Multi-Site Survey of Victims of Crime and Criminal Justice Professionals across Canada
4. Findings From Criminal Justice Professionals (continued)
4. Findings From Criminal Justice Professionals (continued)
4.8 Victim Impact Statements (VIS)
Victim impact statements are written statements in which victims can describe the effect of the crime on them and any harm or loss suffered as a result of the crime. The 1999 amendments to the Criminal Code allow victims to read their statements aloud during sentencing; require the judge to ask before sentencing whether the victim has been informed of the opportunity to complete a VIS; and permit the judge to adjourn the sentencing, to give the victim time to prepare the statement.
Victims of crime can submit victim impact statements at sentencing and at parole. At parole, the victim can rely on the victim impact statement from sentencing and/or provide another statement to the parole board. The following discussion considers victim impact statements at sentencing and at parole separately.
4.8.1 At Sentencing
Frequency of Submission
Survey respondents were asked whether, based on their experience, victims generally submit victim impact statements to the court. About one-third of victim services providers did not comment on the frequency of victim impact statement submissions. This rather large proportion is largely explained by the fact that about one-third of those surveyed do not assist victims with impact statements; these providers are, therefore, likely to have limited knowledge of victim impact statements.
Criminal justice professionals were divided about the frequency with which victim impact statements are submitted. In most respondent categories (Crown Attorneys, defence counsel, judiciary, police, and probation), a plurality of respondents (ranging from about 40-50%) believe that victims generally submit victim impact statements only in serious cases, such as sexual assault, other violent offences, and certain property crimes. In these respondent categories, about one-third think that victim impact statements are submitted in most cases, and about one-fifth reported that in their experience, victims usually do not submit victim impact statements, regardless of the severity of the offence.
Among victim services providers and advocacy groups who responded to the survey, more believe that victims submit victim impact statements in most cases, than those who think that victims submit the statements only in serious cases. This different perception may be because Crown Attorneys, judges, police, and defence counsel experience a wider range of cases, while victim services providers and advocacy groups tend to be involved in the more serious cases.
The results for frequency of submission of victim impact statements are provided in Table 64. These results include only those respondents who provided an answer to this question.[28]
Table 64 : Do victims usually submit victim impacts statements at sentencing?
Providing Information on Impact Statements
Related to the issue of whether victims submit victim impact statements is the provision of information to victims about the statements. If awareness is low, submission rates will be correspondingly low. In interviews, a few Crown Attorneys, defence counsel, and victim services providers questioned whether criminal justice professionals are completely fulfilling their roles concerning victim impact statements when discussing the frequency of submission of these statements. A few Crown Attorneys expressed their belief that victims may not be adequately informed of victim impact statements. Some noted that it is the responsibility of police to inform victims of the opportunity to submit victim impact statements and questioned whether they are routinely doing so.[29]
In contrast, a few defence counsel who were interviewed ascribe the submission rate to lack of Crown Attorney diligence. According to these defence counsel, Crown Attorneys either do not pursue getting victim impact statements or they receive the statements but do not submit them to the court. The perception among these defence counsel is that Crown Attorneys believe they can more effectively present the victim's interest in sentencing or that they view the victim impact statement as redundant because the judge has already heard the victim's testimony. Statements made by Crown Attorneys at one site support this perception; they reported not always submitting the victim impact statement to the court and, instead, simply telling the court what the victim has experienced.[30]
Victim services providers were asked if they thought that most victims were made aware of victim impact statements and, if not, what might be done to inform victims of their opportunity to give a statement. While about half (53%) of victim services providers surveyed believe that most victims are made aware of victim impact statements, one-fifth do not. The remaining respondents did not respond (26%).
Victim services providers made several suggestions for how to better inform victims. Most often they believe that victim services should take the primary role in providing information to victims (n=20). Suggestions included: mailing an information package or a fact sheet along with the victim impact statement to all victims (n=16); having all agencies and criminal justice professionals provide information at various stages of the process (n=12); and simply providing more communication and better follow-up with victims (n=13).
In interviews, several victim services providers stressed the importance of using a variety of methods for informing victims (e.g., personal letter, brochure, telephone call, in person visit) and providing follow-up that includes explanations, assistance, and support. A few victim services providers believe that verbal communication facilitates understanding and is therefore the most effective means of informing victims.
When asked what would be the best time to inform victims about victim impact statements, victim services providers who were surveyed suggested many different points during the process, including as soon as possible after the offence (52%), after someone is arrested and charged (46%), and just before the trial is scheduled (26%). However, among victim services providers interviewed, depending on the nature of the offence, there was general agreement that victims may be too traumatized to absorb information if it is provided too soon after the crime. For this reason, they said that while the information should be provided as soon as possible, several reminders should be given throughout the victims' involvement with the criminal justice system.
Table 65 provides respondents' opinions on best times to inform victims about victim impact statements for use at sentencing.
Table 65 : Best times to inform victims about victim impact statements for use at sentencing
Assistance in Preparation
Victim services providers were asked if they assist victims with victim impact statements and, if so, what types of assistance they provide. Over 90% of those surveyed said that they explain the kinds of information that can be included in victim impact statements and give general instructions on how to complete them. Over half of the victim services providers said that they assist in preparation of statements by helping victims formulate their thoughts. Around two-thirds help victims complete the statement by taking notes as the victim speaks about the crime or by reviewing the statement completed by the victim. In interviews, several victim services providers further explained that assisting victims with their statements is often done to address literacy or other special needs.
Several victim services providers who were interviewed reiterated that they give advice on what to include in the statement and also explain to victims how the impact of crime may be manifested. A few mentioned that victims often do not recognize the effects of the trauma they have experienced. Several victim services providers explained that although they assist victims with expressing their feelings, they try to keep the victim impact statement in the victim's own words. A few, however, indicated that they do not provide any suggestions of what to include, nor do they help victims formulate their thoughts; they will only write down word-for-word what the victim says so as to prevent influencing the statement. Table 66 presents the types of assistance victim services providers offer for victim impact statements.
Table 66 : What types of assistance do you provide for victim impact statements at sentencing ?
Method of Submission
Many victim services providers surveyed are not directly involved in the submission of victim impact statements and could not respond to the survey question about the most common method of submission. However, 194 were able to respond and were generally in agreement with the other professions that answered.
Of the 666 respondents with sufficient experience to respond, close to 80% or more of Crown Attorneys, defence counsel, judges, and victim services providers agreed that victim impact statements are usually submitted in writing only. About one-fifth of survey respondents reported that Crown Attorneys read the statement. More victim services providers perceive that victims most commonly read their statement in court than do Crown Attorneys, judges, and defence counsel (18% compared to 5%, 7%, and 2%, respectively).[31] Table 67 provides the survey results of those respondents who were able to answer this question.
| Victim Services (n=194) | Crown Attorneys (n=184) | Defence Counsel (n=180) | Judiciary (n=108) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Written statement only | 82% | 90% | 79% | 87% |
| Victim reads statement | 18% | 5% | 2% | 7% |
| Crown Attorney reads statement | 16% | 21% | 18% | 16% |
| Other | 2% | 3% | 4% | -- |
Note: Respondents could provide more than one response; totals sum to more than 100%.
According to those interviewed, it is more common for the Crown Attorney or the judge to reference the victim impact statement than for the statement to be read in court. With only one exception, all Crown Attorneys said that victims rarely express a desire to read their statements in court; the victim reading his or her statement is apparently more common in very serious cases involving violence against the person. However, while few victims choose to read their statements, victim services providers commented that many of these victims believe that this is the only way for them to be heard.
Timing of Submission
When to submit victim impact statements produced conflicting views among Crown Attorneys. Early receipt of the statement ensures that it is considered during plea negotiations; however, the requirement of disclosing the victim impact statement to the defence counsel before trial puts the victim at risk of being cross-examined on the statement. Because of these competing concerns, Crown Attorneys were divided when asked about the best time for them to receive victim impact statements. Half (50%) of those surveyed prefer to receive victim impact statements as soon as possible (i.e., as soon as they receive the file or before beginning plea negotiations), and 44% think that it is better to receive them only after a finding of guilt.
Crown Attorneys who hold the former view said in interviews that victim impact statements assist them in preparing cases and negotiating pleas. These Crown Attorneys do not regard as problematic the obligation to disclose victim impact statements to defence counsel; on the contrary, they are of the view that such disclosure assists in the negotiation of a plea. Several of these Crown Attorneys also pointed out that having the victim impact statement early in the case helps to ensure that the contents of the statement will not damage the case. These Crown Attorneys disagree with the current Criminal Code provision stating that victim impact statements shall be submitted after a finding of guilt. They argued that this provision obliges Crown Attorneys and defence counsel to make decisions on possible plea agreements without full knowledge and creates the potential for victim impact statements to contain information that differs from or contradicts the evidence presented at trial. If the information contained in the victim impact statement supports a lesser or a more serious charge after a conviction or guilty plea has already been entered, the court faces a dilemma.
While they were not asked directly about this issue in their interviews, several victim services providers also commented on a problem encountered by victims if they wait too long before submitting a victim impact statement. According to these interviewees, there are times when the conviction and sentencing happen too quickly for victims to submit a victim impact statement to the court. However, several Crown Attorneys noted in interviews that there is no point in receiving the statement early because it may not be necessary (e.g., in the event that there is a stay or an acquittal). A few Crown Attorneys made the point that submitting the statement after a finding of guilt helps to ensure that it will be relevant and up to date at the time of sentencing and will not need to be revised. In addition, taking more time allows for a more complete statement.
While these timing issues raise important concerns, the submission of victim impact statements is not treated uniformly across the sites, and victims often receive little information about the pros and cons of early submission. In some sites, the victim either submits his or her statement directly to the court registry or to victim services who, in turn, provides it to the court. With these methods, the Crown Attorney, defence counsel, and the judge all receive the victim impact statement after the finding of guilt. In other sites, the Crown Attorney receives the victim impact statement earlier because the instructions to victims included with the victim impact statement form advise them to submit the statement right away and/or the forms are sent with a return envelope addressed to the Crown Attorney. In these jurisdictions, unless victims seek assistance, they will not receive full information on the best time to submit a victim impact statement.
Cross-examination of Victim
Defence counsel can cross-examine victims on their victim impact statements both at trial (if the statement is received before a finding of guilt) and at sentencing. The survey results in Table 68 show that about one-quarter of Crown Attorneys, one-fifth of defence counsel, and one-tenth of judges have been involved in a case where the victim was cross-examined on his or her impact statement at trial or at sentencing. In some sites, the possibility of cross-examining the victim on the victim impact statement at trial is forestalled because the Crown Attorney, court, and defence counsel only receive the statement after a finding of guilt.
| Crown Attorneys (N=188) | Defence Counsel (N=185) | Judiciary (N=110) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | 24% | 20% | 12% |
| No | 71% | 71% | 80% |
| Don't know | 3% | 4% | 3% |
| No response | 3% | 5% | 6% |
| Crown Attorneys (N=188) | Defence Counsel (N=185) | Judiciary (N=110) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | 26% | 23% | 10% |
| No | 65% | 70% | 80% |
| Don't know | 6% | 3% | 5% |
| No response | 3% | 5% | 6% |
Note: Respondents could provide only one response. Some totals sum to more than 100% due to rounding.
In interviews, Crown Attorneys commented that cross-examination on victim impact statements is quite rare. It occurs because the contents of the statement differ from the evidence presented at trial or because the defence counsel is sceptical about a victim's claims of ongoing effects or injuries. Surveyed defence counsel and judges concurred. The few defence counsel who reported cross-examining the victim said that they did so either to contest inappropriate or irrelevant material (e.g., prior, unrelated history with the accused) or to test the victim's credibility, in part because of inconsistencies between the victim impact statement and the victim's earlier statements. Judges also cited the inclusion of contradictory facts or facts not in evidence as some of the few instances where they would allow cross-examination on a victim impact statement.
In interviews, defence counsel and Crown Attorneys said that cross-examination of the victim is so infrequent because they usually can agree to excise prejudicial information or other inadmissible material before submitting the victim impact statement to the court. Several defence counsel also said that they rely on the judge either to intervene and refuse the victim impact statement or to disregard the irrelevant portions. A few defence counsel mentioned that while they had not cross-examined the victim on the impact statement, they did argue the impact statement during sentencing and question its claims.
Judicial Use of Victim Impact Statements
As mentioned above, under the 1999 amendments to the Criminal Code, judges must inquire before sentencing whether the victim has been advised of the opportunity to prepare a victim impact statement and can adjourn the sentencing hearing to allow a victim to be informed and prepare an impact statement. Among the judges surveyed, in cases where no victim impact statement is submitted, one-third (32%) always make this inquiry, and one-fifth (19%) usually do. However, the remaining half said that they sometimes (17%), rarely (16%), or never (14%) ask whether the victim has been informed. Over one-third (36%) of judges reported that they have adjourned a sentencing hearing to permit the victim to be informed.[32]
The Crown Attorney survey corresponds to these results with one-third (30%) of Crown Attorneys reporting that in cases where no victim impact statement is submitted, judges generally ask whether the victim has been informed about impact statements. However, Crown Attorneys also reported that, when no victim impact statement is submitted, they often do not contact the victim about whether he or she wants to submit a victim impact statement. Less than one-tenth (7%) reported that they always contact the victim and one-fifth (19%) said that they usually do.
When victim impact statements are submitted, judges have discretion to disallow parts of the statements. When asked if they have had to disallow parts of victim impact statements, close to half (44%) of judges surveyed said that they have. The most common reasons given for disallowing part of an impact statement included: the statement contained irrelevant or inappropriate content; the statement contained the victim's views on sentencing; and the statement gave a different version of the offence. In interviews, judges said that rather than disallow portions of the impact statement, they usually just disregard the inappropriate sections.
Under the Criminal Code, judges must consider victim impact statements at the time of sentencing. Eighty-six percent of Crown Attorneys surveyed reported that they remind judges to consider victim impact statements in cases where a statement is submitted. Similarly, 82% of judges reported that they use victim impact statements in determining the sentence. About two-thirds of surveyed judges provided further comments about their use of victim impact statements. The most common reflections were that victim impact statements are considered like all other relevant information and that judges use them to help determine the length of sentence and the severity of the offence. However, judges also noted in interviews that the use of victim impact statements is carefully circumscribed; while victim impact statements can provide relevant information, they do not and cannot influence sentencing to the extent that they express a desire for outcomes that differ from those defined by the Criminal Code.
In interviews, Crown Attorneys expressed the belief that victim impact statements have a limited impact on sentencing. Although they believe that judges consider the statements, they also think that judges do not and should not base their sentencing decisions on them (the few Crown Attorneys who argued that victim impact statements should play a more prominent role in sentencing decisions were a distinct minority). Crown Attorneys pointed out that the victim impact statement is one of numerous factors that judges must consider when determining a sentence. Furthermore, judges must remain objective and fair and must impose sentences that are consistent with the Criminal Code and case law.
Obstacles to the Use of Victim Impact Statements
The different categories of criminal justice professionals had very different survey responses to whether there are obstacles or problems with victim impact statements. (Please note that the question asked of defence counsel was slightly different, but similar, to the question asked of Crown Attorneys and victim services: "Are there any problems with the use of victim impact statements?"
for defence counsel compared to "Are there any obstacles to the use of victim impact statements?"
) Defence counsel perceived the most difficulties, with 80% of defence counsel surveyed reporting problems with victim impact statements. As shown in Table 69 below, about half of Crown Attorneys (48%), one-third (30%) of victim services providers, and one-fifth (19%) of police also believe that there are obstacles to the use of victim impact statements. Over a third of victim services providers and police could not provide an answer.
| Victim services (N=318) | Crown Attorneys (N=188) | Defence Counsel (N=185) | Police (N=686) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | 30% | 48% | 80% | 19% |
| No | 22% | 43% | 14% | 45% |
| Don't know | 43% | 6% | 6% | 36% |
| No response | 5% | 3% | 1% | 1% |
Note: Respondents could provide more than one response; totals sum to more than 100%.
Crown Attorneys, defence counsel, victim services providers, and police were asked to explain why they believe there are obstacles to or problems with the use of victim impact statements. Table 70 shows the main reasons cited; and the results are discussed in more detail below.
Table 70 : Obstacles or problems with victim impact statements
While respondents to the victim services and police surveys did not mention this issue, for Crown Attorneys and defence counsel (43% and 31 %, respectively), the biggest obstacle or problem is the inclusion of inappropriate or irrelevant material. In interviews, several Crown Attorneys and defence counsel observed that rather than restricting themselves to a description of the impact of the crime, victims frequently include a recitation of the facts of the case; refer to the offender's alleged involvement in other criminal activities; or offer their views on sentencing. In their survey responses, defence counsel also mentioned several other concerns involving the information contained in victim impact statements. According to one-fifth of defence counsel, victim impact statements can contain inflammatory claims that introduce bias into the process (18%). One-tenth of defence counsel also noted that victim impact statements sometimes contain new information or information that contradicts the evidence presented in court.
An issue related to the inclusion of inappropriate information is the need to disclose the victim impact statement to defence counsel. This creates the possibility of defence counsel objections to the victim impact statement or cross-examination on the statement either at trial or sentencing. For Crown Attorneys (18%), victim services providers (16%), and police (21 %) this was an important obstacle, leading to victims or Crown Attorneys not submitting victim impact statements. In interviews, Crown Attorneys said that the victim impact statement can be detrimental to the Crown Attorney's case; it can make the victim more vulnerable and strengthen the defence. Several Crown Attorneys said that they do not use the victim impact statement if the claims contained in it are improbable or the victim is not credible.
Victim services providers felt that the disclosure of the victim impact statement to the defence counsel may prevent victims from submitting a statement for fear of being questioned on its content. For defence counsel, the issue is not their objections to victim impact statements; rather, they reported feeling limited in the action they can take because challenging victim impact statements is viewed so negatively.
To victim services providers, the biggest obstacles to victim impact statements are difficulties with preparing the statement (32%) and literacy or language barriers (30%). In interviews, victim services providers commented on the lack of guidance and information on victim impact statements to both victims and criminal justice professionals as an important obstacle. This lack of guidance includes the applicable Criminal Code provisions, which victim services providers believe do not clearly describe and, in fact, overly restrict the information victims can include in their victim impact statements. For example, in cases where the charges are reduced or in cases of domestic violence, victims find it challenging not to speak of incidents beyond the offence for which the accused is being sentenced. Rather than seeing the legislation as unclear or overly restrictive, a few Crown Attorneys and defence counsel commented in their interviews that some victims do not appear to understand the purpose of the victim impact statements. They attribute this either to possible literacy or language issues (Crown Attorneys) or to the lack of assistance in explaining and reviewing the statements (Crown Attorneys and defence counsel).
With respect to literacy issues, victim services providers indicated in interviews that many victims have difficulties reading and writing, and these problems are not easily detected because many victims are too embarrassed to mention problems with literacy. A few suggested that victim service providers be more proactive in giving victims options that could address any literacy issues, such as videotaped impact statements. A few Crown Attorneys also mentioned literacy and language barriers in both the survey and interviews.
Other obstacles to the use of victim impact statements mentioned by respondents to the victim services survey included: the lack of awareness of victim impact statements (17%); time constraints such that victims do not always have enough time to complete the statement (this occurs most often in cases where a plea is quickly agreed to) (16%); Crown Attorney or judicial reluctance to consider victim impact statements (10%); the perception of victims that the statements are not considered (8%); and victim fear or reluctance (5%). A smaller number of Crown Attorneys surveyed mentioned time constraints as an obstacle (7%). Instead, other obstacles receiving more mention by Crown Attorneys are delays in the court proceedings caused by adjournments needed to inform victims about victim impact statements (11 %) and victim disinterest in submitting a statement (6%). For defence counsel, other difficulties are that victim impact statements may cause judges to deviate from sentencing guidelines (14%), that the impact statements inappropriately inject emotions into the criminal justice process (13%), and that they are difficult to challenge (10%).
Benefits
In interviews, victim services providers were asked to comment on the benefits of victim impact statements. The most cited benefit was that victim impact statements allow victims to express themselves. Through the statement, they can make both the judge and offender aware of the crime's effect on them. Several victim services providers mentioned the importance of the victim having the opportunity to address the judge because the victim impact statement renders victims' experiences more real for judges. Several victim services providers also stated that victims feel acknowledged and considered after having submitted the victim impact statement.
Another benefit to submitting a victim impact statement cited by several of the victim services providers interviewed is that it provides victims with a sense of closure; it is therapeutic for victims to write down their feelings and thoughts on the crime and its impacts. A few believe that submitting the victim impact statement allows victims to regain power and control. In addition, they indicated that submitting a victim impact statement makes many victims feel as though they contributed and provided input into the criminal justice system.
Several victim services providers believe that reading the victim impact statement in court has unique benefits for victims. Most commonly, respondents indicated that this method of submission has a greater impact on the court and the offender. Reading the victim impact statement makes it more powerful by publicly acknowledging the victimization. A few victim services providers believe that when a victim reads his or her statement, he or she is further empowered and gains increased control.
The decision to read a victim impact statement in court is very personal; respondents said that many victims are incapable of reading their statement because the court process intimidates them. For other victims, having their emotions exposed publicly leads to feelings of increased vulnerability. A few victim services providers expressed the concern that victims who are able to read their statements receive more attention and are given more of a voice in the system than those who do not desire to read them.
Finally, a few victim services providers believe that most children have not recovered enough to prepare a victim impact statement. According to these providers, many children feel that their privacy is violated because the contents of their statement are available to the accused, the defence counsel, and the public.
4.8.2 At Parole
Frequency of Submission
Very few of the victim services providers or advocacy groups surveyed could comment on the frequency of victim impact statement submission at parole hearings; 76% of victim services providers and 57% of advocacy groups surveyed did not provide an answer. Opinion was split among those who did respond, particularly among victim services providers who were evenly divided among those who believe that impact statements are usually submitted only in serious cases (8%), in most cases (9%), or not at all (8%). Most advocacy group respondents (26%) believe that victims submit statements only in serious cases; 15% said that victims usually do not submit statements; and 2% said that they do in most cases.
As mentioned earlier, at parole, the victim can rely on the victim impact statement from sentencing and/or provide another statement to the parole board. Provincial parole board and NPB respondents were asked whether victim impact statements submitted at trial are always provided to the parole board. Less than one-quarter of national (24%) and provincial (18%) parole board respondents reported that they are. National and provincial parole board respondents were asked who provides the parole board with victim impact statements. They reported receiving the impact statements from a variety of sources: most often the victim (39% of NPB and 18% of provincial respondents); the court (33% of NPB and 18% of provincial respondents); the Crown Attorney (33% of NPB and 9% of provincial respondents); or CSC or parole officers (37% of NPB and 23% of provincial respondents).
Assistance with Victim Impact Statements
One way to assist victims with impact statements is to ensure that they know of their opportunity to submit one. Most victim services providers did not know whether victims are made aware of victim impact statements at the parole stage (57%). Of those who could provide an answer, two-thirds (63%) believe that victims are not aware.
As discussed above in Section 4.3 (Services for victims), about one-quarter (27%) of provincial parole board and half (44%) of NPB respondents assist victims in preparing victim statements at parole. In addition, just over one-tenth (13%) of victim services providers surveyed assist victims with statements at parole. These victim services providers offer all types of assistance, as shown in Table 71.
Table 71 : What types of assistance do you provide for victim impact statements at parole ?
Method of Submission
As with victim impact statements at sentencing, most victims provide a written statement at parole. Videotape or audiotape statements appear to be used more by provincial parole boards than by the NPB. Table 72 gives the complete results.
| Victim services (n=67) | NPB (n=84) | Provincial parole board (n=22) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Written statement only | 69% | 87% | 86% |
| Victim reads statement | 25% | 11% | 5% |
| Videotape or audiotape | 13% | 1% | 18% |
| Other | 8% | -- | 18% |
Note: Respondents could provide more than one response; totals sum to more than 100%.
Parole Board Use of Victim Statements
As shown in Table 73, most national and provincial parole board respondents reported that they consider the following in their conditional release decisions: victim impact statements at sentencing, formal victim statements submitted to the parole board, and any other new or additional information provided by the victim in their conditional release decisions.
| Percentage who use the following information: | NPB (N=85) | Provincial parole board (N=22) |
|---|---|---|
| Victim impact statements used at trial | 89% | 73% |
| Formal victim statements to parole board | 93% | 82% |
| New or additional information provided by the victim | 92% | 86% |
Note: Respondents who gave no response are not included in this table.
When asked to explain how they use this information, NPB respondents reported using it in a variety of ways, most commonly: in risk assessment and evaluation (47%); in determining conditions (28%); in measuring the impact of the crime on the victim (24%); and in assessing the offender's progress (15%). The majority (55%) of provincial parole board respondents stated that the victim information is just one factor they consider.
- [28] Victims' responses are discussed in Section 3.6.
- [29] In some provinces, the police provide the victim with the form for completing a victim impact statement and advise them of where to send it. However, the procedure varies from province to province.
- [30] The procedure for victim impact statements is governed by a provincially designated program, and there are some variations in the procedure among provinces.
- [31] A few victim services providers in one large site did not think that victims had the option of reading the victim impact statement in court.
- [32] In interviews, one or two judges said that rather than adjourning, they will sometimes ask victims who are in court at the sentencing hearing if they wish to say anything about the impact of the crime at that time. If the victim is prepared to speak to the court, these judges prefer to solicit the victim's input in this way, rather than delaying the process by adjourning.
- Date modified: