WORKING GROUP ON HATE CRIME REPORT
6. CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCIES
Summary of consultation responses
Most respondents recognised that all criminal justice bodies, and particularly the police, were improving their service to groups who face discrimination, but many suggested that more could be done. Some respondents expressed a view that victims felt hate crimes were not taken seriously or that the law was not enforced as it stands. Respondents also felt that courts and their procedures were highly intimidating.
6.1 In general, we feel that the combination of new legislation on hate crime and the commitment the criminal justice agencies have already shown in improving their service towards groups who face discrimination should help the criminal justice agencies to deal more effectively with hate crime. However, the Group and consultation responses identified a number of areas which could be further improved.
6.2 It is important that the relevant criminal justice agencies have a sound knowledge and understanding of any new legislation in order to ensure that it is implemented effectively. Consideration should be given to ways of promoting the new legislation, for example through an aide memoire card similar to that carried by police containing information about race legislation.
Recommendation 4: After the introduction of a new statutory aggravation, the relevant authorities should include in their training suitable awareness-raising on this legislation for the police, social workers, COPFS, lawyers, solicitors and the Scottish Court Service. Procurators Fiscal should be encouraged not to plea bargain away the aggravation.
6.3 The Capability Scotland/Disability Rights Commission research showed that only 41% of those experiencing hate crime reported it to the police. The reasons for not reporting the incident to the police reflected concerns about the police's attitude and the extent of police powers. In addition, responses to the "EasyRead" paper showed that while over 60% of victims had reported the incident to the police, only a small minority seemed to get any further in the criminal justice system. This could be explained in a number of ways. The nature of the incident, such as name-calling, may not have required any further action and may have been resolved with the police talking to the perpetrators or where children were involved, to their parents. Or, there may not have been sufficient evidence to support a prosecution. However, in a small but worrying number of cases, the victims stated having contacted the police and either receiving an unhelpful response or no response whatsoever:
"I have continually called the police when there has been damage to my house. Sometimes the police come out, other times they say they will and they don't. Last week I was told they would come out. I sat up all night but no-one came out. I did not like their response, sometimes because of the way they talked to me, they made me feel I was to blame."
(Individual; Reference number 080)
6.4 Other respondents to the EasyRead version of the consultation paper indicated that they could not understand the police or were not able to make themselves understood. Sufficient resources should be in place to ensure that people with learning disabilities are able to access and report crimes to the police. We also feel that it is important to ensure that the Appropriate Adults scheme is used where appropriate to facilitate communication. 30
Recommendation 5: All agencies should ensure that information and advice about their service is easily available and accessible in different formats to cover the different needs of victims, particularly those with learning disabilities.
6.5 We encourage the Police and Crown Office to continue to look for innovative ways of prosecuting when it is not possible to use the standard means of identification. For example, in a crime against a visually impaired person, voice identification could be used.
6.6 We understand that it is currently good practice for Police Forces to consider the nomination of local Police Liaison Officers with certain groups, for example, Lothian & Borders Police and Fife Constabulary have liaison officers for the LGBT community. We believe this should be done by every police force in Scotland. The liaison officer should act as a focus point for the relevant police force's strategy for dealing with hate crime. In addition, we would like to encourage a more proactive approach by beat officers, who are able to identify groups or individuals within their community who are most at risk from hate crime and in particular to monitor ongoing harassment.
Recommendation 6: Police forces should identify a liaison officer to take a strategic overview of ongoing harassment against particular people and groups in the community.
6.7 We are concerned that victims of hate crimes can be discouraged from reporting or following through hate crime incidents if they face real or perceived discrimination on the part of staff of the criminal justice agencies.
6.8 To help overcome this we would suggest that Scotland-wide, police forces, COPFS and the Scottish Court Service should record the number of complaints made against staff on the grounds of prejudice or discrimination towards individuals.
6.9 We believe that VIA is a useful information point for victims and would encourage an increased profile. At present VIA support is automatically offered to victims from ethnic minority groups and victims of homophobic crimes. Victims of other hate crimes are offered the services if they are considered to be vulnerable. We feel that all victims of hate crime are vulnerable and therefore that they should automatically be offered VIA support.
Recommendation 7: The profile of VIA (Victim Information and Advice) should be raised and all victims of hate crime should automatically be offered VIA support.
6.10 The Vulnerable Witnesses (Scotland) Act 2004 includes discretionary entitlements to special measures for vulnerable witnesses. The Crown Office, Law Society of Scotland and Faculty of Advocates should support the use of these measures in the appropriate circumstances and Sheriffs and Judges likewise should make full use of these entitlements where appropriate. In addition, the Scottish Court Service should continue to liaise with the Witness Service in order to identify vulnerable hate crime witnesses and provide them with the necessary support.
6.11 Some victims of hate crime may be discouraged from attending court because details of the court case may appear in the press, including the name of the victim. If the victim of a homophobic crime is not public about their sexual orientation, for example, they run the risk of being "outed" inadvertently. In order to encourage LGBT hate crime victims and others, such as people with mental health problems, to attend court when necessary, we recommend that consideration be given to the introduction of procedures whereby the victim's identity can be protected if they wish.
Recommendation 8: The Scottish Executive should consider the feasibility of legislation or other means to ensure that any victim who appears in court and wishes to have their privacy protected from the press and public (such as a member of the LGBT community or someone with a mental health problem) can do so if they wish.
6.12 The consultation responses picked up on two other issues, not related to the police, Crown Office or Scottish Court Service, but which we thought were particularly note-worthy.
6.13 As discussed above, we believe that hate crimes can cause more psychological damage to a victim than crimes that are not motivated by hatred, because the victim's core identity is being attacked. We therefore feel that it is important to reflect that impact at any trial and consequently would encourage the use of victim statements for victims of hate crime.
Recommendation 9: Once the current trial of victim statements is completed, and depending upon its success, the Scottish Executive should extend the use of such statements to victims of hate crime.
6.14 Finally, we feel strongly that the use of a statutory aggravation should not simplistically lead to longer prison sentences. Given the high level of the prison population and the nature of the crime, we feel that a longer sentence would not necessarily reduce the likelihood of re-offending. Alternative disposals such as community service with the social group who were the victims of the crime (although this will need to be approached with care and in consultation with community organisations), anger management or location restrictions (e.g. from gay venues) 31 should be considered in the first instance for someone convicted of a hate crime rather than a longer prison sentence or higher fine. Disposals designed to address behaviour should contribute towards the longer-term goal of eradicating prejudicial views in society.
Recommendation 10: Sentencers should make greater use of alternative disposals for people convicted of hate crimes. The Scottish Executive should consider research to identify which alternative disposals are successful.