DPP CONFERENCE:VICTIM IMPACT statements may be helpful in giving a voice to victims, but they fit very awkwardly into the normal traditional criminal trial, according to the president of the Law Reform Commission.
“From the point of view of victims, does the ability to submit a victim impact statement or give oral evidence of their suffering really assist in healing their wounds, in diminishing their sorrow and loss,” Mrs Justice Catherine McGuinness asked.
The former Supreme Court judge was addressing a conference on the voice of the child in criminal proceedings at the weekend.
Organised jointly by the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and special child abuse units in Temple Street and Crumlin children’s hospitals, this is the second conference on this theme. The first conference took place in 2004. Mrs Justice McGuinness pointed out that our system of criminal law had evolved from victims seeking their own remedy to crime being seen as an offence against the community and citizens in general.
In this process, the position of the victim was diminished. However, this had changed over the past 15 to 20 years, and in 1993 the Oireachtas enacted the Criminal Justice Act, which provided for the court to take into account in sentencing, where necessary, submissions on the effect of the crime on the victim.
She pointed out that the Act did not envisage such submissions in relation to murder, as the sentence was already fixed by statute as a life sentence, and the victim, by definition, could not give evidence.
Victim impact statements had since 1993 become a feature of criminal trials, with some victims giving oral evidence. Asking what was the purpose of such statements, she inquired: “Should the victim evidence affect the length of the sentence and if so, to what degree? The 1993 Act gives no guidance on this point.”
If this was what it was meant to do, it would seem hypocritical to treat two people whose crimes were precisely the same differently on the basis of their victims’ response, she said.
“It would also seem contrary to the present repeated demands by politicians and the media for consistency in sentencing.”
She added that, as the Law Reform Commission report on sentencing pointed out: “We should avoid the facile assumption that society’s responsibilities to the victim are best discharged through the imposition of heavily retributive sentences.”
Yet allowing a fraction of the time of a trial to a victim or the family of a homicide victim is something the criminal justice system should be able to accommodate, she said. “Preserving the integrity of the system while affording some consideration to the victim need not be mutually exclusive goals.”
Opening the conference, Director of Public Prosecutions James Hamilton welcomed the commencement order signed by the Minister for Justice allowing the video recording of a child’s interview. He also welcomed the fact that funding had been granted to an organisation specifically for the purpose of accompanying children attending court as witnesses.
However, he said he was conscious that many victims’ organisations did not see themselves as having the necessary remit to carry out this work, and he urged the new Commission for the Support of Victims of Crime to bear this in mind as they carry out their work.
The question of delay was examined and he said he was conscious that the time scale within which a child functions was different to that of an adult. “It is incumbent upon all of us within the criminal justice system to mitigate delays in cases involving children,” he said.
He also stressed the importance of continued interaction between the healthcare and legal professionals in dealing with child victims of sexual abuse and their families and in managing their expectations.