Information and Support Needs of Victims and Witnesses in the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria

VICTIMS SUPPORT AGENCY

Table of Contents

1 Introduction 1

2 Magistrates’ Court jurisdiction 1

3 Review of Literature 3

4 Methodology 6

5 About the respondents 8

6 About the crime 9

7 Knowledge of the court process 11

8 Attendance at court 12

9 What happened at court? 13

10 Information and support 13

11 Support at court 15

12 Treatment at court 16

13 Safety at court 18

14 Victim Impact Statements 21

15 Were their views considered equally to those of the accused?

22

16 What effect did respondents’ last experience with the court have on their confidence in the court process?

23

17 What factors influenced respondents’ feelings of confidence and perceptions that their views were treated equally to the accused? 

24

18 Limitations and strengths 25

19 Conclusion 25

20 Recommendations 27

1

1. Introduction The Victims Support Agency (VSA) is responsible for co-ordinating a whole-of-government approach to victims of crime and for those who may witness crimes against the person. The VSA uses a range of data sources in order to: develop evidence based policy and programs, which respond effectively and

appropriately to the needs of victims of crime respond and contribute to the work of other units within the Department of Justice

(DOJ) including legislative reform, and provide advice to the Attorney-General in relation to victims policy and programs. Currently there are no mechanisms in place to collect data about: the number, the information and support needs, or the experience of victims and witnesses who attend and/or provide evidence in the courts. The Magistrates’ Court of Victoria (Magistrates’ Court) and the VSA were interested in expanding the evidence base to inform understanding of the information and support needs of victims and witnesses attending court in relation to offences against the person, their understanding of the court process and their overall views about the court experience. Accordingly, the research was conducted with approval from and in consultation with the Magistrates’ Court.

2. Magistrates’ Court jurisdiction The Magistrates’ Court deals with 97 per cent of all criminal cases. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) there were 88,689 defendants finalised in the Magistrates’ Court during 2011─2012 compared to 2,382 in the higher courts.1 While the Magistrates’ Court is a jurisdiction where less serious matters are heard, changes to the Magistrates’ Court Legislation (Jurisdiction) Act 2006 (Vic) have resulted in a number of indictable matters now being heard summarily, within the Magistrates’ Court jurisdiction.2 Of the 88,689 matters heard in 2011─2012, the majority were ‘traffic and vehicle regulatory offence matters’ and 38,967 were ‘offences against the person’. These 38,967 offences include 26,768 ‘acts intended to cause injury’, 7,883 ‘offences against justice procedures’, 2,422 ‘abduction and harassment’, 1,452 ‘sexual assault and related offences’ and 442 ‘robbery and extortion’.3 The Magistrates' Court also deals with a very large number of applications for intervention orders under the Family Violence Protection Act 2008 and the Personal Safety Intervention Orders Act 2010. In 2011-2012 there was a total of 40,556 intervention order applications finalised compared 36,485 applications finalised in 2010-11. Of these, the numbers which related to family violence applications were 31,332 in 2011-2012 and 28,141 in 2010-11. There has been an increase over 40 percent in the number of intervention order applications finalised in the court in the last 5 years.4 Cases heard in the Magistrates’ Court can be finalised in a number of ways, including when the accused is found or pleads guilty, is acquitted, or when the case is withdrawn by the prosecutor. While the majority of cases are finalised5 by a guilty plea within 13 weeks from initiation in court, a proportion of cases usually, ‘acts intended to cause injury’, and ‘sexual assault’ can take longer than 52 weeks to reach finalisation.

1 Australian Bureau of Statistics. Criminal Courts Australia 2011-2012 Cat. 4513.0. 2 Indictable offences which can be heard summarily pursuant to section 53(1) and schedule 4 of the Magistrates’ Court Act 1989. Changes to the Magistrates’ Court jurisdiction: Magistrates’ Court Legislation (Jurisdiction) Act 2006 (Vic.). 3 Note that the categories of ‘sexual assault’ robbery, abduction and offences against justice procedures include ‘other related offences’. 4 Magistrates’ Court of Victoria Annual report 2011-2012 p.94. 5 The duration to finalisation is reached by calculating the date at which the matter was initiated in court to the date at which the defendant is sentenced.

2

The Magistrates’ Court is also a court of innovation. The development of targeted responses such as Specialist Family Violence Courts, the Koori Court, the Drug Court and the Assessment and Referral Court have all occurred in this jurisdiction. The Magistrates’ Court also offers and participates in a number of diversion programs, which acknowledge the ‘revolving door’ nature of this jurisdiction. These programs include the Court Integrated Services Program and the Credit Bail Support Program, where referrals are made to community based agencies to address the cause of the criminal behaviour while ensuring that offenders are simultaneously monitored by the Court. 2.1 Where do victims and witnesses who attend the Magistrates’ Court find

support and information? There are a range of service and information options for victims and witnesses who attend the Magistrates’ Court. However, as demonstrated below, the extent to which these services are available depends on a number of factors including the type of matter, the duration of the hearing and the resources available. 2.1.1 Court Based Family Violence Divisions and Services: Since 2005,

enhanced specialised family violence responses have been established in some courts across Victoria. These responses include:

2.1.1.1 The Family Violence Court Division located in the Ballarat and Heidelberg Magistrates' Courts which aims to: make access to the court easier promote the safety of persons affected by violence increase accountability of persons who have used violence against

family members and encourage them to change their behaviour increase the protection of children exposed to family violence.6

2.1.1.2 The Specialist Family Violence Services are located in Melbourne, Frankston, Sunshine and Werribee Magistrates' Courts. Features of the specialist service include ‘specially assigned Magistrates, trained applicant support workers, family violence outreach workers, additional legal services from Victoria Legal Aid and Community Legal Centres, dedicated prosecutors and additional security officers’. A dedicated Family Violence Court Registrar coordinates these services at the court’.7

2.1.2 Court Network: The Court Network is a volunteer based service funded jointly by the DOJ and Department of Human Services (DHS). The program is managed by a small team of paid staff. The service provides support, information and referral services, is available to all court users, and is available in metropolitan and regional courts in Geelong, Ballarat, Bendigo Shepparton, Wodonga, Warrnambool, Mildura, and Gippsland. Volunteers receive extensive training and are rostered at each of the regional Melbourne courts including the Magistrates’ Court, Family Court, County Court, Coroner's Court and Supreme Court.8

2.1.3 Salvation Army: The Salvation Army provides a daily service at most of the

metropolitan courts (except Werribee) and many regional centres.9 The service, which includes information about the court process, support and referral is available to defendants, their families and also victims who attend

6 http://www.magistratescourt.vic.gov.au/jurisdictions/intervention-orders/family-violence-court-programs. 7 Ibid. 8 http://www.courtnetwork.com.au/. 9 The Salivation Army has representatives at the following regional courts – Ballarat, Horsham, Bendigo, Wodonga, Portland Latrobe Valley and Geelong. Information provided by Salvation Army 21 May 2013.

3

court. 10 2.1.4 Web based and printed resources: Written and audio-visual information

about the court process is available through the VSA11 and the Magistrates’ Court web sites.12 The information provided on these sites responds to frequently asked questions about the court process and the expectations of witnesses who are required to provide evidence in court.

2.1.5 Victims Assistance and Counselling Program: The Victims Assistance

and Counselling Program (VACP) was established in 1998. There are currently eight VACP providers delivering services across 31 locations in Victoria. VACP services are funded by the DOJ and are located in not-for-profit agencies. The VACPs provide case management services to primary, secondary and related victims of crime throughout their journey through the justice system. Services include practical and emotional support, access to counselling, assistance to prepare a Victim Impact Statement and to access any entitlements they may have through the Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal (VOCAT).

3. Review of literature There is a paucity of literature about the experiences of victims and witnesses in the Magistrates’ Court jurisdiction. Much of the literature about the experiences of victims and witnesses at courts has focused on the higher courts and in particular sexual assault cases. The literature reviewed for this research has been drawn from jurisdictions across Australia and internationally. Researchers have considered the role of dependent and independent variables on satisfaction with the court process. An analysis13 of 22 evaluations of victims’ satisfaction with the justice system found that variables associated with ‘quality of the procedure’ and ‘quality of outcome’ were most influential. The former relates to how victims were treated during the proceedings and include respect, accuracy, voice, information, and general fairness. The latter refers to issues such as restoration, compensation and restitution, behaviour control and retribution.

Irrespective of jurisdiction, the impact of the court process on some victims and witnesses can be traumatic, frightening and anxiety provoking.14 A study conducted in the United Kingdom by Ames et al15 identified a number of issues of concern raised by victims and witnesses about the entire court process. In relation to pre court experiences, Ames et al uses a confidence continuum to describe the needs of victims and witnesses. As depicted in Table 1 those victims and witnesses who were least confident knew or lived close to the offender, were victims of serious crimes, had no prior experience of court, received little information prior to the hearing and did not know how to access information. In comparison, those who were more confident were victims or witnesses to less serious crimes, had good support networks and had been kept well informed.

10 http://www.salvationarmy.org.au/find-help/court-and-prison-services/ 11 http://www.justice.vic.gov.au/victimsofcrime/ 12 http://multimedia.justice.vic.gov.au/egov/virtual_tour/magistrates-court-vic.html 13Laxminarayan, M., Bosnans, M., Porter, R & Sosa, L. (2013) Victim satisfaction with criminal justice: A systematic review. Victims & Offenders: An International Journal of Evidence–based Research, Policy and Practice. 14 Cook, B., David, F. & Grant, F. (1999) Victims Rights Victims Needs. Australian research and Criminology. Research and Public Policy Series no. 19 p.47. 15 Ames, A., Davis, S., Peckham, D., Boyle, E. & Micklewright, A. (2003) Experiences of the Criminal Justice System: Victims and Witnesses of Crime. Audit Commission

4

Table 1 The confidence continuum 16

The report found that information and support provided to victims and witnesses was inconsistent, with some victims and witnesses receiving a lot of information and others none at all. The information and support that victims and witnesses identified as being important included, “emotional support and counselling, information about how the court works and visits to the court, help and advice about compensation and transport to the court”. 17 Ames et al also found common themes in the experiences of victims at court. Intimidation by the accused and their family and supporters was a significant issue for respondents, who described the experience like running through the gauntlet. Despite the fact that the majority of the respondents were waiting in a segregated area, most of the intimidation occurred in common areas, such as hallways and cafes. 18 Respondents’ experiences of Crown prosecutors, solicitors and defence barristers were mixed. For many victims and witnesses, their negative experience in relation to Crown Prosecutors was that there had been no contact prior to the trial or if contact was made by the Crown Prosecutor, this was only to introduce themselves. Those who expressed higher levels of satisfaction did so on the basis that the prosecutor spent time with them, showing them around the court and talking through how they would give evidence.19

16 Ames, A,. Davis, S., Peckham, D., Boyle, E. & Micklewright, A (2003) Experiences of the Criminal Justice System: Victims and Witnesses of Crime. Audit Commission p. 40. 17 Ibid p. 45. 18 Ibid p. 49. 19 Ibid p. 51.

5

Support and information post court was particularly important to respondents in the Ames et al research. Those who were not followed up registered the highest level of dissatisfaction. Even victims and witnesses, who were happy with the level of support and information received from police pre and during the trial, said that it did not continue post trial, leaving victims and witnesses feeling “abandoned and vulnerable”.20 Respondents were more positive about the post care support received from the victims support services but were confused about who provided the in-court support and often had difficulties distinguishing between various people and roles in court. The importance of the provision of information and support for victims and witnesses has a significant bearing on how they experience the court process. For example, research conducted by the VSA with people with disabilities identified that respondents who did attend court and said they were ‘treated well’, indicated that their experience was enhanced because they had a support person, that information was provided in an accessible format and that they understood what was happening. 21 This finding is consistent with other literature in the field that has highlighted the importance of providing information about what will happen during the criminal justice process and updates on case progress to victims and witnesses, suggesting that this has a direct impact on individuals’ assessment of the process.22 In 2008, the VSA with assistance from Victoria Police conducted a survey of victims who reported crime. The survey found that: Over one-quarter (151 of 605) of victims and witnesses did not feel safe in court 32 per cent of victims surveyed did not receive any information or explanations

concerning the court process and/or case results, and Over 60 per cent of the victims surveyed that attended court did not receive support. A survey of court users was conducted by the Ministry of Justice in New Zealand in 2012. The survey consisted of 3,231 12 minute face-to-face interviews across fourteen courts. The survey questions focused on “reasons for attending, information provided and sought, navigation around the court building, staff contact, waiting areas, court facilities safety, overall satisfaction and demographics”.23

Table 2 below, highlights that the experiences of court users varied according to the reasons for attending court. For example, a large proportion of those who were involved in a hearing or case (77%) were less likely to be satisfied while 94 per cent of those who were at court to attend to administrative matters were most likely to be satisfied. The research also highlighted that disadvantaged groups such as members of the Maori population were more likely to be dissatisfied.

20 Ibid p. 57. 21 Victims Support Agency. (2011) Enabling Justice: Disability Strategy. 22 Whitehead, E. (2001). Witness Satisfaction: Findings from the Witness Satisfaction Survey 2000. Home Office Research Study 230. London: Crown; Mayhew, P., Aye Maung, N. and Mirrlees-Black, C. (1993). The 1992 British Crime Survey. Home Office Research Study 132. London: Home Office; Allen, J., El Komy, M., Lovbakke, J. and Roy, H. (2005). Policing and the Criminal Justice System – Public Confidence and Perceptions: Findings from the 2003/04 British Crime Survey. Home Office Online Report 31/05. London: Home Office; Ross, S., Lawrence, J., Holder., Politiis, A & Graham, J (2009) Fairness and Equity for Victims of Crimes: What do they want and why don’t they get it? 23 Ministry of Justice New Zealand (2012) Court User Survey.

6

Table 2: Factors associated with overall satisfaction with services and facilities, compared to all court users (80% were satisfied) 24

Early findings from the Witness and Victim Experience Survey (WAVES)25 conducted in England and Wales found that a number of variables impacted on experience of victims and witnesses. The research found that satisfaction varied among groups depending on their status either as witnesses or victims, their age, crime and case outcome. 26

A finding from recent research also conducted in England and Wales27 was that victims and witnesses experience of one aspect of the court process did not necessarily colour their views on another aspect of the court process. For example, some victims were “satisfied with their treatment, satisfied the accused was found or pleaded guilty, but dissatisfied with the sentence or its implementation”. 28 While the review of literature is not exhaustive, there is sufficient evidence in the literature described so far, to conclude that outcome alone is not the primary predictor of victim and witness satisfaction with the court process and perceptions of procedural fairness. Indeed, these concepts are influenced by a variety of dependent variables such as treatment at court and information about the court process, and independent variables including age, and socioeconomic status.

4. Methodology A self-administered survey instrument was chosen as the most appropriate method of obtaining data about the information and support needs of victims and witnesses in the Magistrates’ Court. The rationale for choosing this method includes flexibility, in that respondents could complete the survey at a time and place that suited them, anonymity, and efficiency from a data collection and analysis perspective.29 The survey commenced on 1 August 2012 and closed on 24 March 2013. To enhance its availability and accessibility, the survey was available on-line and in hard copy. A total of 102 responses were received.

24 Ibid. 25 Moore, L. & Blakeborough, L. (2008) Early findings from WAVES Information and Service Provision Ministry of Justice Research Series 11/08 July 2008. Office for Criminal Justice Reform. The sample consisted of 10,883 prosecution victims and 12,016 witnesses required to give evidence in matters heard in the Magistrates’ Court jurisdiction, finalised between February 2005 and January 2006. 26 Ibid p. iv. 27 Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses in England and Wales (2011). Victims’ Views of Court and Sentencing: Qualitative research with WAVES victims. 28 Ibid p. 11. 29 Bachman, R.D & Schutt, R. K. The Practice Of Research In Criminology And Criminal Justice. 2nd edition, Thousand Oaks; Pine Forge Press. 2010.

7

4.1 Research approval In the first instance approval to conduct the research was sought from the Magistrates’ Court. The Magistrates’ Court facilitated access to courts in Broadmeadows, Ballarat, Dandenong, and Melbourne. The Justice Human Research Ethics Committee granted approval at its meeting on 27 March 2012 to conduct the research. 4.2 Survey design and analysis The VSA had primary carriage of the survey design with input at the draft stage from the Magistrates’ Court. In response to the marked increase of family violence related matters appearing before the court, questions relating to family violence and the types of orders made for the protection of victims were included. As family violence is not a crime type, this presented a number of data interpretation and analysis issues. The on-line version was developed using ‘Survey Monkey’. Questions comprised of a combination of closed, multiple-choice and open-ended questions, yielding both quantitative and qualitative data. Broadly, questions sought to collect demographic information, respondents’ perceptions of their knowledge of court processes prior to attending court, their safety, and where they sought and received information and support.

Quantitative data was analysed in stages, using a combination of methods. This included Survey Monkey in the first level of analysis followed by SPSS and Excel to analyse complex data and to drill further into areas that would enhance understanding of respondents’ needs. Qualitative data was analysed using thematic analysis to identify the emergent themes. 4.2.1 Note about the data: For the purpose of this report, family violence is counted as

a crime type. The rationale for this approach is to represent accurately how respondents understood the question. For example, some respondents chose family violence as the single crime type, while others chose a combination of assault, sexual assault and family violence. In these instances, it is assumed that the respondents have indicated that the crimes of ‘assault and sexual assault’ have occurred within the context of family violence.

Caution should be taken in generalising the results of this survey. The sample is not of sufficient size to be considered representative of the views, experiences or perceptions of all victim and witnesses who attend the Magistrates’ Court.

Survey questions were not compulsory; not all respondents answered all questions and some respondents chose more than one response to a question This means that responses were analysed on the basis of the number of responses and the number of respondents to each question rather than the total number of respondents overall. Therefore, in some instances the total percentage presented will exceed 100. Information regarding the number of responses received to each of the questions is included in the data descriptions.

4.3 Distribution The survey generated considerable interest amongst community-based agencies, many of whom promoted the survey on their websites or through their newsletters. Access to the survey was available through a number of foras including: 4.3.1 Websites: A link to the electronic survey was available on the websites of a

number of agencies including the VSA, Magistrates’ Court, VOCAT, Men’s Referral Service and South Eastern Centre Against Sexual Assault (SECASA).

8

4.2.1 Newsletters: Women with Disabilities Victoria, Women’s’ Information and Referral Exchange (WIRE), Disability Advocacy Unit (DARU), the Federation of Community Legal Centres’ Bulletin Board Service, Men’s Referral Service, Domestic Violence and Resource Centre Victoria (Facebook) and the North Western Homelessness Network distributed information about the survey to their constituents through their newsletters. The hard copy version of the survey was widely disseminated including to:

4.2.2 The network of VACPs across Victoria: Fifty copies including reply paid envelopes were sent to eight VACP agencies who indicated a willingness to assist in making the survey available at their respective agencies.

4.2.3 Court Network: Surveys were sent to each of the Court Network programs in

Melbourne, Dandenong, Broadmeadows and Ballarat. The surveys were made available to victims and witnesses.

Magistrates’ Courts: With the support of the Magistrates’ Court, Court Network and the Salvation Army the original methodology included the attendance of VSA staff for one week at Broadmeadows, Dandenong, Ballarat and Melbourne Magistrates’ Courts. VSA staff were to be located in a visible location within each of the courts in order to answer questions and if required, assist respondents to complete the survey. Court Network, Salvation Army and court staff were to refer respondents to VSA staff. The lack of interest from people attending the Melbourne Court in the early stages of the research resulted in a decision to abandon this method and focus on promoting the survey online and in hard copy.

5. About the respondents One hundred and two responses were received. Of these, one respondent only answered one question and 10 exited the survey at question 12, as they did not attend court. Ninety-one surveys were completed electronically and 10 hard copies were completed and returned to VSA, using a prepaid envelope. 5.1 Gender Of the 102 responses, 96 respondents chose to indicate their gender. Of these, the overwhelming majority were women (92.7%) and 7 (7.3%) were male. While a definitive explanation for the high proportion of female respondents cannot be identified, there is likely to be a correlation between the high number of respondents who identified as family violence victims and the gendered nature of family violence. Many of the agencies that chose to promote the survey were women specific agencies, for example Women’s Information and Referral Exchange. However, it should be noted that the Men’s Referral Service also promoted the survey.

5.2 Country of birth and main language spoken The survey did not specifically target, nor was it written or structured in such a way that was culturally accessible to people from Cultural and Linguistically Diverse (CALD) or Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander (ATSI) backgrounds. Unsurprisingly, the majority of the respondents 76 (79%) indicated they were born in Australia, eight (8%) were born in Great Britain, three (3%) from Europe, two (2%) each from Eastern Europe, United States and New Zealand. There was one respondent each from South Africa, the Middle East and Asia. All respondents nominated English as their main language. Two (2.1%) of the 93 respondents identified as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander (ATSI).

9

5.3 Disability A quarter of all respondents 24 (25.8%) respondents identified as having a disability. While the survey did not ask whether respondents needs in regards to disability were met, the data highlights the importance of ensuring that court and court based services respond proactively to the needs of people with disabilities, through the provision of information in alternative formats, accessible environments and or practical requirements for example, attendant carers.

5.4 Age Respondents were aged from 18 to 90 years. However, as Figure 1 illustrates, the majority of respondents (56 of 102) were aged between 31─50 years, with 28 (28.6%) being between 31-40 years and 28 (28.6%) being between 41─50 years. The age of the remaining respondents was between 21–30 years 12 (12.2%), 61─70 years, six (6.1%). One (1.0%) respondent indicated their age as between 18─20 years and one (1.0%) between 81─90 years. Figure 1: Age distribution

6. About the crime 6.1 Victims and witnesses There were 88 respondents who indicated they attended court as a victim, or as witness or both. Of these 74 (84.1%) indicated they were a victim of crime, a further 25 (28.4%) indicated they witnessed a crime and 11 (12.5%) indicated that they were both a victim and a witness.

6.2 What type of crime was it? There were 85 respondents who chose to indicate the type of crime they had experienced or witnessed or both. The data indicates that 68 of the 85 respondents who answered this question, said that they were either a victim or witness to two or more crimes. As shown in Figure 2, the majority 47 (55.3%), of respondents said they were a victim or witness of family violence, followed by in descending order, respondents who nominated physical assault 43 (50.6%), sexual offence (not including rape) 22 (25.9%), threatened assault 19 (22.4%), stalking 12 (14.1%) and robbery 7 (8.2%). No respondents nominated that they were a victim of abduction.

10

A significant proportion (47 of 102) of survey respondents indicated they were victims of family violence. Of these, 24 nominated family violence as the primary crime and 23 indicated one or more crimes such as assault, sexual assault, stalking and threatened assault occurred within a family violence context.

The majority (46 of 47) of the respondents who nominated family violence were female. While this sample is not representative of all court users, the data is consistent with literature in relation to the gendered nature of family violence. While men are victims of family violence, the overwhelming majority of victims are women and children.

The majority of family violence respondents were aged between 31-40 years (15 of 47), 41-50 years (11 of 47) and 51-60 years (11 of 47). Seven family violence respondents were aged between 21-30 years and three were aged between 61-70 years.

Overall, the majority (37) of family violence respondents in this survey were aged between 31 and 60 years. The age of respondents vary slightly compared to data presented in the Family Violence Database where one third of victims were aged 35-44 years, followed closely by those aged 25-34 years’.

FAMILY VIOLENCE 

Figure 2: Crime Type

Included in the 85 responses to the question of ‘crime type’, 13 respondents chose to record their responses as ‘other’. Of these, five said they were victims of rape or other sexual offences, the remaining eight respondents indicated they were a victim of either physical or threatened assault, aggravated burglary, fraud and deception, malicious damage, criminal damage, false imprisonment, domestic violence and road rage. One respondent said they were at court because they witnessed their father’s murder.

6.3 Respondents with a disability For victims with disabilities, assault (16) represented the highest proportion of matters for which they attended court. Of these, nine occurred within a family violence context. Family violence was nominated as a crime by 14 respondents and a further eight respondents identified threatened assault. Six victims with disabilities attended court for sexual assault matters, four of which occurred within a family violence context. Four respondents attended for stalking matters.

These results were slightly different to research conducted by the VSA in 2010 where the majority of respondents 22 (34.9%) indicated that they were victims of sexual assault and 11 (17.5%) indicated they were victims of an assault. 30

Although people with disabilities are subject to a

30 Victims Support Agency (2011) People with Disabilities Survey

11

range of victimisation experiences, there are certain types of crime which are more commonly perpetrated against them. These include sexual assault, family violence (physical and non-physical), assaults, stalking and hate crime.31 While the survey did not ask specifically about crimes motivated by hate, there is the potential that some of the victimisation experiences identified by respondents with disabilities may have been hate motivated.

6.3 Court location There were 81 of 102 respondents who identified the geographic location of the court. Of these, the majority of courts attended were located in the greater Melbourne area 42 (51%), regional Victoria 22 (27%), and outer Metro 16 (19%). It is interesting to note that one quarter of the respondents attended courts in rural and regional Victoria.

7. Knowledge of the court process The survey asked respondents to rate their knowledge of the court process prior to attending court with ‘1’ being ‘not at all knowledgeable’ and ‘5’ being ‘very knowledgeable’. Table 3 below shows that 66 respondents rated their knowledge of the court process. Of these, the majority 46 consisting of 30 who rated their knowledge as ‘1’ ‘not at all knowledgeable’ and 16 who rated their knowledge as ‘2’, had very little or no knowledge of the court process prior to attending court. Conversely, 12 respondents indicated their knowledge of the court process was quite good. Of these, nine rated their knowledge as ‘4’, and three rated their knowledge as ‘5 – very knowledgeable’. Eight rated their knowledge as ‘3, which is half way between ‘not at all knowledgeable’ and ‘very knowledgeable’.

Table 3: Knowledge of the court process On a scale of 1 to 5, if 1 is 'not at all knowledgeable' and 5 is 'very knowledgeable', how would you rate your knowledge about the court process prior to attending court? Answer Options

1- Not at all knowledgeable

2 3 4 5- Very

knowledgeable Response

Count 30 16 8 9 3 66

answered question 66 skipped question 36

31 Hoong Sin, C., A. Hedges, et al. (2009). Disabled people's experiences of targeted violence and hostility. Manchester, Equality and Human Rights Commission.

12

The majority (43 of 47) family violence respondents attended court at locations across Victoria. In descending order, the majority (11) attended the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court, Dandenong 9, Heidelberg 6, Ringwood 4 and Frankston 4. The nine remaining courts each had one respondent attend. In response to the question ‘were you referred to a support service for help with the court process?’ the majority of family violence respondents (20) said ‘no’, 18 said ‘yes’ and nine did not answer the question. Of those who said they referred to a support service, 12 received support from a family violence service. Of these, four received support from a combination of family violence and other services providers. For example, one respondent said they received assistance from the Victims of Crime Helpline, Court Network and Family Violence Service. These instances highlight a coordinated or collaborative approach between services. Eighteen of 36 respondents indicated they provided evidence in court.

Of the 47 family violence respondents, 14 said ‘yes’ orders were made to protect them, 10 said ‘no’ and the remainder (23) did not answer the question. Of the 14 respondents who answered ‘yes’, 11 indicated the type of orders made. Five said Intervention Order, three said Family Violence Safety Notice, two said a combination of Family Violence Safety Notice and an Intervention Order and one said a combination of an Intervention Order and bail conditions were imposed on the defendant. On this basis it is assumed that of the family violence respondents, 14 attended court for civil and 10 for criminal maters related to family violence. However, it is not certain whether the remainder (23) who did not answer this question were there in relation to civil or criminal matters.

FAMILY VIOLENCE

Table 3 highlights that the overwhelming majority of respondents (46 out of 66 or 69.7%) rated their knowledge as very low. The lack of knowledge of court processes by those whose evidence is relied upon has a range of implications for individuals and the court process and is a reminder of the importance of communicating with victims and witnesses before the hearing. The most prominent implication of this lack of knowledge is heightened anxiety due to the uncertainty of what to expect, and for some victims or witnesses an increased fear and concern about their safety, potentially resulting in cases being withdrawn. In other international jurisdictions a victim and witness who is provided with information about the court process prior to attending court is more likely to remain engaged with the court process and provide better evidence as they are more confident.32

8. Attendance at court A total of 89 respondents answered this question. Of these, 76 (88.4%) said they did attend court proceedings and 13 (14.6%) said they did not. Of those who did not attend, nine provided comments about why they did not attend. Comments included that ‘they were not informed about the hearing’, they were ‘not well enough’ and that they felt apprehensive because the perpetrator was someone they knew, such as their previous partner or their next-door neighbour’s son. Of the 13 respondents who said they did not attend court proceedings, five (45.5%) said they would have attended if a support service was available at court, four (36.4%) said ‘it didn’t apply in their case’ and two (18.2%) said ‘it would not have made any difference’. Offences against the person are often committed by someone known to the victim. This can create a high level of apprehension due in some cases to fear of

32 Ames, A., Davis, S., Peckham, D., Boyle, E. & Micklewright, A. (2003) Experiences of the Criminal Justice System: Victims Support Agency, Department of Justice (2010) Witness support in the United Kingdom: Report on Visit to United Kingdom and Meetings with Criminal Justice Agencies (Unpublished internal DOJ document)Victims and Witnesses of Crime. Audit Commission.

13

retaliation. Research suggests that victims are the primary witnesses in the majority of hearings relating to offences against the person; hence if the victim does not attend court due to intimidation and concern for their safety, these cases are more likely to be withdrawn by the prosecution. Data over a 12 month period from July 2009 to June 2010 provided by Victoria Police Prosecutions identified that 545 matters were withdrawn by the prosecution for victim/witness reasons. Data from the ABS suggests that while the majority of offences are finalised within 13 weeks from initiation in court a proportion will continue for many weeks, some taking up to 52 weeks and more before finalisation. If a victim withdraws from the case at this late stage, the costs associated with withdrawal are significant.

9. What happened at court? 9.1 Was the accused released on bail? Seventy-two respondents answered this question. Of these, 14 (19.4%) said, ‘the accused was held in custody’, 50 (69.4%) said ‘the accused was not held in custody’ and eight (11.1%) ‘didn’t know’. Of those who said the accused was not held in custody, 19 (39.6%) said ‘the accused was not released on bail’, sixteen (33.3%) said ‘the accused was released on bail’ and the remaining 13 (27.1%) said they ‘didn’t know’.

Of those who ‘didn’t know’, six also said that safety at court was an issue for them. This raises issues about the adequacy of communication with victims and witnesses who are concerned about their safety at court and out of court.

9.2 Did the accused plead guilty or was found guilty? Fifty-eight respondents answered this question. Of these, 22 (37.9%) said the accused plead guilty, nineteen (32.8%) said the accused was found guilty and seventeen (29.3%) said they were not sure. 9.3 Did they provide evidence in court? There were 66 respondents who answered this question, of these, 39 (59.1%) said they did provide evidence in court and 27 (40.5%) said they did not.

10. Information and support In order to prepare (practically and psychologically) for attending court, victims and witnesses require, as a minimum, information about the date of the hearing, the court process and their role as a witness. For some victims, depending on a range of variables including age, crime type or level of vulnerability, support through the process is also important. The nature of the adversarial system is such that witnesses and victims required to provide evidence in court often describe the experience in negative terms. Support immediately after the hearing is important to ensure that witnesses are not distressed when they leave the court and understand what (if anything) will happen next. Respondents were asked to consider what their information and support needs were when they attended court, if they received information and support, and who provided it. As illustrated in Figure 3, 58 out of 102 respondents chose to answer this question.

14

Figure 3: What did they want to know and who told them?

Figure 3 above provides a comparative view of the data in relation to the information and support needs. It shows that for many respondents police were a primary source of information regarding the court process. Court staff were another source of information for some respondents as were police prosecutors, VACP and Court Network. Friends and family were also a source of information and support. Of the 58 respondents who answered these questions, almost half of the respondents (28) said that while they wanted information and support after the hearing, they did not receive it. While a further 26 received support and information after the hearing from a number of other sources. Overall, each statement yielded a similar volume of responses, indicating that these questions were all relevant to those who responded. The responses to each of the questions are discussed in more detail below.

10.1 ‘I wanted to know the court date’ There were 53 out of 58 respondents who wanted to know the answer to this question. Of these, the majority of respondents 26 (49.1%) were told the court date by the police officer and 20 (37.7%) were told by court staff. In comparison, four (7.5%) respondents received this information from the Police prosecutor and the VACPs respectively, a further two respondents received this information from friends and family and one respondent indicated that Court Network told them about the court date. 10.2 ‘I wanted to know what would happen at court’ Fifty-four respondents wanted to know what would happen at court. The primary source of this information was relatively evenly spread between police 18 (33.3%) and court staff 14 (25.9%). Further, the Police prosecutor was a relatively high information source 11 (20.4%), followed by VACP nine (16.7%), Court Network seven (13%) and friends and family three (5.6%). Interestingly, a significant proportion 11 (20.4%) said that ‘no one’ provided them with information about what would happen at court. 10.3 ‘I wanted to know how to provide evidence in court’ Fifty-one out of 58 respondents wanted information on how to provide evidence. A majority of respondents 16 (31.4%) indicated that ‘no one’ provided this information. This was followed by police 13 (25.5%), Police prosecutor 10 (19.6%), court staff seven (13.7%), VACP five (9.8%), friends and family four (7.8%) and Court Network three (5.9%).

15

10.4 ‘I wanted to know the outcome of the court hearing’ Fifty-two respondents wanted to know the outcome of the court hearing. Responses to this question indicated that an equal number of respondents said that they received information about the hearing outcome from police 15 (28.8%) or that ‘no one’ 15 (28.8%) provided them with this information. The Police prosecutor 10 (19.2%) and court staff 10 (19.2%) were identified in equal proportion as the source of information about hearing outcome. The remaining responses were relatively evenly spread between VACP four (7.7%), friends and family four (7.7%) and Court Network three (5.8%). 10.5 ‘I wanted information and support after the court hearing’ Forty-nine respondents wanted information and support after the court hearing. However, the majority of these respondents 28 (57.1%) did not receive it. Information and support after the hearing was provided to respondents by VACP eight (16.3%), court staff six (12.2%), Police five (10.2%), friends and family five (10.2%). Court Network provided information and support after the hearing to two (4.1%) respondents. 10.6 What other questions did respondents have? Seventeen respondents said they wanted to know the answers to different questions. The focus of comments varied, for example four respondents wanted information about safety during and after the court hearing.

What happens after when that person continues to live nearby

Would I have to see him? Other respondents wanted to know more about the court process, what would be expected of them, outcome, crimes compensation and Victim Impact Statements

Why did he get off the charges?

I was unaware of victims of crime program. I found that on the net myself

I had no idea that it could be adjourned so often 2 times, had no idea that I'd have to be so long in witness box, after I had provided so much written evidence, emails, letter, my diary, I actually didn’t think I would need to be in the stand at all. I was only told sort of at the last min by my barrister.

Why wasn't I informed of impact statement before the trial

What, if any, evidence, affidavits would i be allowed to provide? how might i obtain security away from accused and/or his supports

Why wasn't I allowed to talk or explain when the Magistrate was saying things that were untrue or inaccurate? Why was I threatened with an ultimatum by the Magistrate, the prospect of having to face the perpetrator of significant and prolonged physical and mental trauma or accept his decision? What can you do if you disagree with the way a Magistrate has handled your application? Can you have your application reviewed, without prejudice by another magistrate and if so what is the process?

11. Support at court Support services provide an essential role in ensuring that victims and witnesses receive assistance with navigating the court process, practical assistance, reassurance, and information, and referral beyond the court process. There were 69 responses to this question about services to which they were referred. Of

16

these, 39 (56.5%) said they were not referred to a support service. Of the remaining 30 respondents who were referred to support, the majority were referred to Court Network 14 (48.3%), Family Violence service 13 (44.8%), Victims of Crime Helpline nine (31%), VACP five (17.2%) and four respondents said they were referred to a Community Health Centre and Social Worker respectively. One respondent said they were referred to a Sexual Assault service based in a regional area. Figure 4: Which services were they referred to?

For the majority of victims and witnesses who said that they were not referred to a support service, this would have meant that either they were forced to navigate their own way through the court process, or to increase their reliance on other sources, such as police and court staff for information and support. Hence, a correlation could be drawn between the data presented in Figure 3 indicating that police and court staff are the primary sources of information in court and the high number of victims and witnesses who are not referred to support services.

11.1 Did support services make a difference? Those who were referred to a support service (30 of 69) were asked to consider whether they strongly agree, agree, disagree or strongly disagree with the statement - ‘The service agency made it easier to give evidence or attend court’. Of the respondents who were referred to a support service, the majority 24 (80%) either strongly agreed 12 (40%) or agreed 12 (40%). Three (10%) respondents disagreed and a further three (10%) strongly disagreed. 11.2 Why wouldn’t they use an additional service? Seven (10.3%) respondents said ‘if there was an additional service in court, they wouldn’t use it’. Of these, the majority (five of seven) said they would not use the service because ‘The support they received from family and friends was enough for them’.

12. Treatment at court Sixty-five of a possible 102, chose to respond to the question which asked respondents to ‘agree’ or ‘disagree’ whether the police, the magistrate, the Police prosecutor and the lawyer representing the accused or court staff treated them with courtesy, dignity and respect. Respondents could choose all the categories that applied to their experience, hence there are more responses then there are overall respondents to this question, indicating that all respondents came into contact with all the people and agencies listed.

17

As Figure 5 illustrates that the majority of respondents sixty-one either agreed 31 (50.5%) or strongly agreed 24 (39.3%) that court staff treated them with courtesy, dignity and respect, compared to six (9.8%) who disagreed. A total of 45 respondents either agreed 25 (40.3%) or strongly agreed 20 (32.3%) that magistrates treated them with courtesy, dignity and respect. A further 16 (25.8%) disagreed and one (1.6%) strongly disagreed. In relation to the police, 42 respondents said they either agreed 21 (34.4%) or strongly agreed 20 (32.8%) that they were treated with courtesy, dignity and respect by police, while a further 13 (21.3%) disagreed and seven (11.5%) strongly disagreed. Thirty-nine respondents said that they agreed 23 (43.4%) or strongly agree 16 (30.2%) that Police Prosecutors treated them with courtesy, dignity and respect, compared to 10 (19.9%) who disagreed and a further four (7.5%) who strongly disagreed.

Figure 5: Were they treated with courtesy, dignity and respect?

In contrast, a total of 45 respondents either ‘strongly disagreed’ 21 (36.8%) or ‘disagreed’ 20 (35.1%) that the lawyer representing the accused treated them with courtesy, dignity and respect, while 15 (26.3%) ‘agreed’ and one (1.8%) ‘strongly agreed’. This finding was consistent with the findings by Ames et al who said that respondents were least satisfied with the response from barristers. 12.1 What factors impacted on how respondents were treated? An additional forty-one respondents chose to provide a text response when asked ‘was there something in particular that impacted on how they were treated?’. Respondents identified negative and positive aspects, which affected how they were treated. As the following comments attest, a specific person rather than the entire process often influenced their feeling of being treated with courtesy, dignity and respect. Factors included feeling validated and time taken to explain what was happening…

The magistrate spoke to us personally and explained the guilty procedure. We were finally recognized as victims by the system and it was greatly appreciated.

As a woman who is in a minority group (has transexuality), I was subject to persecution, marginalization, vilification and harassment by police, the police prosecutor and the lawyer representing the accused. The magistrate was however good towards me.

18

Being dismissed or treated like a criminal or not believed…

I felt I was treated as nothing, or dismissed

Felt overpowered disrespected and an idiot

I felt like i was the criminal

Magistrate was rude and told me i couldn't take breaks whilst giving evidence unless to use bathroom because he was "busy and wanted to get on with things. Cause (sic) I have intellectual disability it was like people don't believe what I said even though other people saw it

For some respondents, feeling afraid with no adequate space to wait contributed to their experience of how they were treated…

It was very traumatic and I did not want to see my ex and hid in a walk thru area of 1m x 2m just to be out of his sight. "standing for hours not moving from the area" The court was very crowded, and I was expected to be seated literally next to my then ex-husband, who had tried to kill me while I was driving with our child in the back seat. No consideration was made for the circumstances of the case, regarding what might have been more appropriate.

While for others their experience was influenced by feeling like they were just part of the process…

Being unbiased translated as being detached and not caring about the status of witnesses and victim.

Police were after a conviction of two people that have committed numerous amount of crimes in the past. Police used me and further traumatised me for the sake of getting their conviction.

13. Safety at court Concerns about safety at court is a perennial issue in most jurisdictions in Australia and internationally. While the safety of all who attend or work at court is a priority for courts, creating a safe environment can take time as it often requires physical changes to the built environment and significant resources. In the meantime other arrangements such as remote witness facilities have, in part, reduced the level of fear and anxiety experienced by victims and witnesses. Not surprisingly, the increased demands on courts ensure that safety and security of those who work or attend the court remains an issue for courts. As the data illustrates, safety is at the forefront of those who provide evidence against someone who has physically harmed them or threatened to do so. Sixty-four respondents as shown in figure 6 responded in relation to safety at court. Of these, 35 (54.7%) said they ‘did not feel safe’ at court, 25 (39.1%) ‘did feel safe’ at court and four (6.3%) respondents said that ‘safety wasn’t an issue for them’.

19

Figure 6: Did they feel safe at court?

Of the 25 who said they ‘did feel safe’, 20 identified factors which contributed to their feeling of safety (figure 7). Some respondents gave more than one reason for feeling safe. Twelve (60%) said they felt safe because a ‘family member or friend was there to support them’, 11 (55%) said ‘a police officer was there to support them’, and equal numbers of respondents said that ‘measures were put in place to protect’ them 10 (50%) and ‘a support worker was there to support them 10 (50%). Three (15%) said they were able to provide evidence in another location and one (5%) said that they received information such as a safety plan.

Figure 7: Factors that contributed to feeling safe

Four respondents nominated other reasons for feeling safe in court. These respondents said that they felt safe because they ‘were in a court /public place’ and one respondent said they felt safe because ‘the offender was in custody’. Figure 8 below correlates safety with crime type. It is significant that respondents across

20

Twenty-two of 36 family violence respondents said they felt ‘unsafe’, 12 said they did feel ‘safe’ and two said that ‘safety wasn’t an issue’. Seven respondents had family and friends to support them. Another seven had measures put in place to protect them, six were supported by a police officer and five were supported by a support worker and one respondent provided evidence remotely. As the comments below attest, the main issue that contributed to respondents feeling unsafe was the presence of the alleged offender and his family or supporters. …Being in the presence of the accused and his family/supporters

…I was to face the accused, and having them in the same room as me made it extremely difficult for me to respond correctly to questions. …The area I had to sit in was small and near my ex-partner, which made me feel unsafe

FAMILY VIOLENCE 

all crime types except sex offence victims, felt more unsafe than safe.

Surprisingly, the majority of respondents (11 of 19) who nominated ‘sex offences’ said they ‘felt safe’ at court, compared to those who ‘felt unsafe’ (6) and those for whom ‘safety wasn’t an issue’ (2). These respondents identified a number of factors that contributed to their feeling of safety. The factors included the presence of a support worker (5), family member (3) or police officer (5), the development of a safety plan (1), specific measures were put in place to protect the victim (4) and that respondents (3) used remote witness facilitates to provide evidence. While the sample of respondents who attended court for sex offence matters is not large, the fact that these respondents were more likely to feel safe compared to other respondents, is significant. For some respondents their feelings of safety can be attributed to the raft of reforms which have emerged from and since the Victorian Law Reform Commission Sexual Offences Final Report in 2004. 33 Figure 8: Correlation between crime type and safety

13.1 Factors that contributed to feeling unsafe? Of the 64 respondents who indicated they felt unsafe at court, 39 respondents chose to explain why. Overwhelmingly, the majority of respondents (27 of 39), described issues with ‘infrastructure’ as a factor that

33 Victorian Law reform Commission (2004) Sexual offences Final Report. See also Success Works (2011) Sexual Assault Reform Strategy: Final Evaluation report. Department of Justice.

21

contributed to why they felt unsafe.

There was no adequate security there. Just the defendant being there. Also not good in smaller court room as once I was right in the witness box with him standing there. I kept shifting to other side of support worker Having to face the people who had stalked even though that was only going in or out of the court The perpetrator being able to get access to me at court That the defendant was able to identify me

Being seated next to my attacker. Lack of information about process. I was 21 at the time, unsupported by family through the ordeal and quite vulnerable. Given my age, I look back and consider more could have been offered even in the way of counselling afterwards / links to other organisations. It was a very isolating experience.

14. Victim Impact Statements (VIS) 14.1 Awareness Of the 60 respondents who answered the question about their awareness of VIS, 34 (65.7%) said they were not aware that they could submit a VIS, while 26 (43.3%) said they were aware they could submit a VIS if the accused was found or plead guilty. Of the 26 respondents who indicated they were aware they could submit a VIS, 16 (66.7%) indicated they were given this information by police and eight (33.3%) from a victim service worker. In two (8.3%) instances victims and witnesses received the information from the police prosecutor and further two (8.3%) obtained the information from the internet. In one (4.2%) instance court staff provided the information; none of the respondents indicated that the source of information about VIS was a magistrate or a brochure. 14.2 Did they make a Victim Impact Statement? Thirty-seven respondents answered this question. Of these, 19 (51.4%) indicated that they had made a VIS, while 18 (48.6%) said they had not.

14.3 What could be improved? Forty-one respondents provided comments about what could be improved. Four respondents indicated that there was nothing that could be improved.

No, everyone was very helpful No I don't think it could get any better

As the following comments suggest, safety/security, separate waiting areas and court processes were the main issues highlighted by respondents. Waiting area…

Not having to wait with all the people who are there for other matters such as fines etc. when attending a committal hearing, this causes far more stress and made me feel unsafe. It would be better if the perpetrator of violence was not in the room with me TV to watch while you wait

22

Security and safety… Better security and access to remote witnessing (sic)

Assistance for people on their own to have support to get to and from court. To have different times of arrival and leaving for the victim and the perpetrator so the victim does not have to run into them at all. I did my evidence one time by a video room which helped slightly.

Assistance after the hearing…

Help after wards counselling,

Yes follow up on victims I think now it is better. The appropriate agencies to follow up on victims and services for them ongoing support

Reducing traumatisation…

Not traumatise victims so much. Not make me relive the whole experience over and over again

Improving court administration processes…

Our impact statements seemed to have been misplaced from the police supervisor to the courts. We were told the file never contained our impact statements. Luckily at the final hearing, I had copies of our statements which the magistrate took into consideration.

Centralised services…

It would be good if there was a centralised service as the first contact for all services available. Being a victim and going into the court process is daunting by itself - too many questions and not enough answers or resources. It is so overwhelming, so rather than being passed from one person to another - it would be good for it to be centralised as the first point of contact.

Role of Magistrates…

If there is no impact statement - Magistrate could ask if victim is present in the court to provide statement Attitude of Magistrates

15. Were their views considered equally to those of the accused?

Fifty-eight of 102 respondents answered this question. Interestingly, despite the negative experiences of some respondents, the responses were almost evenly split (figure 9). Whilst the majority 31 (53.4%) said their perception was that their ‘views were not considered equally to those of the accused’, 27 (46.6%) felt that their ‘views were treated equally to those of the accused’. While the survey did not ask about the hearing outcome, it would appear that for these respondents, or at least a proportion of these respondents, conviction of the defendant is not the only factor which influences perceptions of procedural fairness. This is consistent with literature in the field 34 that suggests perceptions of justice are

34 Ross, S., Lawrence, J., Holder., Politis.A. and Graham, J (2009) Fairness and Equity for Victims of Crime: What do they want and why don’t they get it?: Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses in England and Wales (2011). Victims’ Views of Court and Sentencing: Qualitative research with WAVES victims.

23

influenced by multiple factors including how victims and witnesses were treated, whether they were listened to and their level of involvement.

Figure 9: Did respondents feel their views were treated equally to those of the accused?

16. What effect did respondents’ last experience with the court

have on their confidence in the court process? Community confidence in the criminal justice system, including the police and court, is crucial in ensuring that victims or witnesses report crime or are willing to attend court and provide evidence to ensure that perpetrators are held to account. Sixty respondents answered the question about how their last experience in court affected their confidence in the court process (figure 10). Of these, the majority 38 (63.3%) indicated that their last experience at court ‘did not give them confidence in the court process’. A significant proportion of respondents 22 (36.7%) said that their last experience did give them confidence in the court process.

Figure 10: Confidence in the court process

Five (1.4%) of those who said they felt their ‘views were treated equally to those of the accused’ also said that their ‘last experience in court did not give them confidence in the court process’. This is consistent with the literature which suggests that a range of factors may influence the perceptions of victims and witnesses of the court process.

24

17. What factors influenced respondents’ feelings of confidence and perceptions that their views were treated equally to the accused? The literature suggests that a range of factors can influence victims’ experiences of the justice process. In this research, an analysis of variables such as age and crime type was conducted to ascertain their influence on respondents perceptions of ‘confidence in the court process’ and whether their ‘views were considered equally to those of the accused’. Overall, the analysis was inconclusive with the exception of three factors where a correlation could be identified. These factors are ‘safety at court’, whether respondents were ‘treated with dignity and respect’, and how they rated their knowledge of the court process prior to attending court. 17.1 Safety at Court Respondents ‘safety at court’ and whether they were ’treated with dignity and respect’ appeared to be the most influential variables on respondents’ ‘confidence in the court process’ and whether their ‘views were considered equally to those of the accused.’ Of the 13 respondents who ‘felt safe at court’, 12 said they ‘felt the court considered their views equally to those of the accused’ and that their ‘last experience gave them confidence in the court process’’. In comparison, 19 of 24 respondents said they did not feel ‘safe at court’, ‘did not have confidence in the court process’ and did not feel the court considered their views equally to those of the accused’. 17.2 Treated with dignity and respect Respondents views about whether they were ‘treated with dignity and respect’ had some influence on their ‘confidence in the court process’ and whether their ‘views were considered equally to those of the accused’. For example, respondents who ‘agreed’ and ‘strongly agreed’ that they were ‘treated with dignity and respect’ by the magistrate (17 of 18), police (18 of 19) and court staff (18 of 19) said they had ‘confidence in the court process’ and that their ‘views were considered equally to those of the accused’. This is compared to respondents who ‘disagreed’ or ‘strongly disagreed’ that the magistrate (13 of 27), police (15 of 28) and court staff (3 of 25) treated them with ‘dignity and respect’ who said that they had no ‘confidence in the court process’ and that their ‘views were not considered equally to those of the accused’. Similarly, those respondents (21 of 26) who ‘disagreed’ or ‘strongly disagreed’ that the lawyer for the accused ‘treated them with dignity and respect’ did not have ‘confidence in the court process’ and did not feel that their ‘views were treated equally to those of the accused’. Overall, respondents who expressed a strength of feeling (‘strongly disagreed’ or ‘strongly agreed’) about a statement tended to be clearer about their perceptions of the justice process, as compared to those respondents who ‘agreed’ or ‘disagreed’ who were less consistent with their perceptions of the justice system. 17.3 Knowledge of the court process prior to attending court Prior knowledge of the court process appeared also to influence respondents’ ‘confidence in the court process’ and perceptions that their ‘views were considered equally to those of the accused’. Those respondents (7 of 18) who said they were ‘very knowledgeable’ or ‘knowledgeable’ said they had ‘confidence in the court process’ and felt that their ‘views were treated equally to those of the accused’, compared to two of 29 who said they were ‘knowledgeable’ or ‘very knowledgeable’ but did not have ‘confidence in the court process’ and that the ‘court considered their views equally to those of the accused’. Those respondents (24 of 29) who had limited or no knowledge of the court process prior to attending court said they had ‘no confidence in the court process’ and that they felt their views were not considered equally to those of the accused’.

25

While the sample is small, the results are consistent with the literature which states that being treated with respect, having information before the court process, and safety at court influences victims’ perceptions of procedural fairness and their confidence in the court process.35

18. Limitations and strengths As with any research there are limitations. The few male respondents may highlight issues with the distribution and promotion of the survey or simply indicate that more women were motivated to respond. Although a small proportion of respondents were from CALD background, unsurprisingly the majority of respondents were from an English speaking background as the survey was not translated into other community languages. There were only two respondents who identified they were from an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander background. Overall, there were limitations in the survey design, in that information sought from respondents was too broad. This created levels of complexity which had a flow on effect on data analysis. The use of a survey tool for this research, in particular electronic surveys, proved to be more accessible to a wider range of people, regardless of disability, age or geographic location. The diversity in court locations, suggests that one quarter 22 (17.8%) of the 81 respondents who identified the court location were from rural and regional Victoria. The high proportion of people with a disability 24 (25.8%) who participated in this research, affirms the use of the electronic survey in this instance, as a mechanism which facilitates ease of access.

19. Conclusion The primary purpose for conducting this research was to fill a gap in the available data about the information and support needs of victims and witnesses in the Magistrates’ Court. Although not a representative sample, the survey results identified a number of issues which are consistent with previous research and shed further light on this important area. Importantly, the results of the survey should not be interpreted as relating only to victim and witnesses attending the Magistrates' Court for criminal proceedings. Court data indicate that very large numbers of victims and witnesses are attending court for civil intervention proceedings,36 particularly in relation to allegations of family violence. While the results of this survey reflect the increasing number of victims attending court for family violence related matters, it is not entirely clear from this survey what proportion of family violence respondents attended court for civil intervention proceedings as compared to those who attended for criminal matters in relation to breeches of intervention orders.

Broadly, the findings strongly indicate that victims and witnesses require information and in some cases support before, during and post court hearing. This was reflected by the majority of respondents indicating that ‘if an additional service was available in the

35 Laxminarayan, M., Bosnans, M., Porter, R & Sosa, L. (2013) Victim satisfaction with criminal justice: A systematic review. Victims & Offenders: An International Journal of Evidence–based Research, Policy and Practice. P.141; Ministry of Justice New Zealand (2012) Court User Survey; Ames, A,. Davis, S., Peckham, D., Boyle, E. & Micklewright, A (2003) Experiences of the Criminal Justice System: Victims and Witnesses of Crime. Audit Commission

36 See page one of this report

26

Magistrates’ Court’, they would use it. In particular, the lack of knowledge about the court process prior to attending court and assistance after the court hearing emerged as significant issues. Most surprising was that 39 of 69 respondents indicated they were not referred to support services. Those victims, who were referred to a service, were most frequently referred to court based services such as Court Network and Family Violence Services. Lack of support and assistance appeared to result in an increased demand on police and court staff to fill the information gap. A key to increasing victim and witness awareness and understanding of court processes is to ensure that victims and witnesses are linked to a victim support service prior to attending court. Streamlining police referral of victims to services through the E-Referral system, while not mandated, has been a feature of the victims’ services space for the last two and a half years. The aim is that victims are referred by police to the Victims of Crime Helpline, then depending on the crime referred to a Victims Assistance and Counselling Service, Family Violence Program (including court based program), sexual assault service or other appropriate service. Although the E-Referral initiative continues to link an increasing number of victims to services, some victims will still not be aware of available services. With this in mind, the VSA continues to produce information through its publications and web site.37 The aim of VSA information is to demystify the justice process, provide victims with information about how crime can affect them, the services available and their rights as victims of crime. The latest VSA Communications Strategy38 also targets the families and friends of victims, and organisations who have contact with victims of crime. This approach recognises that there are multiple pathways through which victims receive information and access services.

Safety at court emerged as a significant issue for respondents. The survey results indicate that the safety concerns of victims and witnesses who attend court are not being met within the current physical environment of the Magistrates’ Courts. Further, the results indicate that victims who felt safe at court were more likely to have ‘confidence in the court process’ and feel that their ‘views were considered equally to those of the accused’. While new court buildings are dependent on increased resources to progress, it is clear that more immediate solutions are required. Respondents identified that strategies such as segregated waiting areas, providing evidence remotely and the presence of a support person alleviated safety concerns.

One of the characteristics of a fair justice system is that victims and witnesses who are required to engage with it, should emerge from the court process no worse than when they entered. Their experience should also give them confidence in the court process. Overall, respondents felt that they were treated with courtesy, dignity and respect. In particular, court staff were frequently identified as treating victims with dignity and respect. In some instances however, some respondents felt that they were not treated with courtesy, dignity or respect by some magistrates, police and Police Prosecutors. This also applied to treatment by defence barristers, leaving some victims feeling as if they were the ‘criminal’, they were ‘stupid’, that they were ‘dismissed’ or that they were ‘not believed’. Being treated with ‘dignity and respect’ emerged as an influential factor in respondents level of ‘confidence in the court process’ and whether their ‘views were

37 http://www.victimsofcrime.vic.gov.au/ 38 Victims Support Agency (2012-13) Communications Strategy

27

treated equally to those of the accused’.

It reflects well on the court process that a high proportion of respondents felt that their views were treated equally to those of the accused. However, a slightly higher proportion of respondents did not hold this view, and fewer still left the court feeling that their experience had given them confidence in the court process. It is perhaps inevitable that a proportion of those who attend the court will not emerge feeling confident in the process. However, the literature in the field strongly suggests that improving aspects of the court experience will have flow on benefits for victim and witness confidence. Consistent with the literature, the results of this survey identified ‘safety at court’, whether they were ‘treated with dignity and respect’ and respondents prior knowledge of the court process’ as factors which influenced respondents’ confidence in the court process and sense of procedural fairness.

Improving the evidence base is essential for the continued development of best practice which informs the justice and victims service system response to victims and witnesses. Results of this research indicate that some aspects of the justice and or victims service response require further and more focused attention. The following recommendations arise from the findings of this research and provide strategies to address the information and support needs of victims and witnesses who attend the Magistrates’ Court.

20. Recommendations 1. That the VACP and Magistrates’ Courts build and strengthen relationships at a

regional level. 2. That VSA reaffirm with the VACPs the importance of providing assistance before,

during and after court.

3. The Magistrates’ Court and VSA discuss the availability of VSA publications in an accessible and prominent location at each Magistrates’ Court.

4. That the Magistrates’ Court, in consultation with court based services and subject to

available resources, develop local and systemic responses to increase the safety of victims and witnesses during the court process. This could include:

a. Investigating emerging IT opportunities so as to reduce the need for victims to physically attend court

b. Investigating ways to provide increased access of family violence victims to remote witness facilities.

c. Investigate the option of each court conducting a security and safety audit in an effort to identify what individual court responses may be achievable to increase safety and reduce intimidation of victims who are required to attend court. Such strategies could include segregating victims from the accused and or their family or supporters. The progress of this recommendation and the actions ensuing will be dependent on facilities, infrastructure limitations and availability of additional resources.

5. That the Magistrates’ Court, in consultation with court based services, investigate

obtaining local resources to develop local and systemic responses to increase the safety of victims and witnesses during the court process. This could include:

a. Providing priority access, in addition to sexual assault victims, to remote witness facilities.

b. Identify, as a priority for courts with existing family violence services, individualised court responses which ensure victims are segregated from the accused and or their family or supporters.

28

6 That the Magistrates’ Court builds on existing strengths and identifies opportunities

for improvement in existing policies in improving victims and witnesses experience at court and promotes consistency in how such policies are applied in practice.

7. The survey be repeated in 2014 with the results being compared to this survey.

8. That a more focused survey be designed to seek input about the factors that may

influence confidence in the court process.