Navigating through an obstacle course: The complaints mechanism for victims of crime in England and Wales
| Date | 01 April 2012 |
| Author | Marie Manikis |
| DOI | 10.1177/1748895811424765 |
| Published date | 01 April 2012 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Criminology & Criminal Justice
12(2) 149 –173
© The Author(s) 2011
Reprints and permission: sagepub.
co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1748895811424765
crj.sagepub.com
Navigating through an obstacle
course: The complaints
mechanism for victims of
crime in England and Wales
Marie Manikis
University of Oxford, UK
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.
Keywords
complaints mechanism, criminal justice agencies, enforceability, obligations, Parliamentary
Ombudsman, victims of crime
Introduction
In recent years, there has been increasing debate among policy-makers, and within the
media and the academy, on the role of victims in the criminal justice system. The
Corresponding author:
Marie Manikis, Faculty of Law, University of Oxford, Centre for Criminology, University of Oxford, Manor
Road Building, Manor Road, OX1 3UQ, UK
Email: marie.manikis@law.ox.ac.uk
424765CRJXXX10.1177/1748895811424765ManikisCriminology & Criminal Justice
Article
150 Criminology & Criminal Justice 12(2)
traditional adversarial paradigm in common law jurisdictions between the State and the
accused has become less rigid with the expansion of victims’ role in the criminal justice
system.
Throughout the years, various legal instruments have been enacted and policies
introduced in common law jurisdictions that recognize that victims have certain rights
within the system. Generally, these rights are classified in two categories: service and
procedural rights (Ashworth, 2010). Service rights can be defined as victim-oriented
initiatives undertaken by criminal justice personnel that aim to facilitate the victims’
experience following the crime. They include respectful and sympathetic treatment,
support, the provision of information, facilities at court and compensation (Sanders,
2002). Procedural rights, on the other hand, remain controversial since they provide
victims with a participatory role in the decision-making process (Edwards, 2004; Erez
and Roberts, 2007, 2009). They include opportunities to provide information and
sometimes opinion on key criminal justice decisions on prosecution, bail/custody,
sentence, parole release and licence decisions, largely accommodated by ‘victim impact’
or ‘victim personal’ statements.
In England and Wales, service rights have been recognized in charters that support
the idea that agencies in the criminal justice system should comply with minimal
service standards towards victims of crime. In recent years, the Home Office introduced
the Code of Practice for Victims of Crime (the Code), established under a statute, the
Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004, which replaced the previous Victims’
Charters of 1990 and 1996.
The current Code is the first instrument enacted under a statute which provides a
comprehensive and detailed description of the minimum level of uncontroversial ser-
vices that victims should expect from various service providers. These services mainly
include information victims are entitled to receive within certain timeframes, but also
protection, compensation and measures to facilitate respectful treatment from all crim-
inal justice agencies. Research has shown that the need for victims to be kept informed
throughout the process is considered one of their priorities. When service providers fail
to inform victims about the criminal justice process and keep them up to date with
‘their’ case, studies suggest that victims can often suffer from secondary victimization
by the system (Newburn and Merry, 1990; Shapland et al., 1985: 190–191; Victim
Support, 1990: 22).
Despite the importance of service rights and their uncontroversial nature to minimize
secondary victimization, studies suggest that breaches of duties by service providers
still occur (Crawford and Enterkin, 2001), particularly with regards to the right to
be kept informed (Victim Support, 1995: 22; Wemmers, 1995; Victim Support, 2011).
Thus, the Code of Practice was portrayed as an important development for victims of
crime for its comprehensive information provisions and for expressly providing for the
first time a mechanism by which victims of crime can address their complaints when
service providers fail to respect their duties under the Code.
To date, most academic literature on victims focuses on the debate regarding the
controversial procedural rights of victims, particularly the role of victims at sentencing
with victim impact/personal statements (Ashworth, 1993; Cassell, 2009; Edwards, 2002,
2009; Erez, 1994; Hoyle, 2011; Manikis and Roberts, 2011; Roberts, 2009; Roberts and
To continue reading
Request your trial