Federal Victim Surcharge in New Brunswick: An Operational Review

2. Methodology

2. Methodology

The methodology used to study the imposition and collection process of the federal victim surcharge in New Brunswick primarily consisted of a qualitative approach. The methodology consisted of 1) interviews with 22 informants to ascertain awareness/attitudes towards the surcharge as well as gather anecdotal evidence on issues surrounding imposition of the surcharge, and 2) on-site file reviews to document imposition/waiving of the federal victim surcharge.

The court offices of one permanent Provincial Court were visited and informal discussions with court officials were conducted to obtain preliminary logistical information on the federal victim surcharge process. Court proceedings were also observed on several occasions at various Provincial Court locations. All pertinent information to be gathered was identified to ensure a comprehensive analysis of the “paper trail” generated during the imposition and collection of the federal victim surcharge could be identified. Coding manuals for the file review were then developed after these site visits. A random sample of 861 cases, from the year 2005-2006, was then drawn from the New Brunswick Justice Information System. All 14 permanent locations of the Provincial Court in New Brunswick within the six administrative regions were sampled.

The information collected during the interviews and file reviews was to be supplemented with a quantitative analysis based on five years of automated data from the New Brunswick Justice Information System. This databank permitted the calculation of the average imposition and collection rates of the federal victim surcharge in New Brunswick Provincial Court locations from 2000 to 2005.

2.1. Quantitative Data (New Brunswick Justice Information System)

The Department of Justice New Brunswick provided data from 2000-2001 to 2004-2005 fiscal years. Fiscal information pertaining to payment of fines and federal victim surcharge was available for all five fiscal years. Average rates of imposition and collection were generated for each of the six administrative regions.

2.2. Case File Review

A systematic manual file review was conducted with court files from all 14 Provincial Court permanent locations across the six administrative regions of New Brunswick, in order to collect information on court federal victim surcharge imposition rates. The 14 locations were: Bathurst, Campbellton, Tracadie-Shediac, Miramichi, Moncton, Richibucto, Saint John, St. Stephen, Hampton, Fredericton, Burton, Woodstock, Edmundston, andGrand Falls. Marked differences in the frequency of waiver of the federal victim surcharge based on study site were anticipated; therefore, in order to achieve the objectives of this study, all 14 locations were sampled. Using data from the New Brunswick Justice Information System, a random sample of 100 convicted cases from each of the 14 Provincial Court locations was selected to be manually reviewed. This provided a total of 1400 potential files for review. Variables collected during the manual file review included: the nature of the active imposition/non-imposition of the Federal victim surcharge and relevant documentation, reasons for non-imposition, evidence cited for undue hardship, and whether the summons portion of the standard fine order was completed.

2.3. Qualitative Data: Interviews with Key Informants

A key informant strategy was used to solicit information from the court’s multidisciplinary team. Prior to interviews, an information letter was sent inviting primary key informants to participate in the review and outlining the topics to be covered. The five primary key informants were:

Each interview was conducted in private using a single Key Informant Interview Protocol developed for this project (Appendix A) except for the Associate Chief Judge who provided written responses to the protocol questions via fax. A single interview protocol was used to bolster convergent validity of the qualitative data collected. In cases where informants did not feel they had an opinion or information regarding the question asked, they were instructed to indicate that lack of insight and the interviewer moved on to the next question. Interviews took approximately 45 minutes to complete.

A second pool of key informants that included judges (n=6) and lawyers (1 duty counsel and 2 defence counsel), were contacted during an additional wave of telephone interviews. In cases where telephone interviews could not be arranged, shortened protocols were emailed/faxed to the informants and written responses were returned. Three of the six judges responded this way. The surveys were composed of the same questions asked during the interviews, but focused on the individual’s area of direct expertise. For instance, judges were asked specific questions regarding imposition practices.

A third pool of key informants, comprised of court supervisors (n=8), were surveyed specifically on issues surrounding documentation and administration of the federal victim surcharge.

Data collected from the total 22 interviews and surveys with all key informants were pooled and subjected to a thematic content analysis.

2.4. A Note on Terminology – Waiver and Imposition

The provision in the Criminal Code stipulates that “ […]an offender […] shall pay a victim surcharge ” (s.737(1)). This mandatory imposition is subject to the exception in s.737(5), whereby the court may waive the surcharge where the offender establishes “undue hardship.” Both the imposition rates and the waiver rates are presented in this study, to provide the complete picture, or “both sides of the coin”. The “imposition rate” in this study reflects cases where the surcharge was actively imposed by the court. That is to say, it reflects those cases where the court neither actively waived the surcharge, nor failed to impose it for other reasons, such as inadvertence.