Home Office
Attn. Lisa Vernon
Victims and Confidence Unit
Office for Criminal Justice Reform
1st Floor, Fry Building
2 Marsham Street
London SW1P 4DF

25 June 2005

Dear Lisa Vernon,

Victims' Code of Practice Consultation

RoadPeace wishes to provide a response to the above consultation; thank you for the extension of the deadline for our response.

RoadPeace is UK's charity dedicated to supporting bereaved and injured road crash victims and representing their interests. Set up in early 1992, almost 100 years after the first death by a car, RoadPeace was, staggeringly, the first ever UK charity to represent the interests of this huge and neglected victim group, and to support and assist them.

RoadPeace has from the outset highlighted and campaigned against the deeply unsatisfactory treatment of road crash victims - both the injured and the bereaved and their families, the profoundly unjust legal response to road death and injury, the effect of this injustice on the well-being of road victims, the lack of any adequate post crash response, as well as the way society viewed road traffic violations and the very different way it treated road crime victims to the victims of other crimes.

RoadPeace has played a pioneering role in bringing the road victim perspective to the attention not only of Parliamentarians and relevant Government departments, but many organisations and individuals nationally - through membership of working groups - at Victim Support, The Metropolitan Police and many more, and coalitions, for example the Safer Streets Coalition - a coalition of 29 social justice organisations, of which RoadPeace is a co-founder, and internationally by representing UK victims at the European Federation of Road Traffic Victims, the World Health Organisation, United Nations, and other international organisations and institutions.

RoadPeace has for the past 13½ years assisted thousands of road crash victims, without any statutory funding being made available or accessible from any of the relevant Government Departments.

For over 13 years, RoadPeace researched and documented the experiences of road victims within the criminal and social justice systems, the discrepancies within regions and police and prosecution authorities, had numerous meetings with relevant ministers and officials, delivered thousands of signatures for a petition on law change, launched in 1998 a Campaign for Justice for Road Traffic Victims that called for national standards in investigation and medical treatment and for criminal and civil justice, set up an All Party Parliamentary Group for Justice for Road Traffic Victims, which at the last count had 160 members, held conferences, seminars and lectures, as well as responded to countless Government Enquiries and Consultations on related topics. In those many responses, RoadPeace provided evidence of injustice, casual treatment, and neglect suffered by road crash victims, and made practical proposals for improvements.

From 1995, we responded to the following relevant responses - on behalf of and from the perspective of road crash victims - our response ought therefore be treated as more than an individual response and be given due weight.

* Risk Reduction for Vulnerable Road Users, when we listed five main concerns:

I Lack of respect and responsibility towards vulnerable road users
II Lack of traffic law enforcement
III Inadequate investigation following injury and death
IV Inadequate law and failure to prosecute under existing law
V Lack of support for road traffic victims and victim families

*Liability for psychiatric Illness and Damages for Wrongful Death by Law Commission
* Enquiry into the Inquest System by Lord Williams of Mostyn
* Review of the Coroners Charter by the Home Office
* Review of the Crown Prosecution Service by Sir Iain Glidewell
*Our Healthier Nation, when we called for a coordinated approach by all relevant government departments to tackle this grave public health problem
* Transport White Paper by the DETR
* Reform of the Offences Against the Person Act by the Home Office
* Crime and Disorder Audits by Police Forces and Local Authorities
* Review of the CPS Code
* Research into the application of the 1991 Road Traffic Act, by TRL
* Reforming the Law on Manslaughter, by the Home Office
* The Road Death Manual, by ACPO
* Work related road death and road safety, by the HSE
* Road Traffic Penalties Review, by the Home Office
* Review of the Victims' Charter, by the Home Office
* The 2002 Quality Review of Road Accident Injury Statistics, by the DTLR
* London Policing Priorities for 2002/3 by the Metropolitan Police Authority
* Consultation on Sentencing Reform by the Home Office
* Consultation on Transport and Social Exclusion by the Social Exclusion Unit
* Consultation on 'A Road Safety Strategy for Wales' by Welsh National Assembly
* Enquiry into the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971
* Complaints about the Police by Road Victims, for PCA
* Report of the Review of Tribunals by Sir Andrew Leggatt for Lord Chancellor's Dept
* Sentencing for Causing Death by Dangerous Driving - Sentencing Advisory Panel
* Paper for HM Inspectorate of CPS -Thematic Review of Road Death Cases
* Consultation on Review of Coroners' Service
* Transport Committee Enquiry: Traffic Law and its Enforcement
* Road Traffic Speed - Traffic & Children Coalition
* Courts Administration Programme
* Review of London's Road Safety Plan
* Graduated Fixed Penalties for Speeding Offences

In 2001, we responded to the Review of the Victims' Charter Consultation and wrote in our response:

"The fact that road victims were excluded from both previous charters and still continue to be excluded from the present one is evidence of the bias and injustice with which road victims have hitherto been treated.

To deny road crash victims the key provisions of the charter - to treat victims with dignity and respect, to provide protection, help and support, compensation/ reparation, accurate and timely information and a chance to state how they have been affected by the crime in a just system - would contravene the Human Rights' legislation and we therefore believe that road victims must be included. To make this inclusion conditional on resources cannot, in view of the Human Rights' Act, be legitimate and is therefore indefensible."

Four years later, with legislation and much talk about the interests of victims being brought closer to the heart of the criminal justice system, it appears that this Code is to replace the previous Victims Charter. If this is the case, victims have lost rights, however inadequate, in return for a mere protocol. This means that there are no sanctions, which can be brought against the various authorities as the 'Code does not impose a legal duty on service providers to comply with it'. Additionally, much of the Code is qualified by various 'let out' - provisions. Even complaints have to be made to the service providers themselves, and only as a last resort to the Ombudsman.

The Code should in fact be in addition to a Charter of Rights, setting out both the theory in relation to victim's rights and the specific rights themselves. The Code applies some of those rights, mainly the right to information about proceedings relating to their case or to specific conduct by the various authorities. It is the second stage not the first.

Consultation Questions

Eligibility to receive Code services?

RoadPeace's concern is that road crash victims continue to be discriminated against. How is this discrimination compatible with Human Rights Legislation?

Eligibility is very unclear, both in the consultation document and in the Guide for Victims. Which road crash victims will receive the Guide?
Most road crash victims appear to be excluded from many parts of the Code.

While "The protection of the Code will be given a) whether or not the police officer believes the allegation (!)...b) irrespective of whether a suspect is charged or convicted of an offence or c) irrespective of whether a suspect is charged with a different offence than the one originally complained of".............in cases where people are bereaved and seriously injured in a road crash ..."some parts of the Code will apply" - only - "where a criminal prosecution takes place". This will be discriminatory against many road crash victims, including most innocent seriously injured road crash victims, since we know from our experience of thousands of cases that the majority of culpable injury cases are not being prosecuted, as well as the majority of those bereaved by crime - speeding is the leading cause of violent death, with at least 1,000 deaths caused by speeding drivers each year - more than the total number of all causes of murder, many of which will not be prosecuted.

Since every road crash ought to be/is investigated, we believe that no bereaved or injured road victims should be excluded from the provisions of the Code.

* Some service providers include only victims of intentionally inflicted serious road injury - Probation and Victim Support Services, for example; it is not made clear what the position of the police or courts is in respect of injured road crash victims. This inclusion is totally meaningless and should therefore better be left out, since the Traffic Law does not admit the concept of intent, as it is based on standards of driving. The police do not therefore seek evidence of intent, so that none will be found. Thus, in the absence of a gratuitous confession, there cannot be any cases to come within the ambit of this eligibility in the Code. Maybe precisely because there will be no cases to deal with that this was included? If the proposed code was consistent, then no bereaved families of manslaughter (= involuntary killing) would be eligible for any services under the Code.

Regarding discrimination against road victims - why is the Government not consistent in their views and actions?

• The Secretary of State for Transport, Alistair Darling, said on 11 January 2005 at the Second Reading of the Road Safety Bill: "Someone who kills someone else using a car is just as guilty and just as culpable as someone who uses a weapon to do so."
• From the Transport Select Committee's Report on Traffic Law and Enforcement, November 2004: "One of the themes of this report is that the law on our roads should not be seen as somehow different from ordinary law...The penalties for road traffic offences must match the penalties for other crimes against the person, and for crimes against property.

The human rights of road crash victims and victim families must be upheld.

• The exclusion of all other seriously injured road crash victims, whose quality of life is destroyed forever, is fundamentally wrong, especially when victims of even the most minor theft are included.
• Correct obligations to ensure victims receive information, protection, support and the opportunity to provide information?

NO, we do not believe that road victims will be ensured any of above.

Information
Neither bereaved nor injured road victims are being told of their rights or of organisations that exist to help them. They are not given relevant information about the criminal law or the criminal justice system, which would enable them to play a full role in their case. The vast majority of road death cases result in a prosecution heard in Magistrates Courts, for the routine charge of 'Driving without due care and attention', a summary offence subject to a 6-months' time limit. Victims are not told of the time limit, which means that frequently it is too late for them to be able to exercise any rights they may have. This includes having the inquest before the hearing and before the 6-month period is expired, in order to learn of any relevant evidence for any future action.

The Government funded literature does not inform them of the few rights that they have, for example the right to ask questions at inquests.

A relatively small amount of money could enable RoadPeace to provide an enhanced helpline service, which could be available to all road victims through police referrals. Most people, as the pilots have shown, do not require or want one to one help.

What people do want and are entitled to receive - is full and accurate information of the circumstances of the crash and of all relevant national organisations that exist to help them, with a description of their services and helpline and website details, so that they can choose if and when they wish to contact them, but with the information to enable them to make that choice.

Protection
The policy to have victim impact statements included in case documents, available to the defendants - instead of having these statements made at the time of sentencing to balance the pleas in mitigation by defendants, as was proposed by RoadPeace and other organisations since many years - may leave many victims very vulnerable.

Road crash victims, whose cases are at present heard mainly in magistrates courts, may feel very vulnerable since seating arrangements often leave them next to the perpetrator and the perpetrator's relatives.

Support
The arrangements do not offer any support from or provide information about any support groups other than the Witness Service or Victim Support. Most support groups are not funded by Government and cannot afford to advertise, so that victims are deprived of available support by the failure to inform them of the existence of these, often experienced specialist support organisations.

This issue has also already been covered under Information. Details of main national specialist support organisations, with helplines, should be included on the Victims of Crime leaflet, and for road crash victims this should include RoadPeace and the RoadPeace helpline 0845 4500 355.

Deciding whether a person is entitled to services under the Code
4.9 Most Service providers will not be qualified to decide whether the alleged conduct does or does not constitute a criminal offence.

5 Vulnerable Victims
(i) Can we assume that for every person who has died in a road crash, a family spokesperson will be considered a vulnerable victim?

6 Breaches of the Code
6.1 The complaints procedure appears designed to prevent people from complaining - there should be a single and independent body dealing with problems, which would also at the same time, be a monitoring body of how the individual service providers are complying with the Code. This should be the office of the Parliamentary Ombudsman, since this post has been created rather than a Minister for Victims, which many organisations had called for. Why are not even the full contact details for the Parliamentary Ombudsman at least given in the Guide for Victims?

Obligations of service providers

7 The Police
Information about progress of investigation, arrest, caution, reprimand, warning, charge and release on bail
7.4 Who is to decide the exceptional reason? How will it be documented and monitored. Please specify / give examples.
The only possible reason would be that the victim had a record of violence and there was reason to expect him to take revenge.

7.5 We expect this to apply to the spokesperson of a family where someone has died in a road crash.
7.6 ditto
7.7 ditto

7.8 Time scale must be given. And surely the substance of the "discussion" will be required to be recorded and made available to victims?

There is no mention of police reports and their cost to victims. Contrary to these reports, including witness statements, etc. being made available free of charge to the defendants, road crash victims are being charged large sums for them - we have assisted victims who have been asked to pay in excess of £2,000 for a report. RoadPeace has raised this issue with the Home Office and various police constabularies, and has found no consistency or intention to sort this matter out. What is the position regarding entitlement to free police reports to victims?

General information/Victim Support
7.10 Will injured road crash victims receive the Victims of Crime leaflet? This leaflet should include the RoadPeace helpline and description of specialist services offered to road crash victims.

7.11 Consent should be in writing
7.13 Explicit consent should be in writing
For both above: Victims should receive the information of all relevant national organisations that exist to help them, with a description of their services and helpline and website details, so that they can choose if and when they wish to contact them, but with the information to enable them to make that choice.

Victim personal statements
7.14 The police must notify the victim that if the VPS is made early, it will be provided to the defendant and his legal team. In this case, victims must be offered access to free legal advice before making the VPS, as well as provided a copy of the explanatory leaflet at least 2 days before making the VPS, and asked to confirm that they have read and understood the leaflet before making the Victim Personal Statement.

Victims should be advised that if they do not make a VPS at an earlier stage, they can do so later, at the time of the hearing. As already stated before, to represent fairness the statement by victims ought to be made at sentencing time, to balance the defendants' plea in mitigation.

Family Liaison Officers
7.17 Information on all helping organisations must be provided, as already stated before, with helpline and description of specialist services provided.

Sections 7 and 8 - Police and Crown Prosecution Service
This is drafted as if the Police and CPS are completely separate organisations. They are entwined in the new Criminal Justice Units, which are in fact staffed mainly by civilians with no particular training, employed by the police.

8 Crown Prosecution Service

8. 2 What happens if the CPS do not receive a file from the police, who have decided independently not to prosecute?

8.2.1 and 8.2.2 No time scale is given; what circumstances could possibly be considered inappropriate to inform victims of decisions?

8.4 What reasons could be acceptable to deny offering a meeting to victims?

8.7 Surely court procedures and waiting times are the remit of the Witness service, while the CPS could explain about the specific case.

9 Victim Support

9.2 Road victims do not desire one to one support and this should not be forced upon them. The government is not making use of the lessons learnt from the Road traffic victim pilot projects. These included:

• A very small percentage of eligible victims were being supported - 7% of total killed and seriously injured - including approximately 50% of the bereaved and less than 3% of the seriously injured.
• 40% of bereaved and the injured had only 1 or 2 contacts and most of the contacts were over the phone (70%), rather than face to face.

One to One support proved excessively expensive, with an average cost of over £2,600 per family supported or almost £500 per contact (£492). This is more than the total cost of a police investigation into a fatal road death, which is currently estimated by the DfT at £1,500 per fatal crash (DfT Highways Economic Note, 2003).

While these findings are from the Aftermath Support pilot project, we understand that similar weaknesses and problems were also found with the other two pilots.

9.5.5 How are victims to know of other local appropriate services? There is no obligation to inform them. Nor is there any requirement to tell them about or put them in contact with national specialist organisations, which without government funding cannot provide support locally or in every location.

Victim Support should not act as a filter to other groups, as a matter of principle, but also because the delay may be crucial in obtaining help to exercise time limited options.

10 The Courts
10.2 Victims need to be informed of dates of hearings and adjournments, not just of decisions made at those hearings, presumably without their presence?

Final Comments

The Code of Practice must not be a substitute for the Victims' Charter. Victims need a commitment to their rights as the first step; the practical obligations of the various authorities would naturally follow.

It is ironic that the Victims Code is being proposed under the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill. It was not long ago when domestic violence was referred to by the police as domestic disturbance and treated as a private matter, rather than as a crime. The new Bill includes provisions for reviews of domestic violence homicides to take place (including how), whereas the current criminal justice system does not even monitor the legal outcomes of road crash prosecutions.

As long as a crash is being investigated or a driver prosecuted, we believe that road crash victims deserve to receive the same treatment and support as other victims of comparable crimes.

Above all, road victims deserve justice. They deserve that their crash is investigated properly and prosecuted fairly. This is not happening at present...

"The relatively low proportion of serious cases which come to court would not cause concern if the quality of crash investigation and any subsequent legal proceedings was beyond question. There will always be some crashes which are genuine "accidents"; the important thing is that the public is confident that proper investigation takes place, and that legal proceedings are brought whenever appropriate. Victims and their relatives, and the organisations campaigning for victims, clearly have no such confidence. They appear to be right."

Transport Select Committee, Report on Traffic Law Enforcement, October 2004.

RoadPeace is able to supply evidence from cases, which would support anything mentioned in our response.

Yours sincerely,

Brigitte Chaudhry MBE
Founder & President

Attached:

• RoadPeace's response to the Review of the Victims Charter consultation dated June 2001
• Hidden Victims - article
• Justice Campaign Manifesto
• Papers from the meeting of the Parliamentary Group for Justice for Road Traffic Victims of 5 March 2003, with Lord Falconer as speaker - on the topic of Road Victim Support