnesses,
particularly for child abuse cases. Social workers and police officers became
used to working together to interview children where abuse was suspected,
using videotaped interviews undertaken in comfortable surroundings. Such
evidence became routinely used at court. Where children were required
also to give oral testimony, this was often from a different room in the court
house, using a live television link, so that the child could only see the judge
or the lawyer questioning him or her, rather than the whole courtroom (and
hence the suspect). The court participants could, however, see the child.
More controversial were suggestions that these kinds of provisions
should be extended to other witnesses who might be particularly vulnerable.
Research by Sanders et al. [1997] showed that adult victims with learning
disabilities had very similar difficulties to those of children and indicated
strongly that they should receive the benefit of similar measures in the court-
room. The Home Office report, Speaking Up for Justice, in 1998 proposed a
much wider category of vulnerable witnesses to include both witnesses who
were intrinsically vulnerable (such as child witnesses, witnesses with learn-
ing disabilities, and witnesses with other disabilities) and also witnesses who
were vulnerable because of potential intimidation or because of the nature of
the offense itself. The prime example of the last were victims of sexual assault,
both adult and child victims. The Criminal Justice and Youth Evidence Act in
1999, which followed closely on the report, expanded the “special provisions”
originally introduced for child witnesses to all vulnerable witnesses, and they
now include giving evidence via a television link, prerecorded examination
in chief and cross-examination, screening off witnesses from the defendants,
clearing the public gallery of the court, the removal of lawyers’ wigs and
gowns in the Crown Court, and giving evidence through intermediaries.
The possibility of using each of these provisions needs to be discussed in
a pretrial hearing, at which the CPS is supposed to bring forward any need
for such measures. Their use is at the discretion of the judge, providing the
witness falls within the definition of a vulnerable witness as noted in the
1999 Act. The categories of persons eligible for special measures are children
aged less than 17 years, witnesses under a physical disability or physical dis-
order, witnesses with a learning disability or mental disorder, and witnesses
likely to suffer particular distress, including victims of sexual offenses and
witnesses who fear or suffer intimidation.
The use of these special measures and witnesses’ reactions to them have
been analyzed using the WAVES [Hamlyn et al., 2004]. This is a survey of

© 2010 Taylor and Francis Group, LLC

TAF-85476SHOHAM1-09-0702-C013.indd 358 1/19/10 7:51:13 AM

 Victims and Criminal Justice in Europe 359

witnesses aged 16 years and over who give evidence at court in cases where
an adult offender has been charged. Therefore, it includes victims and other
prosecution witnesses, although not police officers or expert witnesses. It
does not include sexual or domestic violence, crimes involving a fatality, or
any crime where the defendant was a family member or a member of the
household, but covers a wide range of offenses, including violence, burglary,
theft, and criminal damage.
Hamlyn et al. [2004] interviewed 569 witnesses, of whom 42% were aged
less than 17 years; and 13% reported a disability that limited daily activities,
70% reported either fearing or experiencing intimidation, and 15% were vic-
tims of a sexual offense. It is clear from this that the different categories of
vulnerable and intimidated witnesses (VIW) overlap—many witnesses who
are vulnerable for other reasons also fear intimidation.
Compared with all witnesses, VIW were less satisfied with their over-
all experience. Overall 69% were very or fairly satisfied with their treatment
compared with 78% of all witnesses [Angle et al., 2003]. Child witnesses
(those aged less than 17 years) tended to be more satisfied than adults, and
people who had experienced or feared intimidation tended to be less satisfied
than those who had not. However, as we shall see, the use of special measures
did seem to have a major positive effect on witnesses.
By 2004, video-recorded evidence-in-chief was used by 42% of child wit-
nesses, a live television link for giving evidence for 83% of child witnesses (i.e.,
the vast majority), and removal of wigs and gowns at the Crown Court by 15%
of Crown Court witnesses. Rates for adult witnesses were much lower (e.g., only
15% of adult VIW were offered a live link). Other forms of assistance, including
pagers, escorts, and intermediaries, were used only rarely among VIW.
Witnesses using special measures rated them very highly. As Hamlyn
et al. [2004:xii] said:

For example nine in ten witnesses using the live TV link found this helpful,
and a similar proportion found using video-recorded evidence-in-chief useful.
The importance of special measures is further vindicated by the finding that
33 per cent of witnesses using any special measure said that they would not
have been willing and able to give evidence without this.

In addition, witnesses using special measures were less likely to be anx-

ious, less likely to experience cross-examination as very upsetting, and more
likely to have a favorable opinion of the criminal justice system. It is clear
that the use of special measures and the provisions of the Act are one of the
rare success stories of the criminal justice system in relation to witnesses
(and victims).
Unfortunately, however, other aspects of criminal justice services to
victims seemed still to be lacking, even among these VIW. Just more than

© 2010 Taylor and Francis Group, LLC

TAF-85476SHOHAM1-09-0702-C013.indd 359 1/19/10 7:51:13 AM

 360 International Handbook of Victimology

one-third of VIW said that they had not been kept informed at all about the
progress of the case (36%) (a little more than one-quarter of VIW said that
they had been kept regularly informed [32%], and the remaining 37% said
that they had been informed occasionally). Pretrial familiarization visits to
the court seemed, however, to have been implemented. Twenty-nine percent
of VIW had visited the court before the trial to familiarize themselves. This
increased to 68% for victims of sexual offenses. But nearly half of VIW stated
that the original date set for the court hearing had been changed, with this
occurring in almost half of cases on the day of the trial (35%) or the day
before (10%). This clearly caused upset and anxiety.
While giving evidence, most VIW felt they could understand the ques-
tions put, but there was a minority who found it difficult, who did not feel
they could ask for a break in questioning, or who felt overawed and unable to
communicate their difficulties.
VIW are supposed, under the legislation, to be consulted about the
possible use of special measures (usually by the police acting on behalf of
the CPS). However, Hamlyn et al. [2004] found that only 32% had been
consulted (although when they were, the vast majority felt their input had
been effective). This ties in with the chief drawback in the way in which
the special measures have been enacted—whether it is thought to raise the
possibility of their use in a pretrial hearing. The problem is that unless the
prosecution (police, prosecutor) think about it during their perusal of the fi le,
it is highly likely that such a hearing will not consider special measures. If, for
example, there is no clear note on the file about the advisability of measures,
and if the prosecutor receives the fi le close to the time of the hearing, then no
one may raise the issue. Clearly, as the use of special measures has become
more widespread, then prosecutors, etc., are likely to think about them when
the witness falls into an obvious category (e.g., child witness). However,
adults with disabilities may not be obvious until they reach court. This was
the finding of Burton et al. [2006], who estimated, in a qualitative study,
that there are considerable gaps. They considered that 24% of witnesses in
their sample were potentially vulnerable or intimidated compared with 9%
actually identified by agencies for their sample and the 7–10% envisaged by
Speaking Up for Justice [Home Office, 1998].
Readers will have noticed that in this section, I have been speaking of
“witnesses” rather than “victims.” The provisions for VIW are of course for
all prosecution witnesses, which are likely to include victims. However, some
victims are not called to give evidence, although there may be testimony
from other prosecution witnesses.* Equally, many cases do not proceed to
an active trial with oral evidence because the offender pleads guilty. In both
* The evidence from the victim may be agreed by the defense, for example, if the victim
was not present at a burglary and was merely giving evidence about damage caused and
property taken.

© 2010 Taylor and Francis Group, LLC

TAF-85476SHOHAM1-09-0702-C013.indd 360 1/19/10 7:51:13 AM

 Victims and Criminal Justice in Europe 361

these examples, the VIW provisions do not apply to victims—and there will
not necessarily be any provisions for victims. It is clear that this radical action
in England and Wales on behalf of witnesses has been taken because they
are witnesses, and so the progress of the prosecution and trial depends on
them. It is reminiscent of the early U.S. provisions to get witnesses to court in
the 1970s and 1980s (e.g., witness warning programs, familiarization visits).
The priority is criminal justice, not victims. Nonetheless, the measures have
proved very beneficial to those victims (and other witnesses) who have used
them. Equivalent provisions do not yet seem to have been introduced on a
statutory basis in other parts of Europe.

13.5 A Role for Victims in Sentencing?

One of the most debated potential reforms in relation to victims in England

and Wales has been their potential role in sentencing. Here, I am referring to
sentencing within the standard criminal justice system for adult offenders.
Restorative justice has become a mainstream option for young offenders in
England and Wales,* and youth conferencing is now the mainstream stat-
utory requirements in Northern Ireland [Campbell et al., 2006]. For adult
offenders, however, most lawyers have been very loathe to permit any victim
input during the phase between conviction and sentencing. They have been
afraid that sentencing might become driven by vindictive victims† or judges
overly affected by a recital of the effects of the offense on victims. Essentially,
they have argued that sentencing is a matter for the state and the offender and
that the victim should have no role.
This is despite two developments: the increasing use of compensation
as part of the sentence, and the case law requiring judges to be aware of the
effects of the offense on victims when sentencing. Compensation orders
(payments by the offender to the victim as part of the sentence of the court)
were introduced in England and Wales in 1972, and by 1988 through the
Criminal Justice Act, judges were not only required to consider one in any
case where there is an identifiable victim and loss, injury, or damage, but
also to give reasons why they did not use a compensation order were they to
decide not to make one. Clearly, judges cannot consider compensation to the
victim without knowing the extent of loss, injury, etc., and they are required
to inform themselves on this. Compensation orders were also introduced in

* Through the use of referral orders (trained members of the community sitting on panels
to decide on the form of the sentence—attendance at programs, supervision, etc.—for
fi rst offenders sentenced by the court to a referral order, victims may be present at such
panels [Crawford and Newburn, 2003]), reparation orders, compensation orders, etc.
† Although all the evidence suggests that victims in England and Wales and in Northern
Ireland are very rarely vindictive [Dignan, 2005; Doak and O’Mahony, 2006].

© 2010 Taylor and Francis Group, LLC

TAF-85476SHOHAM1-09-0702-C013.indd 361 1/19/10 7:51:13 AM

 362 International Handbook of Victimology

Scotland and the Netherlands in the early 1980s and into Northern Ireland
somewhat later.
The case law on sentencing and victim effects in England and Wales has
been driven by the effects of sexual assault offenses on victims and in par-
ticular the need for judges to take account of the serious and long-lasting
effects on victims of rape [Shapland and Hall, forthcoming]. The position is
that judges should be aware of the effects on victims, and any information
necessary for sentencing can be admitted in evidence during a hearing before
sentencing. Information concerning the mental and psychological effects on
victims (particularly for sexual assaults or violent crime), information that
the victim wishes particularly to convey his or her forgiveness of the offender,
and information in relation to losses (to consider the making of a compensa-
tion order) are particularly relevant.
Hence it becomes very important that judges should receive accurate
information on the effects of the offense on the victim. However, means to
ensure this occurs have been slow to be implemented. In the 1980s, informa-
tion about losses was so rarely presented that the best predictor of whether
a compensation order would be made was whether anyone mentioned the
word compensation in any context during the case [Shapland et al., 1985]. The
position has improved. Judges would now routinely consider financial losses
(damage, theft) in a case where a compensation order is a possibility (i.e., the
offender is not going to be given a prison sentence). However, information
on the psychological and social effects of the offense is still not routinely
available.
The first government initiative in England and Wales to create reliable
possibilities for this information to reach the judge was the Victim Statement
pilot, part of the One Stop Shop initiative for victims of serious crime
[Hoyle et al., 1998]. They found that around 30% of victims wished to make
a statement to the police detailing the effects of the offense on them.* The
researchers judged that most of these statements did add additional material
to the victim’s evidential statement to the police, mostly about the emotional
effect of the offense. Statements did not exaggerate effects—if anything, they
tended to underplay them. For the majority of victims, the process of making
such a victim personal statement was helpful. However, approximately 90%
of victims did not know what use had been made of their statement in the
criminal justice process. They hoped it had been taken into account by the
prosecution and the judge, but they did not know.

* Victim statements about the effects of the offense on them have been called by various
terms in England and Wales but are generally known as victim personal statements
(sometimes as victim effect statements, or, for homicide cases, family impact state-
ments). In the United States, they would be called victim impact statements. Several
states in the United States allow victims to give their opinion on sentencing in such a
statement.

© 2010 Taylor and Francis Group, LLC

TAF-85476SHOHAM1-09-0702-C013.indd 362 1/19/10 7:51:14 AM

 Victims and Criminal Justice in Europe 363

Subsequent research interviewed professionals working in criminal jus-

tice to see what use was being made of these victim statements [Morgan and
Sanders, 1999]. They found that most of the magistrates’ court officials and
some of the Crown Court judges in the areas were aware of the pilot victim
statement projects. Judges welcomed the idea of victim statements in prin-
ciple, primarily because they provided additional information on the effects
on the victim, but could be dubious as to whether victim statements should
influence sentence. Victim statements were usually in the prosecution file but
might not be read in court or given to the judge, depending on the prosecu-
tor’s view of their veracity or usefulness. It seems, therefore, that whether
victim statements were used varied according to the views of professionals.
Sentencers found it impossible to recall whether the statement had actually
affected sentence. This finding is not surprising. Sentencing is a habitual deci-
sion, taken after perusal of numerous documents and hearing views from
several people (e.g., probation service or mitigation by the defense lawyer). It
is very difficult for professional decision makers to recall exactly which ele-
ment affected the sentence in which way.
The legal position in England and Wales is that victim personal state-
ments may contain evidence as to the effects of the offense on the victim but
should not include any opinion by the victim as to what the sentence should
be [Practice Direction, 2001, 4 All ER 640]. If they do contain any such opin-
ion, then the court should ignore this. Given that victim personal statements
are normally taken by the police, they rarely contain opinions and tend to be
restricted to bare facts.
Victim personal statements were supposed to be rolled out nationally
in England and Wales in October 2001, but their implementation has been
acknowledged as very patchy [Graham et al., 2004; Office for Criminal Justice
Reform, 2005b]. New efforts have been made through Local Criminal Justice
Boards in the past few years to try to encourage police officers to remem-
ber to offer the possibility of making a victim personal statement to victims.
There remain problems, however. Police officers may not remember or have
time to take such a statement. Victims are asked to make the statement at
the same time as they have made their statement of evidence about the crime
itself, which is normally very soon after the offense, when effects have not yet
become clear. Although victim personal statements can be updated, in prac-
tice it is not clear that victims are taking or being offered the opportunity to
do so. The statement is taken by a police officer, even though it is evidence
from the victim—and it is often put in the police officer’s words. This can lead
to challenges later in court but also is less likely to convey to judges exactly
what the victim wishes to say.
The most recent evaluation of the extent to which victims are offered the
opportunity to make a victim personal statement and whether they are taking
this opportunity is provided by the WAVES [Moore and Blakeborough, 2008].

© 2010 Taylor and Francis Group, LLC

TAF-85476SHOHAM1-09-0702-C013.indd 363 1/19/10 7:51:14 AM

 364 International Handbook of Victimology

The survey found that only just more than one-third of victims interviewed
recalled being given the opportunity to make a victim personal statement,
whereas 53% said they had not been given the opportunity. More victims of
violent crime recalled it being suggested by the police than victims of theft
and handling—suggesting that police officers’ views on when such statements
might be useful continue to play a part. The authors conclude:

There is some evidence that standards highlighted in the Victim and Witness
Delivery Plan are not being met. Most noteworthy is the severe lack of
availability of the Victim Personal Statement. With more than half of victims
not recalling having been offered the opportunity to make such a statement,
there is a need for the CJS [Criminal Justice System] agencies to revisit the use
and promotion of this intervention. [ibid.:v]

It is clear that professionals in the criminal justice system, including

judges, are ambivalent about the need to collect and make regularly available
to sentencers information about the effects of the offense on victims. Because
such statements are taken by the police and collected in the prosecution
file, police and prosecution views also come into play. However, the case
law indicates strongly that judges should be aware of effects on victims and,
where necessary, seek out such information. It is a mark of the ambivalence
of legal professionals toward victims and toward any input from victims at
sentence that the provisions are not currently universally effective.
Because of the lack of effectiveness, there has been considerable pressure
from victims groups representing victims of homicide (death by dangerous
driving, as well as murder and manslaughter) to allow relatives of homicide
victims to make oral statements in court about the effects of the offense and
their loss before sentence. A consultation document, Hearing the Relatives of
Murder and Manslaughter Victims [Department for Constitutional Affairs,
2005], led to a proposal for a pilot scheme to test what became called a family
impact statement—a statement to the court by the bereaved family in homi-
cide cases that could be made orally or in writing to the court about the
effect of the crime on their family. The statement could be given by a law-
yer (including the prosecutor), the family themselves, or a layperson. The
pilots were at five Crown Court centers (Manchester, London, Birmingham,
Cardiff, and Winchester) and ran between April 2006 and April 2008. The
pilots were evaluated together with two other initiatives for bereaved fami-
lies: the opportunity to meet with the prosecutor, and up to 15 hours of free
legal advice to the family on social and personal matters arising from the
death [Sweeting et al., 2008].
Overall, the possibility of making a family impact statement was
welcomed by the family of the homicide victim. Some families wanted to
give the court a better appreciation of the victim’s character, whereas others

© 2010 Taylor and Francis Group, LLC

TAF-85476SHOHAM1-09-0702-C013.indd 364 1/19/10 7:51:14 AM

 Victims and Criminal Justice in Europe 365

wanted the defendant to understand the impact of what had been done. Of
392 eligible families, 316 took part in the pilots, and in 124 a family impact
statement was delivered at court [Sweeting et al., 2008]. Some families
did not wish to make a statement, sometimes because they did not think
it would have an effect on sentencing, and sometimes because they feared
the emotional strain. Families often chose prosecuting counsel to make
the statement, and few took up the option of an independent advocate—
although I would suggest that this might be different in rare cases where
the family might think there was state involvement in the victim’s death.
Families welcomed the family impact statement because it created a sense
of active involvement in the trial—perhaps very different from what they
may have experienced in relation to coroners’ proceedings. If, however, the
family was denied an opportunity to make the statement, if it was edited,
or if the statement seemed to have no impact on the judge, then there was
distress.
Practitioners, including the judiciary, had mixed views. Although state-
ments were seen to provide a voice for families and this was helpful for
them, some strongly opposed the statement, especially oral delivery in court,
because they felt that it introduced victims’ views and also unwelcome emo-
tion into court. These views replicate those of some members of the judiciary
and prosecutors to (written) victim personal statements, discussed above.
They seem to me to reflect a worrying view of the court and its role in crimi-
nal justice. If the court is to be the community forum for dealing with serious
breaches of the criminal law, including deliberate hurt caused by one citizen
to another, then that court will need to deal with and reflect societal disquiet
about that event. If it does not, then it could be argued as having failed in
one of its major roles and having compromised its legitimacy. Major harm
caused to one citizen will cause emotion, and it is important that that emo-
tion should be able to be expressed (within limits, so that proceedings can
continue). In my view, lawyers who are against any expression of emotion
in court are confusing the role of the judge (to be impartial, calm and calm-
ing, presiding over proceedings) with the role of the court. They may also be
reflecting concern over judges’ (or their own) potential ability to deal with
proceedings if emotion is expressed. Banning emotion, however, is removing
expressions of societal disquiet from the court as a forum, leaving it, poten-
tially, to the media or to informal justice (e.g., lynch mobs). If that were to
occur, it would seem to work against the rule of law.
The other two elements of the pilot scheme were contact with prosecutors,
including a meeting, and legal assistance. The pretrial support and meeting
were welcomed, as would be expected from the findings of previous research
(see above). However, take-up of the meeting varied across sites, with fami-
lies not always seeing the purpose of the meeting or that it was relevant to
them. For some families, support from police family liaison officers (assigned

© 2010 Taylor and Francis Group, LLC

TAF-85476SHOHAM1-09-0702-C013.indd 365 1/19/10 7:51:14 AM

 366 International Handbook of Victimology

to every family where there is a homicide) may have been sufficient, without
a further need for meeting the prosecutor. The CPS has decided to roll out
the pretrial support scheme nationally from October 2007, together with the
making of a family impact statement and the prosecutor reading it at court
at all Crown Court centers. The initial focus of the scheme on murder and
manslaughter has been widened to include death by dangerous driving and
driving while unfit through drink or drugs.
Take-up of legal assistance was very limited (only 21 families used this
possibility), possibly because of a lack of awareness and understanding of this
element among both families and practitioners. These results can be seen
as emphasizing the need to explain services, especially new services, to vic-
tims. In Western countries, victimization, especially serious victimization,
is rare and comes as a shock. Citizens are unlikely to have much knowledge
of victim services before they become a victim—and so there is a task of
outreach and explanation.

13.6 During Sentence

In 1990 in England and Wales, the Victim’s Charter [Home Office, 1990]
announced that, for the first time, victims would be consulted before offend-
ers were released from life sentences. Their wishes and interests would be
taken into account during the parole board decision-making process. The
National Probation Service was tasked with visiting such victims and ascer-
taining their views (e.g., about the dangers of revictimization if offenders
were to be released into the same area), and as a result the Probation Service
started Victim Liaison Units in each of its areas. In 1995 the provisions were
extended to cover victims of serious sexual or violent offenses where the
term of imprisonment was 4 years or more (whose offenders would fall under
the Parole Board’s provisions), and in 2001 there was a further substantial
increase to such offenses where imprisonment was for 1 year or more.
This was a major new responsibility for the National Probation Service,
which previously had only been concerned with offenders. Unfortunately,
initially it was not accompanied by any funding. Victim liaison officers were
supposed to contact victims within 2 months of sentencing and provide
information about what would happen during the offender’s sentence and
ask if victims wished to opt in to the consultation. If victims wanted to opt
in, they were then to return to consult with victims during the process of
considering the offender’s release. They soon found, first, that the victims
they visited at the first stage had not necessarily been informed about the
sentence (or the charge/conviction) by anyone else earlier because of the fail-
ures in providing information discussed above. Thus, probation officers bore
the brunt of victims’ displeasure at others’ failings. Crawford and Enterkin

© 2010 Taylor and Francis Group, LLC

TAF-85476SHOHAM1-09-0702-C013.indd 366 1/19/10 7:51:14 AM

 Victims and Criminal Justice in Europe 367

[2001], evaluating the early period of the scheme, found that indeed receiving
information was victims’ main reason for opting in.
Second, the status of the report written by the probation officer as a result
of the consultation at the second visit was relatively unclear. As it might impact
on the offender’s release, for human rights reasons, it had to be made available
to the offender and his or her legal representative. The parole board might well
make use of the report to put additional license requirements on any parole
license if victims were afraid of further intimidation—but the risk victims
took was that their concerns about the release would be known by the offender,
which might itself lead to intimidation. More recently, funding has been made
available to the probation service to carry out the task of victim liaison in seri-
ous cases. Victim liaison officers emphasize the importance of making contact
with victims after sentence, rather than leaving contact to just before potential
release. They have become inured to sometimes becoming the first ones to talk
to the victim and let the victim know about the progress of the case. The dif-
ficulties over the status of victim views as quoted in reports by victim liaison
officers in relation to parole and release and the potential for intimidation of
victims by offenders as a result have not, however, been solved.

13.7 The Changing Conceptions of

Victims in Criminal Justice

Dignan [2005:63] has referred to the years up to around 2000 in England and
Wales as “Victim neglect during the ‘era of disenfranchisement’.” Its origin
was professional criminal justice agencies, particularly the police and pros-
ecution, taking over primary responsibility for prosecuting the offender. It
has been a long and slow process to start re-enfranchising victims so that
they can have consideration, respect, and dignity during a criminal justice
process that they feel is trying “their” crime. Many would argue that, despite
governmental rhetoric in England and Wales—the government announced
in 2002 that it would be putting victims “at the heart of criminal justice”—
actual progress has been halting, patchy, and far from complete.
It is certainly true that, in England and Wales, court surroundings have
been made far more human for victims (and other witnesses and laypeople)
attending court. There are separate waiting rooms; there are reception points;
there are signposting, refreshments, and Witness Support. Moreover, there
have been major legislative changes to help vulnerable and intimidated wit-
nesses to give their “best” evidence and schemes to help families of homicide
victims. However, these initiatives have largely been peripheral to the court
proceedings themselves and their view of the victim.
In terms of receiving information and being consulted, there has been
partial enfranchisement in England and Wales. The CPS has acknowledged

© 2010 Taylor and Francis Group, LLC

TAF-85476SHOHAM1-09-0702-C013.indd 367 1/19/10 7:51:14 AM

 368 International Handbook of Victimology

it should consult with victims before making decisions to drop a case or

change charges. Police are supposed to inform victims of the result of
the case. Victims are consulted by the National Probation Service before
offenders are released from prison on life licenses or on parole. However,
these communication channels, as Dignan [2005] comments, are often one
way. They inform victims of what the system has done, and they acquire
information for use in the system’s decisions, but they do not allow most
victims to present their information (e.g., about the effects of the offense) to
the system. There is little opportunity to engage in dialogue with crimi-
nal justice. There is certainly very little opportunity to engage in dialogue
with the offender because restorative justice is only a mainstream option for
young offenders.
The position, as far as it can be judged, in other jurisdictions in Europe, is
also one of a will to try to meet victim needs but not at the cost of significant
change to the existing criminal justice system. Victim services tend to be
just that—victim services—rather than rights. There is very considerable
resistance from practitioners to any major change in the role or status of
victims. Provisions tend to be about information (Do victims get informed
as to what is happening? Can they take up their existing rights, e.g., for partie
civile compensation claims?) and assistance at court to give evidence. Progress
is often slow and halting, and established interests among practitioners have
the power to reverse or take over more controversial provisions. An example
is the transformation of the decentralized maisons de justice in France, which
originally housed prosecutors, as well as mediators, to provide local delivery
of criminal justice services, into advice centers to advise citizens on how to
approach civil and criminal justice [Wyvekens, 2008]. Mediators’ work has
now often been merged with that of the new auxiliary prosecutors, who are
often former criminal justice practitioners. Mediation—and decentralized
criminal justice services—are being absorbed back into more mainstream
criminal justice culture.
Some, however, would argue that a focus on meeting victim needs within
criminal justice is misplaced because few victims have much contact with
criminal justice. They argue that we should not try to change victims’ roles
in relation to prosecution or the court because these attempts are often
sabotaged by criminal justice and twisted toward criminal justice systemic
ends, rather than really benefiting victims. Instead, we should put resources
into victim assistance and support or develop civil justice means (such as
compensation claims or community mediation) because these measures
directly benefit victims.
My own view is that reform needs to take into account both victims’
own views about where they see the various systems as failing them, as well
as the role and purpose of justice. There is no doubt that victims appreci-
ate victim assistance and support—but they also clearly appreciate a more

© 2010 Taylor and Francis Group, LLC

TAF-85476SHOHAM1-09-0702-C013.indd 368 1/19/10 7:51:14 AM

 Victims and Criminal Justice in Europe 369

sensitive, informative, and consultative approach from criminal justice, as

the evaluations described above have demonstrated.
A long time ago, van Dijk [1983] classified the different types of response
to victims according to their ideological remit:

• Care or welfare for victims (because victims have been hurt—just as

others in society have been hurt through illness, accident, or poverty;
this is the welfare state approach, and examples in relation to victims
include criminal injuries compensation schemes).
• Resocializing offenders (using victims in the service of offenders,
e.g., to make offenders more aware of the harm they have caused,
thereby promoting rehabilitation; examples include some reparation
initiatives and victim impact offender behavior programs).
• Radical or anticriminal justice (advocating a civil justice response
because criminal justice will never change; examples include the
use of community restorative justice in place of criminal justice or
restorative justice within criminal justice; victim assistance schemes
run outside of criminal justice).
• Retributive or criminal justice.

When asked, victims themselves have seen the last ideology—the

criminal justice ideology—as most appropriate for offenses that victims
themselves see as against the criminal law (i.e., they are victims of a crime). It
is a prime reason why victims continue to report offenses to criminal justice
authorities, such as the police (in the United Kingdom) or prosecutors (in
mainland European countries). If those criminal justice authorities become
hostile or uncaring in terms of the ways in which victims can approach them
or victims are dealt with by them, then it would not be surprising if those
same authorities become seen as less legitimate. A way in which this can be
expressed is as a lack of confidence in criminal justice by citizens, a matter
which is now being regarded as of some concern to states [Criminal Justice
Review Group, 2000; Hough and Roberts, 2004].
Creating a criminal justice system more attuned to the ways in which
victims (and witnesses) are able to deal with it in today’s insecure world is
clearly difficult. The history of evaluation of criminal justice initiatives is that
reform is slow, sometimes patchy, and sometimes resisted by other interests.
That seems to be the case across countries in Europe, whether they come
from a common law or Napoleonic legal tradition. The precise form of the
initiative clearly needs to be attuned to the local legal culture and in line, as
far as possible, with both practitioner and public expectations. But the les-
sons of attempting reform to meet victim needs are that progress will be slow,
wherever it is attempted. It needs considerable government will and a lengthy
pilot period to mitigate practitioner fears. However, giving up the attempt

© 2010 Taylor and Francis Group, LLC

TAF-85476SHOHAM1-09-0702-C013.indd 369 1/19/10 7:51:14 AM

 370 International Handbook of Victimology

can have serious effects on how criminal justice itself is perceived—and that
is one of the integral tasks of government itself.

References
Angle, H., S. Malam, and C. Carey. 2003. Key findings from the witness satisfaction
survey. Home Office Research Findings No.189. London: Home Office.
Boom, A. ten, K. F. Kuijpers, and M. Moene. 2008. Behoeften van slachtoffers van
delicten: Een systematische literatuurstudie naar behoeften zoals door slachtoffers
zelf geuit. The Hague: Boom.
Brienen, M. and E. Hoegen. 2000. Victims of crime in 22 European criminal justice
systems. Nijmegen, the Netherlands: Wolf Legal.
Burton, M., R. Evans, and A. Sanders. 2006. Are special measures for vulnerable and
intimidated witnesses working? Evidence from the criminal justice agencies.
Online Report 01/06. London: Home Office at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/
rds (accessed November 1, 2008).
Cabinet Office. 2005. No witness no justice. London: Cabinet Office at http://archive.
cabinetoffice.gov.uk/opsr/local_service_projects/criminal_justice/no_witness/
index.asp (accessed November 1, 2008).
Campbell, C., R. Devlin, D. O’Mahony, et al. 2006. Evaluation of the Northern Ireland
Youth Conferencing Service. NIO Research and Statistical Series Report No.
12. Belfast: NIO. http://www.nio.gov.uk/evaluation_of_the_northern_ireland_
youth_conference_service.pdf (accessed November 1, 2008).
Christie, N. 1977. Conflicts as property. British Journal of Criminology 17:1–15.
Council of Europe. 1985. Recommendation No. R (85) 11 on the position of the victim
in the framework of criminal law and procedure. Strasbourg, France: Council of
Europe.
Crawford, A. and J. Enterkin. 2001. Victim contact work in the probation service: A
study of service delivery and impact. Leeds, UK: CCJS.
Crawford, A. and T. Newburn. 2003. Youth offending and restorative justice. Cullompton,
UK: Willan.
Criminal Justice Review Group. 2000. Report of the review of criminal justice in
Northern Ireland. Belfast: HMSO.
Crown Prosecution Service. 2008. Your CPS. http://www.cps.gov.uk/yourcps.html
(accessed November 1, 2008).
Department for Constitutional Affairs. 2005. Hearing the relatives of murder and man-
slaughter victims. London: Department for Constitutional Affairs.
Dignan, J. 2005. Understanding victims and restorative justice. Milton Keynes, UK:
Open University Press.
Doak, J. and D. O’Mahony. 2006. The vengeful victim? Assessing the attitudes of
victims participating in restorative youth conferencing. International Review
of Victimology 13:157–78.
Ericson, R. V. 1982. Reproducing order: A study of police patrol work. Toronto: University
of Toronto Press.
European Commission. 2001. Council Framework Decision of 15 March 2001 on the
standing of victims in criminal proceedings (2001/220/JHA). Brussels: European
Commission.

© 2010 Taylor and Francis Group, LLC

TAF-85476SHOHAM1-09-0702-C013.indd 370 1/19/10 7:51:14 AM

 Victims and Criminal Justice in Europe 371

Garside, R. 2006. Right for the wrong reasons: Making sense of criminal justice fail-
ure. Crime and Society Foundation monograph 2. London: Crime and Society
Foundation at http://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/opus293/RFWR.pdf (accessed
November 1, 2008).
Graham, J., K. Woodfield, M. Tibble, and S. Kitchen. 2004. Testaments of harm: A
qualitative evaluation of the victim personal statements scheme. London:
National Centre.
Hamlyn, B., A. Phelps, J. Turtle, and G. Sattar. 2004. Are special measures working?
Evidence from a survey of vulnerable and intimidated witnesses. Home Office
Research Study 283. London: Home Office.
Holmstrom, L. L. and A. W. Burgess. 1978. The victim of rape: Institutional reactions.
Chichester, UK: John Wiley.
Home Office. 1990. Victim’s charter: A statement of the rights of victims of crime.
London: HMSO.
____. 1998. Speaking up for justice: Report of the interdepartmental working group on
the treatment of vulnerable or intimidated witnesses in the criminal justice system.
London: Home Office.
Hough, J. M. and R. V. G. Clarke. 1980. The effectiveness of policing, Introduction: 1–16.
Aldershot, UK: Gower.
Hough, M. and J. Roberts. 2004. Confidence in justice: An international review. Home
Office Research Findings 243. London: Home Office. http://rds.homeoffice.gov.
uk/rds/pdfs04/r243.pdf (accessed November 1, 2008).
Hoyle, C., E. Cape, R. Morgan, and A. Sanders. 1998. Evaluation of the “One Stop
Shop” and victim statement pilot projects. Home Office Occasional Paper
07/08. London: Home Office. http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs/occ-one.
pdf (accessed on November 1, 2008).
Kershaw, C., S. Nicholas, and A. Walker. 2008. Crime in England and Wales 2007/08.
Home Office Statistical Bulletin. London: Home Office.
Maguire, E. M. W. and T. Bennett. 1982. Burglary in a dwelling: The offence, the offender
and the victim. London: Heinemann.
Moley, S. 2008. Public perceptions. In Crime in England and Wales 2007/08, ed.
C. Kershaw, S. Nicholas, and A. Walker, 117–29. Home Office Statistical Bulletin
07/08. London: Home Office http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs08/
hosb0708.pdf (accessed November 1, 2008).
Moore, L. and L. Blakeborough. 2008. Early findings from WAVES: Information and
service provision. Ministry of Justice Research Series 11/08. London: Ministry
of Justice.
Morgan, R. and A. Sanders. 1999. The uses of victim statements. Home Office
Occasional Paper. London: Home Office. http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/
pdfs/occ-vicstats.pdf (accessed November 1, 2008).
Office for Criminal Justice Reform. 2005a. The code of practice for victims of crime.
London: Office for Criminal Justice Reform. http://www.cjsonline.gov.uk/
downloads/application/pdf/Victims%20Code%20of%20Practice.pdf (accessed
November 1, 2008).
____. 2005b. Local criminal justice board victim and witness delivery toolkit 4: Taking
victims’ views into account. Victim Personal Statements. London: OCJR.
Pigot Report. 1989. Report of the advisory group on video evidence. London: Home
Office.

© 2010 Taylor and Francis Group, LLC

TAF-85476SHOHAM1-09-0702-C013.indd 371 1/19/10 7:51:14 AM

 372 International Handbook of Victimology

Ringham, L. and H. Salisbury. 2004. Support for victims of crime: Findings from the
2002/2003 British Crime Survey. Home Office Online Report 31:04. London:
Home Office. http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs04/rdsolr3104.pdf (accessed
November 1, 2008).
Rock, P. 1993. The social world of an English Crown Court: Witnesses and professionals
in the Crown Court Centre at Wood Green. Oxford: Clarendon.
Sanders, A., J. Creaton, S. Bird, and L. Weber. 1997. Victims with learning disabilities:
Negotiating the criminal justice system. Centre for Criminological Research
Occasional Paper no. 17. Oxford: Oxford University Centre for Criminological
Research.
Shapland, J. 1988. Fiefs and peasants: Accomplishing change for victims in the criminal
justice system. In Victims of crime: A new deal?, ed. M. Maguire and J. Pointing.
Reprinted in 1994 in A reader on criminal justice, ed. N. Lacey. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Shapland, J. and E. Bell. 1998. Victims in the magistrates’ courts and Crown Court.
Criminal Law Review August:537–46.
Shapland, J. and D. Cohen. 1987. Facilities for victims: The role of the police and the
courts. Criminal Law Review January:28–38.
Shapland, J. and M. Hall. 2007. What do we know about the effects of crime on
victims? International Review of Victimology 13:175–218.
____. Forthcoming. Victims at court: Necessary accessories or centre stage? In Victims
in contemporary criminal justice, ed. A. E. Bottoms and J. Roberts. Cullompton,
UK: Willan.
Shapland, J. and J. Vagg. 1988. Policing by the public. London: Routledge & Kegan
Paul.
Shapland, J., J. Willmore, and P. Duff. 1985. Victims in the criminal justice system.
Aldershot, UK: Gower.
Sweeting, A., R. Owen, C. Turley, P. Rock, M. Garcia-Sanche, L. Wilson, and U. Khan.
2008. Evaluation of the victims’ advocate scheme pilots. Ministry of Justice
Research Series 17/08. London: Ministry of Justice.
Temkin, J. 1987. Rape and the legal process. London: Sweet & Maxwell.
Temkin, J. and B. Krahé. 2007. Sexual assault and the justice gap: A question of attitude.
Oxford: Hart Publishing.
Tombs, S. and D. Whyte. 2004. Safety crimes. Cullompton, UK: Willan.
van Dijk, J. J. M. 1983. Victimologie in theorie en praktijk; een kritische reflectie op
de bestaande en nog te creëen voorzieningen voor slachtoffers van delichten.
Justitiële verkenningen 6:5–35.
van Dijk, J. J. M., J. van Kesteren, and P. Smit. 2007. Criminal victimization in interna-
tional perspective: Key findings from the 2004–2005 ICVS and EU ICS. Tilburg,
the Netherlands: Tilburg University INTERVICT.
Victim Support. 2008. Help for witnesses. http://www.victimsupport.org.uk/vs_
england_wales/services/witness_services.php (accessed November 1, 2008).
Wyvekens, A. 2008. “Proximity justice” in France: Anything but “justice and commu-
nity”? In Justice, community and civil society, ed. J. Shapland. Cullompton, UK:
Willan.

© 2010 Taylor and Francis Group, LLC

TAF-85476SHOHAM1-09-0702-C013.indd 372 1/19/10 7:51:14 AM