Parliamentary Committees

LEGISLATIVE REVIEW COMMITTEE: VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENTS

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY (12:36): I move:

That the report of the committee, on Victim Impact Statements, be noted.

In May 2009, the Legislative Review Committee resolved to adopt the inquiry moved in this council by the Hon. John Darley on the effect of victim impact statements. The inquiry was in response to a concern that victims of summary offences—often heard in the Magistrates Court—did not have a statutory right to deliver a victim impact statement (VIS) in court. This is despite the fact that the offence may have resulted in serious harm or even death to a person.

Over the last four years, a number of attempts were made by both the government and private members to amend the law surrounding victim impact statements to extend the right to deliver a statement to victims of summary offences in certain circumstances. The inquiry sought to examine in detail the consequences of providing such rights to victims as well as looking at the experiences of victims in the criminal justice system and how they might be better assisted.

The inquiry's first term of reference addressed the potential effect on the courts of extending victims' rights to deliver a victim impact statement to summary offences resulting in the death or serious harm of a person. The second term of reference sought to explore the current experience of victims delivering a VIS in court. The third term of reference inquired as to the types of services and facilities that should be made available to victims to assist them in the criminal justice system.

The committee heard evidence and received submissions from the Chief Magistrate, South Australia Police, SafeWork SA, the Commissioner for Victims' Rights and the Victim Support Service. It also heard evidence from two victims of crime, Mrs Julie McIntyre and Mrs Diana Gilcrist-Humphrey.

There was a concern that broadening the category of offences for which a victim has a right to deliver a VIS would cause delays in the courts, especially the Magistrates Court. Evidence to the committee indicated that such delays were unlikely to occur. SafeWork SA submitted that it is already a practice in the Industrial Court, which hears summary offences, to give a victim the opportunity to deliver a victim impact statement.

Submissions from the South Australian police and the Chief Magistrate indicated that extending this right will not cause undue delays or require significant extra resources. In September 2010, changes to the law came into effect extending the rights of victims to deliver a VIS to prescribed summary offences causing death, total incapacity or serious harm, as defined in the act. The offence of assault is specifically excluded from this provision to alleviate concerns about potential delays in the Magistrates Court. The committee endorsed this amendment to the law.

Submissions of victims highlighted how important it was for them to read out their victim impact statement in court. It gave them the opportunity to have a voice in the criminal justice system. The inquiry revealed that the benefits of delivering a VIS are not limited to victims. The committee considered the results of a recent survey of members of the judiciary who found this information contained in a VIS useful during sentencing.

The evidence also revealed a range of difficulties experienced by victims in delivering their victim impact statements. These included court editing of statements, having to seek the leave of the court even to have the right to deliver a statement, and the defendant not being required to be present to hear statements read out in the case of summary offences. There were also concerns expressed about the lack of information available to victims, especially about what to expect at court and the support available to them.

The committee has recommended that there be better communication between the courts and victims, and that a designated person be appointed to advise victims of their rights, and guide them through the process of delivering their victim impact statement, as well was inform them of what to expect in court.

The committee noted that a number of pilot programs have been run in South Australia where victims and offenders are able to address one another in a more informal conference setting outside the court. These included a conference pilot run through the Port Lincoln Magistrates Court for Aboriginal offenders held in 2008, the adult restorative justice conferencing pilot run in the Adelaide Magistrates Court in 2005, and the family conferences run in the Youth Court. The conferences allowed the offender and the victim to speak freely about the offence and its effects. The outcomes are then reported to the court during sentencing.

These pilot programs were, however, more focused on outcomes for the defendant than for the victim. The committee has recommended the establishment of a victim impact conference where victims can speak about the effects of the crime on them, without the constraints of court. Such a conference would be available at the recommendation or request of the judge, magistrate or victim. Information and support would be provided to victims before, during and after the conference which would be facilitated by an independent officer.

The committee also recommended that a review be undertaken of all the services provided to victims in the justice system. Part of this review should include a survey of all participants in the criminal justice system, including victims, to ascertain their views and experiences with a view to achieving further law reform.

On behalf of the committee, I would like to thank all those who made a submission to the inquiry, and in particular those victims who gave evidence of their personal and sometimes very difficult experiences within the criminal justice system. I would like to acknowledge the contribution of former members of the committee who heard the evidence to this inquiry, as well as all the members of the current committee who considered the report. I would also like to thank the committee staff, the secretary, Ms Leslie Guy, and the research officer, Ms Carren Walker.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. T.J. Stephens.