Federal Victim Surcharge in New Brunswick: An Operational Review

3. Results (cont'd)

3.2. Qualitative Analysis: Interviews with Key Informants

There were a total of 22 participants in the study from the New Brunswick justice system. The 14 key informants, excluding the 8 court supervisors, had a wide range in years of experience in the criminal justice system varying from 2 to 31 years. Educational backgrounds and expertise included: economics, business administration, criminology, and law.

Information collected during the interviews was not verified for the accuracy of answers provided. Convergent validity emerged on issues at times in cases where more than one stakeholder stated similar answers; these instances are noted. It was not the intention of the researcher to validate or discredit the answers provided by the interviewees, rather to present, uncensored, the information that was collected during that process. Thus, one will note suggestions offered to reduce waiver rates or to improve collections rates that may not be factually correct or suggestions may present inordinate obstacles for implementation. Sometimes suggestions provided by the key informants are initiatives that have already been implemented by various departments. Interviewees were asked to reflect on answers given and offer any limitations they could anticipate during implementation of their suggestions. These limitations are always noted.

3.2.1. Awareness

In 1999, changes to the Criminal Code made the imposition of the federal victim surcharge automatic. The revenue generated since the amendments were enacted has remained stable. The question has been raised whether the federal victim surcharge is in fact being automatically imposed unless waived by the judge with evidence of undue hardship provided by the offender. To this end the initial line of questioning during the interviews was to probe for an awareness and knowledge of the federal victim surcharge regime. All stakeholders interviewed:

Interviewees were also asked what concrete measures to improve awareness of the federal victim surcharge were they aware of since its inception in 1989 and amendment in 1999. Several initiatives to increase awareness and improve implementation of the federal victim surcharge were mentioned. All measures were recorded uncensored and invalidated and the suggestions are offered in no particular order:

  1. Quick reference grids were created to provide fine and corresponding surcharge amounts for easy application on the Bench; (already available on intranet site).
  2. Various memos were sent out that directly dealt with the federal victim surcharge, i.e., in February 2003 a directive was forwarded to Court Services Division indicating that court services staff were to add surcharge if the court did not impose or waive the surcharge.
  3. Posters in both official languages were posted in clerks’ offices, hallways and courts; posted a minimum of three times.
  4. The Law Society Review has an article reporting on the federal victim surcharge.
  5. Letters sent by the Department of Justice to the Law Society were circulated
  6. Letters to the Chief Judge of the Provincial Court and the Chief Justice of the Court of Queen’s Bench judges under the Deputy Minister’s signature.
  7. Justice Canada provided information sheets/pamphlets relating to the federal victim surcharge and the Public Legal Education and Information Service of New Brunswick (www.legal-info-legale.nb.ca) distributed them.
  8. Changing the conditional sentence, probation and warrants of committals forms to make reference to a victim surcharge that was imposed.

3.2.2. Attitudes

Attitudes towards the federal victim surcharge ranged from emphatic positive endorsements of the federal victim surcharge, such as:

There were also more negative comments with a few interviewees (n=2), who stated that:

The majority of interviewees (n=8), however, held a positive, although qualified, viewpoint, stating that the federal victim surcharge was a good thing, but offered suggestions to improve it, such as:

The general tone of the Associate Chief Judge and 6 other judges interviewed was positive. Comments were noted such as:

Notwithstanding the positive tone of the interviews/surveys, the stakeholders raised several concerns regarding the practicalities of the federal victim surcharge process. These are discussed below. They included: who the real victims are, where the surcharge money goes, and the offender’s lack of understanding about the surcharge.

3.2.2.1. Who are the Victims?

Of the Associate Chief Judge and 6 other judges interviewed, several (n=4) raised the issue about the circumstances of the offenders. Who is the real victim? In many instances, offenders are victims themselves of wretched circumstances and in fact often end up using victim services themselves. To burden an offender with a surcharge to provide services that s/he might use later would be “nonsensical.”

Another stakeholder captured this sentiment succinctly stating, “Simply put…the federal victim surcharge could be viewed by many, particularly the judges, as more hardship in an already difficult life.”

3.2.2.2. Where Does the Money Go?
Judge’s Views

Attitudes centering on expenditure of monies generated from the federal victim surcharge were varied and extreme. Several judges expressed a general lack of knowledge of how NB Victim Services is actually spending the money and an interest in receiving easy-to-read regular communiqués to remedy this. For instance the following suggestions were offered:

Stakeholders’ Views

Conversely, strong enthusiastic endorsements were presented by many stakeholders (n=5):

3.2.2.3. Perceptions of the Offender’s Understanding of the Federal Victim Surcharge

There was complete consensus from the primary key informants and judges interviewed (n=11, so 100% ) in the perception that offenders do not make any connection between their payment of the federal victim surcharge and their actions inflicted on their victims.  Those interviewed speculated that the typical offender:

Justice personnel had the distinct impression that these offenders:

Anecdotal evidence was offered surrounding the offenders’ court experience and federal victim surcharge. It was suggested that often offenders are afraid to ask for more time to pay their fines and surcharges, assuming that jail time may be immediately imposed if they are not agreeable during the sentencing process. Thus, it was speculated that the offenders leave the court knowing they do not have the means to pay their fines and surcharges in a timely manner and that they are inevitably heading for a default status. It was suggested that if the offender knew they could negotiate the time to pay the surcharge the collection process may improve.

3.2.3. Amendments to the Criminal Code

Provincial and territorial surcharges are not consistent across the country as the percentage levied by the province, i.e., 20% in New Brunswick, is a provincial decision. In some jurisdictions it is 15% and in some it is 20%. Over the years different jurisdictions have increased their surcharge. Thus, in this context stakeholders were asked if they considered the present federal victim surcharge sufficient,
i.e., 15% of fine dispositions, or if a symbolic increase would be appropriate to emphasize offender accountability to victims. Among primary key informants and judges who participated (n=11), two opposing views emerged surrounding this issue. Sentiments in favour of maintaining the status quo
(7 of 11) were:

Conversely, at least one informant/stakeholder viewed the discrepancy between the provincial victim surcharge (20%) and the federal victim surcharge (15%) as nonsensical. The informant wondered about the message the discrepancy send. Others (6 of 11) agreed, stating that at the very least the federal victim surcharge should equal the provincial victim surcharge. This is particularly true when there is more actual victimization as a result of those offenders who are required to pay the federal victim surcharge compared to provincial offences.

Others (2 of 11) countered this question with the suggestion that the present graded federal victim surcharge regime, i.e., imposing a percentage of fines and flat rates according to the type of conviction, (e.g., $50 summary, $100 indictable), should be abandoned for a flat fee/rate regardless of conviction, e.g., $50. This was as prior to the 1999 amendments to the Criminal Code. This idea reverberated with others (4 of 11) who also suggested abandoning a surcharge on convictions and opting for a court fee, reminiscent of airport fees, imposed on all those charged with any offence.