Navigating through an obstacle course: The complaints mechanism for victims of crime in England and Wales

Abstract

The Code of Practice for Victims of Crime, introduced by the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004, is portrayed as an important advance on the previous two Charters, particularly with regards to the complaints process available in cases where service providers breach these obligations. This article provides a detailed description of the Code's complaints process as well as its functioning in order to evaluate its efficacy. The methodology behind this evaluation comprises several interviews with members of the Parliamentary Ombudsman's office and analysis of legal documents such as statutes, case law, reports and the relevant academic literature on victims. The article argues that the Code's complaints process is not an effective and adequate mechanism for victims of crime, since contrary to its aims, it is largely inaccessible, long, overly complex and does not provide sufficient guarantees of privacy and objectivity as well as adequate redress and remedies for victims when service providers breach their duties. Instead, victims of crime would benefit from the development of a new mechanism that is sensitive to their needs, values accessibility and objectivity and provides effective remedies to ensure redress and accountability.

Crime victims’ rights commissioners: public interest entities in a regulatory regime

“…However, adoption of a law 'in the books' is different to its implementation 'in action'. An analysis of 22 European countries found the overall rate of implementation of the first 1985 victims' declaration to be "disappointing" (Brienen & Hoegen, 2000, p. 3), a finding supported by research in the US (Government Accountability Office [GAO], 2008;Hillenbrand & Smith, 1989;Kirkpatrick, Beatty, & Howley, 1998), Canada (Manikis, 2012), and Australia (Holder, 2008). Reflecting on these findings, Groenhuijsen argues that implementation of victims' rights charters is actually "a real challenge" for governments 6 All 50 states in the US have some form of victims' rights legislation, and 32 states have constitutional amendments guaranteeing certain rights (Davis, Anderson, Howley, Dorris & Whitman, 2012, p. 2).…”

“…In the UK, legislators prioritised the notion of impartiality for the mechanism to assess complaints from crime victims and nominated the Parliamentary Ombudsman (PO), a body that provides Members of Parliament with an avenue to investigate complaints from constituents about issues of maladministration by government entities. The PO, rather than being a "champion" of victims, was considered an "impartial" arbiter of crime victims' complaints (Rock, 2004, p. 553;Manikis, 2012). New Zealand followed a similar path.…”

“…Over the past three decades, many jurisdictions have introduced standards, called victims' 'rights' or victim charters, for criminal justice institutions to guide their treatment of crime victims. Victims' rights scholarship has examined the scope of these guidelines and the extent to which they create a platform for people as crime victims to participate meaningfully in legal proceedings (Davis & Mulford, 2008;Doak, Henham & Mitchell, 2009;Kirchengast, 2017;Manikis, 2012). The legal force of the guidelines is ambiguous: are they service standards or legal rights?…”

Contrasting the Emergence of the Victims’ Movements in the United States and England and Wales

“…As a result of this advocacy, the first rape crisis centre was created in 1972 as well as the first rape crisis hotline, and a task force to research battering in 1976 [29] (pp. 16,54).…”

“…These rights often operate outside of criminal court proceedings and although they create duties upon criminal justice agencies, they rarely conflict with defendants' rights. Similarly, enforcement mechanisms that address cases of victims' rights breaches in England and Wales consist of administrative mechanisms, such as complaints processes, ombudsmen processes [16], and judicial reviews that also operate outside of criminal proceedings [6]. By contrast, although some service rights are recognised in the United States, most rights are classified as procedural rights, notably under the federal Crime Victims Rights Act.…”