Victims of crime

This page contains links to information in relation to victims of crime.

Ministry of Justice

Victims and MOJ discharge. HMPPS, 'Information for victims - Statements and decision summaries in restricted patient cases' (April 2024) — (1) From March 2024, victims and family members registered with the Victim Contact Scheme (VCS) have been able to submit a Victim Personal Statement in relation to Ministry of Justice discharge decisions. The purpose is catharsis and to provide further information and context on requests for conditions, and is in addition to the pre-existing ability to make representations in relation to conditions. Some brief guidance is given on what might be included in a statement. The statement will not be sent to the patient, Responsible Clinician, or tribunal, although it is possible that might be disclosed during other legal proceedings. (2) Applications will also be able to be made for decision summaries.
Victims and MOJ discharge. HMPPS, 'Information for patients - Decision summaries and victim statements in restricted patient cases' (April 2024) — (1) From Spring 2024, patients and victims have been able to request a summary of Ministry of Justice decisions in relation to discharge. The summary provided to patients and victims will differ, because of medical confidentiality, and both will overlap with the reasons already given to the Responsible Clinician. (2) Victims will also be able to make Victim Personal Statements in relation to discharge decisions. The purpose is "catharsis" and it will have no influence on the discharge decision. This is in addition to the pre-existing ability to provide information and make requests for conditions.

Mental Health Tribunal

Tribunal victims guidance. Courts and Tribunals Judiciary, 'Practice Guidance: Procedure for handling representations from victims in the Mental Health jurisdiction (HESC)' (23/8/23) — This detailed guidance has the following headings: (1) Background; (2) Open justice (3) Victims; (4) The role of victim liaison officers; (5) Preliminary matters; (6) Victims who wish to know the date of the next hearing; (7) Victims who wish to provide documents, written information or submissions to the tribunal; (8) Victims representations relating to possible discharge conditions; (9) Application from a victim to attend the hearing; (10) Disclosure of the victim’s evidence to the patient; (11) Sharing the tribunal’s conditions of discharge with the victim; (12) Sharing the tribunal’s decision or reasons for the decision with the victim; (13) Further review.
Form T144: Victim's representations to the Tribunal (September 2023) — This form allows the victim to provide representations on: (1) the tribunal's decision (whether the patient should, in the event of their discharge from detention, be subject to any conditions; if so, what particular conditions should be imposed; and, if the patient is already subject to a conditional discharge, whether the same or different conditions are now required); (2) non-disclosure of representations to the patient or his lawyer; (3) victim's attendance at the hearing. The main differences between this and the 2018 version is that extra guidance is now provided on how unlikely the tribunal will agree to non-disclosure and attendance requests., This form allows the victim to provide representations on: (1) the tribunal's decision (whether the patient should, in the event of their discharge from detention, be subject to any conditions; if so, what particular conditions should be imposed; and, if the patient is already subject to a conditional discharge, whether the same or different conditions are now required); (2) non-disclosure of representations to the patient or his lawyer; (3) victim's attendance at the hearing. The main differences between this and the 2018 version is that extra guidance is now provided on how unlikely the tribunal will agree to non-disclosure and attendance requests.
Tribunals Service, 'Information for Victims' (November 2009). This is not a current form.
Failure to provide reasons to victim. R (Maher) v First-tier Tribunal (Mental Health) [2023] EWHC 34 (Admin) — (1) The Mental Health Tribunal in its first decision, in which it had refused to provide the mother of a victim of manslaughter the reasons for the conditional discharge decision, or a gist of them, had unlawfully fettered its discretion by applying a blanket policy or practice. (2) Around a year later, after judicial review permission on the "blanket policy" ground had been granted, the Deputy Chamber President decided to make a further decision. The tribunal had power to make this decision under its case management powers, but the decision itself was unlawful: (a) instead of directing herself that departing from the open justice principle can only be justified in exceptional circumstances when strictly necessary to secure the proper administration of justice, the DCP jumped straight to the presumption of privacy contained in the tribunal's rules; as a consequence she did not engage with the purpose of the open justice principle which is to both assist in justice being done through transparency and also to enable the public to have confidence in the system; (b) her focus on the mother's motives, which should not have been given weight in the overall balance, clouded her consideration of other, more relevant issues; (c) she did not direct herself that the extent of the derogation from the principle of open justice should be no more than is strictly necessary to achieve the desired purpose, and did not consider providing the mother with a gist or summary of the reasons; (d) she did not explain why a redacted version of the conditional discharge decision could not meet the patient's privacy rights or why redacted reasons were "not possible"; (e) she did not adequately explain her reasons; (f) she did not engage sufficiently with the reasons that the mother had put forward. The court noted: "The direction of travel in the last 30 years or so has been towards openness and a more rigorous scrutiny of exceptions to the open justice principle and creative thinking about how conflicting rights can be reconciled." (3) The refusal to provide the gist of the reasons for the conditional discharge decision, when the Parole Board would have provided a gist of its reasons in similar circumstances, was unlawful discrimination under Article 14 in relation to the mother's Article 8 rights. (4) The tribunal's decision not to allow a Victim Personal Statement, and the inability of a victim to request a reconsideration, were not unlawful discrimination given the different functions of the PB and the MHT.

Legislation

Legislation amending MHA 1983 • Other useful legislation. Domestic Violence Crime and Victims Act 2004 — This Act amends the MHA 1983, CPIA 1964 etc.
Domestic Violence Crime and Victims Act 2004 applies to unrestricted criminal patients. This describes a change made by the MHA 2007.

Other pages

Victims' rights to make representations and receive information. Summary of rights under DVCVA 2004.

External links

Ministry of Justice, 'Code of Practice for Victims of Crime' (October 2013)† Need to update this link.

INFORMATION

What links here: