It was a good week for victims of crime. After long years of being treated as little more than troublesome spectators, they now have their own charter. Not bad for a species whose existence was first acknowledged in Irish criminal legislation only six years ago.
At first sight, the new Charter, published by the Department of Justice, may look like nothing more than an assertion of the obvious. A declaration that a victim is entitled to "efficiency, courtesy and fairness" from the courts is hardly earth-shaking.
The notion that the Garda should keep a victim informed about the progress of a case is nothing more than common decency. The idea that the Prison Service should "provide the requisite number of prison spaces" or take into account any potential risk to the victim when considering a prisoner's temporary release, is common sense.
The expectation that the Probation and Welfare Service when working with offenders, should seek to challenge the offending behaviour and its consequences for the victim, is hardly unreasonable. The implication that the Chief State Solicitor's Office might not facilitate a pre-trial meeting for the victim with the state solicitor and counsel seems astonishing.
Yet, the fact that all this had to be committed to paper implies that many citizens entering the Irish criminal justice system as victims, have been victimised not once but several times over. If - in the words of a former war crimes Chief Prosecutor, Judge Richard Goldstone - "one of the important, if not the most important aspects of justice, is healing victims", then justice is only beginning to do its job.
What is perceived as "progress" serves only to point up the lack of humanity in the system. "The Director for Public Prosecutions now encourages prosecuting counsel to shake hands with the victim in the case, to introduce him or herself, to be courteous and civil. . . ", says Donal Egan, chairman of Victim Support and a practising barrister.
That the DPP might have to "encourage" a state-appointed lawyer to be civil to an injured citizen, to acknowledge the latter as a central figure in his or her own case, may seem downright funny to everybody but the victim, relegated as a piece of evidence to the back of the court, already frozen by injury, by the alien atmosphere, by being forced to share a waiting space with the accused's scowling relatives - only to be told casually as the judge rises hours later that her presence wasn't required after all.
When a similar experience befell Jennifer Guinness, a kidnap victim and subsequent chair of Victim Support, she remarked that the court experience had been as bad as the kidnap itself.
The abyss of misunderstanding was underscored last year by a woman who told the National Crime Forum of how astonished she was to hear lawyers and police describe her feelings, her reactions and needs, in spite of the fact that they didn't know her and had never spoken to her.
What is required to rectify the balance between the rights of the accused and the victim, for the most part, says Donal Egan, is no dramatic change in legislation or constitutional challenges but "simple courtesy and civility". Research elsewhere has shown that how people are treated within a system is ultimately more important to them than the outcome of the case.
The Court Victim/Witness service provided by Victim Support and promised in the charter "before, during and after the court process" should ensure that the courts will never seem so alien again. The introduction of an information desk in the Four Courts complex - manned by the Department of Justice - means that no one need feel lost. Information is crucial.
The Victims Charter therefore answers at least one pressing need of the voluntary and statutory agencies when consulted by an injured party. For the first time, they have a well-designed, clearly written guide to hand out, explaining the role of the six State agencies involved and of Victim Support, followed by a statement of what victims can expect from those agencies.
"It's not aspirational - it has concrete commitments and that's welcome. It addresses the need of victims to get due recognition in the criminal justice system", says Patrick O'Dea, PRO of the Probation and Welfare branch of Impact.
"What's good about it is that it's in writing," says Olive Braiden of the Dublin Rape Crisis Centre. "You might, for example, tell a client that they're entitled to a copy of their statement from the Garda but very often, this might not be as seamless as it sounds. If someone is in a state of distress and things are not immediately available, they might feel they are not entitled to it. This clearly sets out their entitlements."
"It means no fudging anymore. It's all been pinned down," says Lillian McGovern, chief executive of Victim Support. "A big issue for us, for example, is the victim not being kept informed about the progress of a case and bumping into the offender in the supermarket when she thought he was in jail. The Charter states that the Garda will tell you whether the accused is out on bail or is about to be released."
Nowhere is this need better illustrated than in the Philip Sheedy case where it was a chance sighting of Sheedy out on early release that unleashed terrible private hurt and a legal earthquake. The circumstances of this case however, also expose a remaining hole in the system. As the Charter makes clear, where the release is ordered by the court, prior notification to victims "will not usually be possible". Presumably it will be possible to notify them immediately afterwards although this is omitted from the Charter.
IN THE week that saw the retirement of the State's first Director of Public Prosecutions, Eamonn Barnes, what appeared to be the most surprising feature in the Charter - the victim's right to demand a review where the DPP decides not to prosecute - wasn't all that surprising in the end.
"It might be one of the country's best kept secrets, but the DPP would always carry out a review when asked," says Victim Support. Mr Barnes himself also insists that the provision was always there: "We have been reviewing decisions at the request of victims and aggrieved relatives for 20 years". But an old sparring partner of his, Olive Braiden of the Dublin Rape Crisis Centre, remains sceptical: "I was amused to read that he said that this had always been the practice. No way was there a sense that people coming to us were entitled to a review of their cases . . ."
One source of controversy destined to remain so is the DPP's inability to give the reasons for his decisions. The Charter says that although the reasons are given to the investigating gardai, the DPP is precluded from disclosing them to any other party. "There are times when we're pawing the ground to give reasons", he said this week, "especially when people are making political capital out of it. If we could get around the issue of a) injustice, and b) defamation, we would be delighted to give reasons". Whether it's down to a vital witness withdrawing a statement or incompetent Garda preparation, every citizen is innocent until proven guilty. Victims therefore must settle for the DPP's commitment to "examine a request for a review of the decision . . ." which may lead to an "independent internal review".
And if such a commitment is not fulfilled? Well, the victim may write to . . . the DPP. What is supposed to give the Charter teeth of a kind, is the final element - a designated officer within the service, to whom victims may complain if expectations are not met (although only the Garda and Victim Support guarantee a reply within 21 days). The Garda has its Garda Victim Liaison Officer. A prisons victim liaison officer is to be appointed to the Department of Justice. Complaints about the State Prosecution Service go straight to the top - to the DPP or the Chief State Solicitor. For better or worse, the buck stops there. The charter makes it clear that its commitments do not confer legal rights. Nor is a monitoring system being proposed.
SO while it has been a good week for crime victims, it could have been a better one. With striking honesty, the outgoing DPP admitted that some "appalling mistakes" had been made in prosecutions due to the lack of co-ordination and cohesion between the DPP's office and that of the Chief State Solicitor. ". . . If we had a tabula rasa and we were asked to design a criminal justice system, the one we have would be the last one you'd design". It's a statement that Olive Braiden may well be framing in her office as she continues the fight for independent legal representation for rape victims right through the legal process, a change which she admits, would require "root and branch reform". According to official statistics, rape is the single crime that continues to climb.
But even that is open to question as the deficit between reported crime and actual crime figures continues to occupy minds. Victim Support's CEO, Lillian McGovern is on the Crime Council which acts as an adviser to the Minister : "One thing we hope to address is the international crime survey and Ireland. Does anyone here actually know what the levels of crime really are?"
The issue of compensation (or "aid", the term by which it is less pejoratively known) for victims' pain and suffering is also under review. Dropped in 1986 for cost-cutting purposes, and though not considered a constitutional right following a 1992 High Court challenge, it is believed by many to be of critical psychological and material importance to victims. It has been estimated that if reintroduced, it could cost up to £40 million a year. One suggestion - from Olive Braiden - is that court fines (nearly £8 million in 1997) should be set aside for this purpose, thereby allowing crime victims to be directly compensated to some degree by the perpetrators.
Overall, there is general agreement that victims are regaining their proper place in the criminal justice system. Under the aegis of the Probation and Welfare service, young offenders sentenced to community service have been involved in practical gestures such as the renovation of a number of Victim Support premises. Confronting denial and the assertion of victims' rights is a growing feature of offender programmes. In Tallaght, a Probation Service pilot scheme is being run on the restorative justice model.
Donal Egan of Victim Support describes the response of the judiciary to his organisation's initiatives as "ranging from helpful to enthusiastic". Voluntary groups contributing to Garda training programmes report huge enthusiasm from young officers in particular. "We've seen great improvements over the years", says Olive Braiden. "There's really nothing glaringly wrong with the system anymore", says Donal Egan, who was himself a mugging victim. "Now, it's really a question of greater recognition of and sensitivity towards the victim".
