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

Executive Summary

Background and Introduction

In the early 1970s, federal, provincial and territorial governments became involved in program development for victims of crime, including criminal injuries compensation programs. Since then, the federal, provincial and territorial governments have moved beyond financial compensation for injury to the consideration of an expanded role for victims in the justice system. That role is enshrined in the Canadian Statement of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime. Originally drafted in 1988 and renewed in 2003, this statement contains principles for the promotion of access to justice, fair treatment, and assistance for victims of crime.

The federal government also made legislative changes to provide victims of crime with protections. Recent changes include Bill C-79, which was introduced in 1999. This legislation amended the Criminal Code in several areas, such as:

Amendments have also recently been made to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to provide victims with the opportunity to present prepared victim statements at parole board hearings.

Purpose of the Survey

The multi-site survey was conducted under the Victims of Crime Initiative, which, through the Policy Centre for Victim Issues of the Department of Justice Canada, brings together federal, provincial, and territorial governments to respond to the needs of victims and improve victims' experiences in the criminal justice system.

The purpose of this survey is to gather information on a wide range of issues concerning the criminal justice system as it pertains to victims and criminal justice professionals, with a particular emphasis on recent Criminal Code provisions as outlined above. Findings from this study will generate evidence to inform future legislative reforms and policy changes by providing insight on the following issues:

Methodology

The multi-site survey was conducted in 16 sites within the 10 provinces of Canada; the territories were not included in this study. The 16 sites represent five regions: Atlantic (Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, and Newfoundland and Labrador), Quebec, Ontario, Prairie (Saskatchewan and Manitoba), and Western (British Columbia and Alberta). Each region included at least three sites of varying size (small, medium, and large cities), with consideration of diversity in geography (rural, urban, northern) and population (especially cultural and linguistic). A subcommittee of the Federal Provincial Territorial Working Group (FPTWG) on Victims of Crime guided the research team and recommended some of the selected site locations.

Data for this study came from criminal justice professionals and victims of crime. A total of 112 victims of crime participated in in-depth interviews, which were conducted in order to obtain detailed data on each individual victim's experience in the criminal justice system. Victim services providers assisted in contacting victims and obtaining their consent to participate in the study, which may have introduced selection bias into the research.

Criminal justice professionals who participated in the study were from 10 different groups: judges, Crown Attorneys, defence counsel, police, victim services providers, victim advocacy groups, probation officers; and three types of parole representatives (from the National Parole Board [NPB], Correctional Service Canada [CSC], and the provincial parole boards in Quebec, Ontario, and British Columbia). They participated through either self-administered questionnaires or interviews. Relying on two forms of data collection allowed for the most complete method of gathering information on the research questions. The use of self-administered questionnaires ensured that a large proportion of the criminal justice professionals in each site could participate, while the use of interviews meant that more in-depth, qualitative data could also be obtained.

Interviews were conducted with 214 criminal justice professionals from five respondent groups: victim services providers; police; Crown Attorneys; judiciary; and defence counsel. Interview results were captured as part of the quantitative data corresponding to that generated by the self-administered surveys. Self-administered questionnaires were also distributed to all ten respondent groups. A total of 1,664 criminal justice professionals completed the self-administered questionnaire. Overall (in interviews and self-administered questionnaires), a total of 1,878 criminal justice professionals participated in this survey.

Findings

Responsibility of Criminal Justice Professionals

Criminal justice professionals surveyed generally agreed that victims of crime have a legitimate role to play in the criminal justice process. Although victim services providers and advocacy organizations were the most supportive of an active role for victims, other criminal justice professionals also believe that victims are entitled to be consulted, particularly before irrevocable steps are taken. In fact, survey results show that police, Crown Attorneys, and judges consider their main responsibilities to victims of crime to include keeping victims informed of the status of their case, providing them an opportunity to be heard, and taking their views into account at various stages of the criminal proceedings. Despite supporting consultation, however, criminal justice professionals also believe that victims may not fully understand the intricacies of the legal system and therefore should not be the ultimate decision-makers.

Services for Victims

Seventy-five (67%) of the 112 victim respondents were victims of serious violent crimes. Almost nine-tenths received some form of assistance in the criminal justice system. Almost all victims received information about their case or the justice system, about half received assistance with counselling and witness support, and about 40% received help with preparing a victim impact statement. Victims considered counselling and emotional support, the provision of information, and general assistance from victim services as the most helpful assistance they received. These kinds of assistance correspond to the services offered by victim services providers surveyed. Over three-fourths reported providing crisis support, informing victims about court processes, and helping victims prepare for trial. Just over half provide counselling.

Almost all victims were referred to the victim services organizations where they received services. They stressed the importance of giving information about available services shortly after the crime because most victims are not aware of victim services. Victim services providers also commented in interviews that there is a lack of awareness of victim services. Both victims and victim services providers said that victims are often overwhelmed and traumatized after the crime. Consequently, it was suggested that information about victim services should come from a variety of methods (written and oral) and, according to victim services providers, should be provided at various points throughout the process. Both victims and victim services providers said that more public education would also be beneficial.

Initiating contact with victims must be treated carefully. While half of victims said that they would prefer victim services to take the initiative, about one-quarter would prefer to contact victim services themselves. Those who preferred to be contacted noted that victims are often too traumatized or embarrassed to call; however, those who would rather initiate contact themselves said that this allowed them to feel more in control and that they do not like being contacted by someone they do not know. Several victims suggested that both options be available and that victim services only initiate contact with those who have given consent or after a reasonable period of time has passed without hearing from the victim.

Victim services providers, police, and advocacy groups who were surveyed identified a number of challenges in providing accessible services. The challenge most commonly identified was accommodating victims whose first language is not English or French. A related concern is that victim services do not respond to cultural needs. Because different cultures react differently to being victimized, respondents identified a need for more culturally sensitive services and training for victim services providers. Respondents also said that financial issues, such as the need to pay for transportation and childcare, limit accessibility to victim services. Other challenges to accessibility were: lack of victim services in rural locations, the need for victim services to respond to the needs of both genders, and physical barriers for persons with disabilities. Those involved in the post-sentencing phase also indicated a need to better connect victims to available services. During this phase, victims do not usually receive information without first registering with the National Parole Board (NPB) or Correctional Service Canada (CSC). Survey respondents from these organizations identified a gap between victim services in sentencing, and in corrections and parole largely because victims are unaware of the post-sentencing services available.

Information for Victims

Victim services providers, advocacy groups, Crown Attorneys, and police who were surveyed generally agreed that victims usually receive adequate information about court dates, conditions of release, and case outcomes. The victims interviewed supported this view. About nine-tenths of victims involved in a case that went to trial said that they were told about important trial dates, and two-thirds said that they were told about changes in trial dates and received updates on their case. Over four-fifths were told the outcome of their case. In cases where the offender received probation, four-fifths of victims said that they were told whether conditions were placed on the offender; however, in cases where the offender was released pending trial, just over half of victims were told about conditions of release.

Between 60% and 70% of victims reported receiving information about their role in court as a witness, about the role of the Crown Attorney, and about the criminal justice system in general. A similar proportion of victims whose cases reached these various stages were told whether the accused was released on bail, whether the accused pleaded guilty, where the offender was incarcerated, the date the sentence began, and the length of the sentence. Victims often received information on sentencing because they were present in court.

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

Overall, more than 60% of victims agreed that, in general, they received a sufficient amount and type of information in a timely manner. Those who were dissatisfied most often explained that the information they received was limited, inaccurate, or confusing. Other sources of dissatisfaction included having to initiate contact with a criminal justice professional or seek out information on their own; and receiving inconsistent information because of turnover in the investigating officer, Crown Attorney, or victim services worker dealing with their case.

In interviews, victim services providers characterized the provision of information as sporadic, inconsistent, and often dependent on the nature of the offence or on the individual investigator or Crown Attorney assigned to the case. They believe that victims are more likely to receive information from police or the Crown Attorney when the victim initiates contact him or herself or if victim services are involved. These shortcomings appear to be largely the result of the time and resource constraints that criminal justice professionals face. In interviews, Crown Attorneys, police, and victim services providers agreed that the sheer volume of cases in the system makes it impossible to provide all victims of crime with all of the information they may want or require.

Other perceived obstacles to information provision include lack of collaboration and coordination among agencies, privacy legislation and policies that restrict information sharing, and, in some cases, victim transiency and reluctance to be contacted.

Victims' suggestions for improvement in information provision included, most commonly, regular contact and follow-up by police and Crown Attorneys to keep victims abreast of developments in their case, as well as providing information at the outset of the victim's involvement with the system, providing more detailed information and more in print form, and providing information through a single source. As to the latter suggestion, the criminal justice professionals surveyed did not, for the most part, agree on who is responsible for providing information to victims and tend to regard information provision as a shared duty rather than the sole responsibility of a single agency. However, in interviews, Crown Attorneys, police, and victim services providers did suggest that information provision to victims could be improved by stronger links among agencies and development of clear guidelines on agencies' responsibilities in providing information.

When asked what kinds of information victims of crime most want to receive, victims most often mentioned updates on the status of the police investigation and their court case, followed by information about the criminal justice system in general.

Consideration of Victim Safety at Bail

The criminal justice professionals surveyed regard victim safety as an important consideration in bail determinations, and about 70% of victims interviewed said that they made their safety concerns known, most often to police. Those who did not make their concerns known most often explained that no one asked them about safety issues.

Police reported using a variety of methods to ensure that victims' safety concerns are considered at bail; most commonly, they prepare a written submission to the Crown Attorney that includes recommendations for specific bail conditions following the investigation. Although Crown Attorneys seldom call the victim as a witness in bail hearings, virtually all generally request specific conditions to address the victim's safety at bail. Almost all defence counsel usually agree to requests for specific conditions, provided that these requests are reasonable, and almost all judges generally impose conditions for the victim's safety. Furthermore, more than three-quarters of judges said that they ask about safety issues if the Crown Attorney has not mentioned them, but, in interviews, judges noted that this is rarely necessary because the Crown Attorney is very diligent about bringing these issues to the attention of the court.

Nevertheless, only about one-third of victim services providers and advocacy organizations surveyed and 40% of victims involved in cases where the accused was charged believe that the victim's safety is generally considered at bail determinations. Victims who believe that their safety was not considered, most often explained that the conditions were either insufficient or not respected.

Provisions to Facilitate Testimony and Victims' Experience with Testifying

Publication Bans

Publication bans in non-sexual offences and exclusion of the public from a trial are used only in the most exceptional circumstances. Fewer than half of judges reported having ever granted a publication ban in non-sexual offences (about one quarter) or having ever granted the exclusion of the public (39%). Crown Attorneys, judges, and defence counsel agreed that an open court is essential to maintaining public confidence in the criminal justice system.

Support Persons

Of the various provisions to facilitate testimony, the use of support persons to accompany a young witness or a witness with a mental or physical disability appears to be the least controversial and the most widely used. More than three-quarters of Crown Attorneys generally request that a support person accompany such witnesses, and two-thirds of defence counsel generally agree to requests. Over 80% of judges typically grant requests.

Testimonial Aids

Of the three testimonial aids designed to assist young witnesses or those with a mental or physical disability (i.e., the use of screens, videotape or closed-circuit television) screens appear to be the most popular among Crown Attorneys, defence counsel, and judges. About 60% of Crown Attorneys surveyed reported generally requesting the use of a screen in appropriate cases, and a similar proportion of defence counsel generally agree to its use. More than 80% of judges generally grant the use of screens.

Videotaped testimony is used by slightly fewer Crown Attorneys and is more often objected to by defence counsel. Just over half of Crown Attorneys request videotaped testimony in appropriate cases, but less than one-quarter of defence counsel agree to it. They object primarily on the grounds that it interferes with effective cross-examination. Crown Attorneys, for their part, also perceive difficulties with videotaped testimony, including poor quality interviews and the fact that it does not relieve witnesses of being cross-examined by defence counsel. Over 60% of judges reported granting the use of video taped testimony.

Closed-circuit television is the least likely of the three aids to be requested by Crown Attorneys; fewer than 40% generally request it in appropriate cases, although over 40% of defence counsel generally agree to its use. Over 60% of judges reported that they usually grant these requests.

Overall, Crown Attorney requests for testimonial aids are quite common in eligible cases, provided that the necessary technology is available. However, many Crown Attorneys explained that they do not request an aid unless there is a compelling reason to do so, and many reported having as much success without the aids as with them. Judges likewise displayed considerable willingness to grant the use of testimonial aids in eligible cases, but also emphasized the need for the Crown Attorney to present compelling evidence that the aids are truly necessary. Defence counsel expressed serious reservations about the use of testimonial aids on the grounds that these aids violate fundamental principles of the criminal justice system intended to protect the accused.

Victim services providers and advocacy organizations had relatively little to say on the subject of testimonial aids, but those who offered a response believe that victims are not sufficiently aware and informed of these protections, and that they should be used more often and afforded to victims beyond the statutory age and disability requirements.

Section 486 (2.3)

(This section of the Criminal Code restricts cross-examination of a child victim and witness under the age of 18 by a self-represented accused.) A relatively small proportion of criminal justice professionals surveyed (just over one-quarter of Crown Attorneys and one-fifth of judges) has been involved in cases where section 486 (2.3) applied. Of these respondents, a large majority of Crown Attorneys reported that they would request that counsel be appointed in these cases, and over four-fifths of judges reported that they would appoint counsel for the purpose of cross-examination. Seven judges reported allowing the accused to cross-examine a young victim since section 486 (2.3) was adopted.

There was considerable support for expanding section 486 (2.3) to other offences and/or other witnesses. Three-quarters of victim services providers and advocacy groups favoured expansion, compared to half of Crown Attorneys and one-quarter of defence counsel. Across all categories of criminal justice professionals surveyed, support was most widespread for expanding the section to adult witnesses in the category of offences to which it currently applies.

Victim Experiences with Testifying

One-third of victims who participated in this study were involved in cases that went to trial, and of these, two-thirds testified at the trial. With only a few exceptions, all of those who testified received help in preparing for testimony, most often from victim services. Just over half of those who testified reported that they felt prepared for it, and almost all of these victims attributed their preparedness to the support they received prior to and during testimony. Those who felt unprepared either felt frightened, threatened, or revictimized, or said that they had had inadequate time to prepare. When asked for ways to make testifying less stressful, victims most often suggested better explanations of the court process and of what to expect in the courtroom, and improved protections or wider availability of existing protections.

A small proportion of victims interviewed were eligible for testimonial aids and/or protections to facilitate testimony. Nine victims received information about any of the above-mentioned provisions. Four of these victims actually received one or more of the protections (the remaining five did not testify, have not yet testified, or declined the aids). Of the four who received protections, three had publication bans (two in cases involving sexual offences and one in a stalking case), and one was accompanied by a support person and granted a ban on cross-examination by the self-represented accused under section 486 (2.3). In addition, one victim who was not given information about the protections subsequently received a publication ban. The five victims were divided on the question of the effectiveness of these protections. Three victims did not find these protections effective. Two said that the protections did help them to testify. The victim accompanied by the support person and protected from cross-examination by the accused said that the protections made her more comfortable.