- The Convener:
The fourth new petition under consideration is PE1403, on improving support and assistance to victims of crime and their families. Members have the clerk’s note, the SPICe briefing and the petition itself. I welcome to the meeting Peter Morris, who is accompanied by Anna Robertson of the Aberdeen Law Project. I invite Mr Morris to make a short presentation of around five minutes, after which we will move to questions.
- Mark McDonald:
Before Mr Morris makes his presentation, I should declare an interest. As members who have read the petition will note, I have provided support to Mr Morris in the course of his submitting the petition.
- The Convener:
Thank you very much for that notification.
- Peter Morris:
Good afternoon. I am the chief proposer of the petition, which seeks to stop victims of crime suffering a life sentence. I introduce Anna Robertson, who is a student with the Aberdeen Law Project and who will act as a witness for the petition.
I am grateful to the Public Petitions Committee for receiving the petition with such speed. I presented it to the convener just over two weeks ago and I believe that the committee’s swift response shows that it resonates not only with the thousands of people who signed it, but here at Holyrood.
It is my task not only to prove the credibility of the headline but to examine the issues that underlie it. I believe that the category “victim” should cover all those who are affected by crime, including the direct victim, family members, friends and witnesses. All those people find themselves in positions that are not of their creation and it is important that we recognise crime’s far-reaching ripple effects.
I also acknowledge that in recent years the situation of victims of crime has improved somewhat. However, the facts suggest that they have merely progressed from being third-class citizens to being second-class citizens. With appropriate consideration, I believe that we can ensure that these very special people become first-class citizens.
Having set out those principles, I will break down the petition into three main categories. The first is investigation and police involvement with victims of crime, the second is the court case and how it relates to victims of crime and the third is conclusions, effects and recovery of victims post court case.
The first category deals with police involvement with victims from an investigation’s inception. The titles and the language that the police use do not always endear them to families. For example, the title “family liaison officer” is very official and is sometimes off-putting for families. I suggest that the police should assign a “case companion” to families, which would indicate to families that they have someone who is on their side, who is a friend and who does not work just for police purposes. Communication levels between the police and victims and assessments of victims are also concerns, as are victims’ access to information and the availability of information following a trial.
The second category—the court case and how it relates to victims of crime—is about issues that surround the court case. Just one example is that the accused is allowed to occupy the same space as victims. The category also deals with issues such as the court, the media, expenses and compensation.
The third category—conclusions, effects and recovery of victims post court case—addresses victims’ needs at the end of a case and beyond, examines the need for more post-case care and addresses legal issues for victims.
I was first told in February 2008 about the reinvestigation of my sister’s death. The court case started in February 2011, and I went through the three and a half months of the longest single-accused court case in Scottish history, through conviction and sentencing until now, so I have had a number of experiences through the years that I believe qualify me to talk on the subjects that I have raised.
For all the categories, I can amplify the need for change and I have constructive and positive solutions, on which I shall be happy to answer the committee’s questions. Anna Robertson is happy to answer the committee’s questions about Aberdeen Law Project’s involvement with the petition and about her views.
- The Convener:
Thank you for outlining your petition. I will kick off with questions and then bring in my colleagues in a few minutes. If Anna Robertson wishes to speak, she should please let me know.
Is there a case for having minimum standards for victims?
- Peter Morris:
The police need to rethink their strategy from an investigation’s inception for dealing with families—especially with bereaved families in murder cases. The police go round to impart to a family the news that a loved one has been murdered. They have created the position of family liaison officer—that has been around for about 15 years, since the Stephen Lawrence inquiry. In my experience, such officers are there not for the family but to collect statements for the police and to collate information.
The police need to improve many areas, including communication; they need to stay in touch with victims. I suggest that there should be a phone call at least once a week while the investigation takes place, just to check on victims’ families’ wellbeing. There were times when I did not see or speak to my family liaison officers for months. Some questions that I asked were not answered for several days. The truth is a natural prerequisite for justice, and when you are waiting for the truth about your loved one, one thing that is very frustrating and which causes mistrust is when an eternity is spent getting an answer to a question. I am not talking about questions that the police cannot answer for legal reasons or whatever; I am talking about very simple practical questions, such as “How am I going to get to court?”
I genuinely believe that the police have to reduce formality—I will give an example of how overformal they were with my family. On four occasions before an arranged police visit to my 86-year-old mother’s home, I had to take her to the accident and emergency department because she had extremely high blood pressure. She did very well and managed to complete a statement, but after a while I made an agreement with the FLOs that they would pass information through me and I would gently disseminate it to her. Many times throughout the process—it was a long process—I genuinely thought that she was not going to survive it. The police need to take a much more victim-friendly approach.
- The Convener:
Thank you, Mr Morris. I will bring in Sandra White.
- Sandra White:
Welcome to the committee, Mr Morris. It is very brave of you to come here today and relive some of the hurt, so thank you for coming.
I want to touch on communication and access to information. The petition is about assistance to victims of crime and their families, so this is not so much a question as an agreement. As MSPs, we have lots of cases that go to the public prosecutors and so on, and I find that the lack of communication and lack of access to information is a sticking point for victims and their families.
- Peter Morris:
It is horrendous.
- Sandra White:
I know that we are considering the introduction of a bill for victims, which I absolutely agree with. Could you enlighten me on what would be the best way forward for the PF’s office to be more involved? How would it work with a victims’ rights bill if the PF’s office had to be brought in with the police and others?
- Peter Morris:
First, people going through the procedures are passed from pillar to post far too much. During the investigation they have an FLO, during the court case they have a victim information and advice officer and, when the court case is finished, they have no one. I believe that there should be the continuity of having the same person running from the inception of the investigation, through the period of charging, to the court case and beyond, which is why I suggest that there be case companions. That would be family friendly—“family liaison officer” is an official term. The language that the police use is very important.
The police have made improvements—I am not saying that they have not. The situation is much better than it was before the Stephen Lawrence case, but the process still needs to be much more sensitive to families’ needs. At the moment, it is based on police needs. I also suggest that families have the opportunity to assess the officers who are assigned to them and, if there is poor rapport or communication with them, to ask for them to be changed. A lot of families have good relationships with the officers who are assigned to them, but if they do not, they should have the opportunity to ask for them to be changed. At the moment, the officers are decided purely by the senior investigating officer.
- Sandra White:
That is why I wanted to follow on with the question that I asked. If we had a victims’ rights bill, it would not just involve the police: the Crown Office and the PF’s office would be involved, too. I was just asking—
- Peter Morris:
Sorry, what is the PF’s office?
- Sandra White:
It is the procurator fiscal’s office. Would it be preferable if that office and the Crown Office, rather than just the police, oversaw the system in a victims’ rights bill?
- Peter Morris:
Their inclusion would be well worth while. For example, the procurator fiscal’s office would probably tell you that its VIA officers are far too thinly spread. I had positive things to say about my VIA officer in Glasgow High Court—she was absolutely wonderful—but the amount of time that she could spend with me was limited because she had so many people to deal with. That is an area in which there could be improvement, although I am not saying that the VIA officers would have to work on a one-to-one basis. To answer your question, I think that the inclusion of the Crown Office and PF’s office in the discussion is vital.
- Sandra White:
Thank you.
14:45
- Mark McDonald:
Welcome back to Edinburgh, Peter. I am interested in the post-court-case gap that has been identified—Anna Robertson might want to comment on the work that the Aberdeen Law Project has done on that. From a victim’s perspective, how did you feel when the court case finished? It was an extremely high-profile case, which would have been quite emotionally draining, given the length of time that passed between your sister’s death and the eventual conviction of Malcolm Webster. How did you feel at the end of it? What would have helped in the way of post-trial support?
- Peter Morris:
I joined some forums for people who had been through similar experiences. For example, I went on the SAMM forum—SAMM stands for Support after Murder and Manslaughter, which is a charity. When I went on those forums, the most common comment that I read was, “Joe Bloggs has got 15 years for killing my Johnny, but I’m suffering a life sentence.” I read that time and again, so it occurred to me that there is a massive gap between justice and recovery. I think of the situation as being like two cliff edges with a big gap in the middle. Something needs to bridge that gap, which a lot of people fall down. A woman in London lost her son—he was murdered in a stairwell. She went to court and she got justice, but she did not go out of her house for five years. I propose that justice without recovery is pointless. We need to help people to recover.
I am going to be critical here. I read a report by Louise Casey, the Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses in England and Wales, in which she said that when her organisation did a survey of 400 murder trials, the vast majority of people wanted to be left alone. To me, that showed a complete lack of empathy with the subject that she was addressing. Of course they wanted to be left alone—they were in pain—but you would not leave a cancer victim alone because they were in pain; you give them every possible opportunity for treatment to help them to recover.
I believe that the same course of action is appropriate for victims of crime who have to go through what is probably the most traumatic experience of their lives—attending a court case, at which they come face to face with someone who has murdered one of their family, and having to keep their self-control in the court house. In my case, the murderer was behind me in the canteen queue on four occasions, and he used to sit outside my little room. I genuinely believe that, in his own clever way, he was trying to provoke me, but I managed to put up an emotional brick wall to him, and I taught other family members, when they came up, to do the same. I fully respect the fact that the accused is innocent until proven guilty, but I genuinely think that they should be kept in a separate part of the court house, because the potential for the trial to be jeopardised as a result of someone’s inappropriate actions is quite high.
- The Convener:
Do you wish to add anything at this stage, Anna?
- Anna Robertson (Aberdeen Law Project):
Yes. The Aberdeen Law Project has done research on what help, support and assistance can be given to victims. We found that counselling is missing throughout—from the start, when someone is originally victimised, through to the post-trial period. We feel that even having some sort of meeting, at which a victim could have mentors and in which other victims could be involved so that they could help each other through the situation, would be good.
The convener mentioned minimum standards. We agree with the bill proposal that there should be minimum standards that the organisations that are being funded should have to meet, even if that might involve publishing what they wish to achieve. I understand that the existence of minimum standards could seem quite official, but there is no point in giving money to those organisations—which are doing a brilliant job so far—unless minimum standards are met for the people who are affected by crimes.
- John Wilson:
Good afternoon. My question is linked to what Ms Robertson just said. Who would be best placed to provide follow-up support? As Ms Robertson said, a range of services provide support to victims. The family liaison officer is the first port of call after a serious incident. The court services then intervene and then we have Victim Support Scotland. Who should provide comprehensive support and back-up, particularly to the families of victims of serious crime? We need to examine what would be the best way forward, rather than just pass victims of crime on from family liaison officers or—as Mr Morris has dubbed them—case companions, because we put a lot of funding into support services for victims of crime.
- Peter Morris:
I will let Anna Robertson answer, but I want to jump in first. There was a time during the three-year period between reinvestigation and trial when I tried to get therapy for myself. I went to my doctor, explained what was going on and said that it was causing me angst, depression and all the rest of it. I got therapy 10 months later—inappropriate cognitive behavioural therapy. I will let Anna give her opinion, but I believe that that is another area where somebody being assigned to a family would be able to speed things up and highlight the need for the individual concerned to get the therapy that they need. That is why I believe that there should be a case companion right through the process. Trauma can be experienced pretrial, during the investigation, during the trial itself and afterwards.
- Anna Robertson:
I agree with Peter Morris that there should be a case companion or liaison officer to take people through to the post-trial period. Organisations such as Victim Support, which the Government funds, should take on that work and they should work in partnership. I understand that a lot of Victim Support’s work is partnership based and involves the police, the PF and so on. There should be a partnership that includes everyone in order to provide the best possible support and assistance.
- Bill Walker:
I have great sympathy for what can happen during a court case, where people are basically just milling around. It is not right; it is just not fair to victims or potential victims because, at that time, you do not know what will be the outcome of the case. It is quite wrong and I know of it happening myself.
My question is a bit of a devil’s advocate question—I suspect that I know the answer. Is there, in this process of victim support and recovery, a role for restorative justice involving the guilty person?
- Peter Morris:
As far as I am concerned, the definition of “recovery” is when the thought of the criminal no longer affects you. People have often asked me about the word “forgive”. I prefer to think of the word in its original Hebrew state, which meant “let go”. Once you can let go of the person who has committed that heinous crime against you, you are way down the road to recovery. I believe that I have done that with Malcolm Webster. The other day I heard comments about a newspaper article, and someone asked me whether I had seen that he had been beaten up in prison. I said that I didn’t care. What matters to me now is what I can do for other people who have to go through such situations. I am passionate about this. I could not care less about any talk about Malcolm Webster now: for me, that is the definition of recovery.
- The Convener:
Thank you. I am afraid that we are running out of time again. The committee will now consider the options that are available—the clerk has prepared a paper that outlines the options.
- Mark McDonald:
I agree that we should write to the Government and to Victim Support Scotland. We might also write to People Experiencing Trauma and Loss, which does a lot of victim support work. It might be worth getting its views on the petition.
- John Wilson:
We should also write to the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland and the Scottish Court Service. Mr Morris raised the important issue of witnesses, members of the victim’s family and people who are facing conviction milling about in the same building and even, in some cases, the same waiting rooms. It would be good to get the views of ACPOS and the Scottish Court Service on that.
- Nanette Milne:
Is there any knowledge yet of the timing of the victims’ rights bill?
- The Convener:
That is a legitimate question for us to ask the Government.
- Nanette Milne:
Once we know that, it might be appropriate to refer the petition, along with our findings so far, to the Justice Committee.
- The Convener:
That is in the clerk’s recommendations.
- Neil Bibby (West Scotland) (Lab):
I do not know whether it would be appropriate to do so, but points were raised about changes that could be made in the language that the police use, so we could contact the police about that.
- Peter Morris:
Mark McDonald mentioned PETAL; I am having a meeting with Joe Duffy in about 15 minutes.
I should also inform you that Gary Cox—who is, I believe, connected with Kenny MacAskill—has asked me to write to him with my positive suggestions on the victims’ rights bill, which I have done, in accordance with what I am doing here with you.
- The Convener:
Are members content that we continue the petition and write to the various agencies that have been mentioned?
Members indicated agreement.
- The Convener:
I thank Peter Morris and Anna Robertson for coming along. Your evidence was helpful.
We will suspend for two minutes to allow the witnesses to leave.
14:57
Meeting suspended.
14:58
On resuming—