Victim Impact Statements at Sentencing: Judicial Experiences and Perceptions A Survey of Three Jurisdictions

1. Volume of Hearings and Frequency of Statements


1. Volume of Hearings and Frequency of Statements

1.1 Judges Sentence a Large Number of Offenders Every Month

The caseload in criminal courts creates a large number of sentencing hearings each month. Survey respondents were asked how many sentencing hearings they conducted each month, and the averages were: British Columbia: 55; Alberta: 33; Manitoba: 38. The aggregate average for the three jurisdictions was 42 sentencing hearings per month, lower than the average number reported by judges in Ontario (71). These statistics have important implications for the sentencing process, and in particular for the question of victim input: judges are under great pressure to get through a large number of cases. This prevents them from devoting a considerable amount of court time to any particular case, absent exceptional circumstances. Some apprehension may therefore arise in response to requests to put over a matter, or protract a sentencing hearing, in order to facilitate input from the victim.

1.2 Judges report seeing victim impact statements in only a small percentage of cases

Judges were asked, "In approximately what percentage of all sentencing hearings was a VIS submitted". This survey confirms one of the findings from the previous literature on victim impact schemes identified in the research literature: Victim impact statements are submitted in a relatively small proportion of cases. Across the three jurisdictions, the average percentage was 11%, with little variability among jurisdictions. In British Columbia judges reported that a VIS had been submitted in 8% of cases, compared to 11% in Manitoba and 13% in Alberta.[5]

These statistics are comparable to the survey conducted in Ontario, which found that on average judges reported seeing a victim impact statement in 11% of cases. Although, as will be seen later in this report, judges state that they find them to be a useful source of information, a VIS is clearly part of the record in only a small percentage of cases. One final note must be added. It seems likely that these statistics underestimate, to an unknown extent, the degree of victim participation in sentencing since VIS is not the only avenue by which victims can provide information to the court.  In some locations victims appear to provide the information orally without having submitted a formal statement. As one judge noted on his or her survey, "I conducted 43 sentencing hearings [and] formal VIS were only received and filed once or twice but many victims, especially in circuit locations address the court directly".

1.3 Many judges report an increase in the number of VIS submitted since the statutory amendments of 1999

One of the goals of the 1999 amendments to the victim impact statement provisions in the Criminal Code was to increase the number of victims submitting an impact statement. A critical question with respect to legislative evaluation is whether the amendments have achieved this objective: "Have you noticed any change in the number of victim impact statements submitted since the 1999 amendments?" Table 2 shows that approximately two-thirds of the 2006 total sample (63%) held the view that there had been some increase in the number of statements submitted. Almost one-third (30%) of those reporting an increase believed that the increase had been moderate or significant. One quarter reported no change and 2% perceived a decrease. Eleven percent offered no response or noted that they had been appointed after 1999 and thus were unable to respond to the question (Table 2).

These trends confirm, in three additional jurisdictions, results from the Ontario survey. It would appear then that the reform legislation has had the desired effect of promoting the use of victim statements at sentencing. This is an important finding, one that will also be of interest to other jurisdictions keen to encourage a degree of victim input at sentencing.

Table 2: Have you noticed any change in the number of VIS since the 1999 amendments? (All Three Jurisdictions Combined, N=96)
Yes, a significant increase 4%
Yes, a moderate increase 26%
Yes, a slight increase 33%
No, no change 25%
Slight decrease 2%
Cannot say/ respondent appointed after 1999 11%
Total 100%

Table 3 provides comparisons across the four jurisdictions. As can be seen, a non-trivial proportion of respondents in two jurisdictions (15% in Alberta and Manitoba and 3% in BC) were unable to respond due to the fact that they had been appointed after 1999. Table 3 reveals that significant proportions of judges in all jurisdictions report an increase in the number of VIS submitted since 1999, particularly in Manitoba. Forty-one percent of the Manitoba judges reported a moderate or significant increase in VIS, compared to 32% in Alberta and only 22% in British Columbia (Table 3). The higher rate in Manitoba may be the result of a greater emphasis on victim’s rights by the government of that province. Manitoba has enacted Victims’ Rights legislation that may have itself stimulated greater victim involvement in that province. Additionally, passage of such legislation may be an indication of a greater governmental interest in victim issues in that province that has translated into a greater emphasis there in obtaining VIS.

Table 3: Have you noticed any change in the number of VIS since the 1999 amendments?
  British Columbia (2006) N=37 Alberta (2006) N=42 Manitoba (2006) N=17 Ontario (2002) N=63
Yes, a significant increase 3% 5% 6% 8%
Yes, a moderate increase 19% 27% 35% 25%
Yes, a slight increase 36% 32% 29% 37%
No, no change 33% 22% 12% 30%
Slight decrease 6% -- -- --
Cannot say/ respondent appointed after 1999 3% 15% 15% --
Total 100% 100% 100% 100%

[5] There appears to be variability within provinces in terms of the frequency of statements submitted. As one respondent from British Columbia noted: “Recently, I relocated from [X] to [Y] and have noticed that in Y I am very rarely given VIS whereas in X it was very common to receive them”.