Silencing of the victims

Candor Trust, a charity involved with Victim support says victims of road crime in particular have long been silenced, within a Justice system more hostile to their interests than any other victim group.

As there is so much to criticise in the maintenance of law in this area, and similar use of imprisonment for drink or drug drivers as is seen in Australia or other civil societies, would make our prisons burst at the seams.

The repression of victims is also often traceable to the fact victims will often have info about ongoing DUI offences by culprits, which upsets prosecutors. And there is the consideration that any great expression of sorrow will cause some self aggrandising Judges to recoil.

As a decent balanced uncut statement is sure to make a typical 8 month sentence for road homicide (driving under the influence), and thereby the Judge perpetrating such acts of indecency look even more nutty.

So "image management" for an unhealthy system is certainly another factor.
Effects of road homicide are shown to equal the effects of murder on victims in long range studies from the Federation of European Road Victims. The system is only too happy to put the boot in.

"We have been concerned at the heavy handed way that the Victim Support Trust guides the writing of victim's statements, as we've heard much ill sentiment regarding this - a steady stream of grumbling from road criminals victims."

Todays Herald article in response to the complaints of Lois Dears son has made clearer now the political pressures Victim support is under - this conflict of interests needs to stop, as any pressure to write sanitised statements is unfair.

"The Courts really aren't interested in hearing anything that might raise culpability. Something we often strike is victims who fail to realise that the Victims Rights Act does not confer on victims any right to speak at all - it is entirely up to the Judge".

We have some members who went through the correct procedures. They sent statements they had agonised over to victim advisors in faraway Courts, so they could get the Judges approval as per protocols.

After sleepless nights (as who actually likes doing this kind of thing), the victims traveled there at great expense to make their oral submissions, in honour of their slain family members.

But when it came to the sentencing the Judge has chosen to studiously passed over them, as if they were invisible. Solely because their statement could have embarrassed the court.

Yet they were forced while their mouths were metaphorically duct taped to hear their relatives killer tell several lies, such as that he had apologised to them.

Their statement could have refuted this and other defence counsel candy coating.

And it would have pointed out in one place that the Court had caused their family members homicide in the first place. By sentencing a driver who had seriously crashed due to drug intoxication to traffic school just 40 days before he killed.

This matter clearly was pertinent to the sentencing - it showed habitual offending of which the Court was not aware, since the Court was never provided with the drivers drug results for the prior offense.

"It seems very unethical for the system to lead offenders up the garden path by pretending Judges will let them speak then denying that wish without warning on the day".

Peter Sankoff Senior Law Lecturer has said that as early as 1989 Court of Appeal judges were viewing their purpose as only to provide "useful information".

Anything such as criticism of the criminal or system, would be viewed by the Judiciary as disrupting a court's ability to administer justice.

Victim impact statements were intended by Parliament to help the victim, but Candor say the Victims can not be helped if the Court is not robust enough to hear or accept any blame on their Staff or sentences, where it is due.

"Parliament made a big mistake, when it gave full censorship rights to the Judges - it is not the victims who are not impartial, some are surprisingly reasonable people".

"But as for the Judges, well they seem all too often from victims dissatisfaction levels to be grossly misusing their powers. How can Courts administer Justice when they are so phobic about Victim participation".

"Victims should be warned that sentencing was never meant to be a democratic process. Judges dictate, and short of doing the haka they can often find themselves up the creek without a paddle should they decide to engage with Courts".

The Trust has a policy of advising victims not to be disappointed if they must travel far to a sentencing and are misled to believe they will be called upon to speak, then it either does not happen.

Or if (as is more typical) the speech is so pruned by self interested parties that what was once a fine Xmas tree is now a bonsai.

As victims are permitted no lawyer the only recourse left in these situations is;

1) A complaint to the Secretary of Justice who can look at whether there was a glitch in the communication system between victims advisors and Judges
2) A complaint to the Judicial Complaints Authority. Call 0800 800 32
3) Risk contempt of Court by asserting your rights and just interrupt and speak anyway, if the wiggy one goes to pass sentence after passing you over.

If you have a record via e-mails or phone messages from Victims advisors this will help prove you had arranged to speak, and that the Judge "conveniently forgot".

ENDS

© Scoop Media