SCJP Victim and Witness Group
Monday 11th January 2016 10:30-12:00hrs
Surrey Police HQ,
(Comms Room)
Notes
1.
Introductions, Welcome and Apologies
Attendees:
Alison Barlow (Chair)
Jane Anderson
Jacqueline Smith
Rachel Roberts
Ruth Goodger
Kim Smith
Portia Ragnauth
Jo Last
Lindsey Parris
Surrey Police
OSPCC
Surrey Police
Surrey Police
HMCTS
HMCTS
CPS
Citizens Advice/Witness Service
SSCJP
AB
JA
JS
RR
RG
KS
PR
JL
LP
Apologies:
None
2.
Matters Arising
The minutes from the previous Victim and Witness Group were agreed as an accurate record.
The Action Log (separate document) was discussed and updated.
3.
Vulnerable Victims and Witness Paper
JA explained the paper she had written looked at what feedback was currently obtained by different
organisations both inside and outside the Criminal Justice System, how the feedback was currently being
used and how a more systematic approach to feedback could be devised. In conclusion questions were
posed to identify how better and how more consistent feedback could be used by all agencies and what
would partners do with the feedback.
JA reported she had written several papers since taking up her role in OPCC capturing Victim and Witness
feedback but was unclear where and whom these papers had been sent to in within each organisation.
There was a discussion about how best to disseminate JA’s findings and to ensure that the learning was
used to make a difference.
AB suggested that the V and W group could be the conduit for dissemination of all papers of this type.
AB and RR would ensure onward circulation of papers within Surrey Police and suggested that other V & W
group members should be responsible for onward circulation of papers within their own organisations.
AB also suggested a document tracker should be created to monitor where and to whom papers had been
sent to, capture comments, actions and a follow up section.
Action: LP to create a document tracker for review and population.
Action: All to provide LP with details on where and to whom papers had been sent to within their
organisation any comments received and/or any actions being taken place to ensure the new
document tracker can be populated and kept up to date.
Decision: Group members agreed to be responsible for onward circulation of papers within their own
organisations and to provide details to LP on where and to whom papers had been sent to within
their organisation any comments received and/or any actions being taken place to ensure the new
document tracker could be populated and kept up to date.
JA reported she would also be very keen to obtain feedback from young people within the Criminal Justice
System but noted young people were not often willing to talk or provide feedback.
The group agreed that gathering any feedback from young people would be invaluable and should be
captured wherever possible.
AB confirmed the group’s approach will tie in perfectly with one of the Supporting Victim and Witness SCJP
Key Deliverables namely: capturing the Victims journey through the CJS.
Action: JA to send copies of her papers capturing Victim and Witness feedback to LP for circulation
to the group and then onward circulation and any recommendations within each organisation.
JA reported there were currently feedback routes already in existence although not fully utilised and
suggested a speculative model might include:
1. Annual feedback sessions from Domestic Abuse Victims, hosted in turn by the four main outreach
agencies.
Action: JA to speak to Lisa and Michelle to ask them to establish how many feedback sessions the
Outreach agencies may be able to accommodate within a year.
2. Feedback from Rape Victims at the end of their 12 week confidence-building course, hosted by
RASASC.
JA will continue to obtain feedback from Rape Victims at the end of their 12 week confidence-building
course.
3. Telephone feedback from selected individuals facilitated by the Witness Care Unit.
Noting the Home Office has been piloting a DA telephone survey (not Sexual or Rape). This may
lead to mandated surveys but if not Surrey could learn from the pilot methods and costs.
AB reported the new Domestic Abuse Witness Care Officer position (yet to be filled) could be an ideal
candidate to carry out telephone surveys and possibly pick out other vulnerable groups such as Disability
and Hate Crimes.
RR reported police volunteers may also be able to assist with telephone feedback.
JA suggested waiting until the paper covering feedback from young people paper was circulated and
discussed further at the next meeting.
RG reported HMCTS would find feedback on young people extremely helpful.
RG also outlined the agreed court allocation changes namely in future the Magistrates’ Courts will be able to
hear more serious trials which will free up Crown Court space and improve trial waiting times.
JL reported as from April 2016 Citizens Advice will be taking over responsibility for providing a Young
Witness Service.
Action: JS and JL to have a think about the Young Witness journey and report back at the next
meeting.
JA thanked JS for helping her find contacts and leads to enable her to carry out feedback sessions.
AB and JS to give some thought regarding the opportunity for a Witness Care Officer dedicated to young
victims and witnesses.
JA reported there are still gaps for Victims and Witnesses, in that, once a verdict is reached Criminal Justice
stops for Victims and Witnesses.
The group agreed the aftercare for Victims and Witnesses had been missed off the Victims Code.
Action: RR to contact the staff officer to the National Lead for Victims and Witnesses to get an
explanation as to why the decision had been made not to bring in the part of the Victim’s Code where
Victims and Witnesses were given an explanation as to why cases are unsuccessful/do not proceed.
4.
Victims Code
RR reported there was weekly compliance checking taking place within Surrey police which included the
monitoring of written acknowledgements. There had been training for supervisors and early indications are
things are a bit patchy with some divisions performing better than others. Further monitoring will continue.
JL suggested when officers send written acknowledgements could information on feedback be included.
RR reported officers have asked for Victim templates and Criminal Justice Information to be included.
Further thought and discussion will be required and looked in more detail going forward.
5.
Witness Attendance
AB felt Surrey were historically very good at keeping Victims and Witnesses informed and maintaining a high
Victim and Witness attendance rate. However there had been a reduction in attendance rate identified in
December – falling from 90.2% in June to 81.2% in October. JS had carried out a detailed investigation and
created a spreadsheet identifying all cases and details for non-attendance.
JS reported most cases identified were SDVC cases from August and September.
RG suggested the re-launch of issuing DVPO’s may help to improve things which AB confirmed was in hand.
PR reported CPS hold monthly DV meetings and confirmed the need for robust prosecutors to ensure the
easy option for re-issuing restraining orders is kept to the minimum.
PR also reported there are often difficulties obtaining withdrawal statements.
AB suggested to keep the review ongoing and to keep an eye on attendance rates at other meetings such as
PTPM.
Action: JS to circulate spreadsheet to LP for onward circulation to group.
6.
SCJP Priority Planning
AB reported there will be a SCJP Panning Day scheduled for 8 th February where deliverables and priorities
for 2016 will be set and agreed.
The group held a brief discussion and agreed to include Young People and Sexual Assault within the new
set of deliverables.
7.
AOB
JL recapped that CA would be providing a Young Witness Service as from April 2016.
JL was delighted to report all current Young Witness Service staff and volunteers will be transferring to CA.
JA reported she was thrilled and relieved that the Young Witness Service staff and volunteers were
transferring to CA.
JL also reported CA were looking to deliver a better Vulnerable an Intimidated Witness Outreach Service by
March 2016.
JL explained CA are currently in the process of several staff restructures the outcome should be known by
February 2016.
JL asked the group if they were aware of the HMIC Inspection Report “Identifying victim and witness
vulnerability”
AB reported she would establish if this report was being addressed at any other meeting but would ensure
the document is circulated to the group.
Action: AB to circulate HMIC Inspection Report to LP for onward circulation.
JL reported Victim Support and Witness Care provided to training to probationer Police Officers originally
held at Redhill Magistrates’ but now training is provided county wide. This function is now running under
Citizens Advice.
AB queried whether the training was linked into Surrey Police Learning and Development department.
RG also expressed caution and suggested the current training referred to by JL should be bottomed out.
Action: JL to send RG dates for any scheduled training dates.
The group agreed further information is required as it could be incorporated into the Surrey Police L & D
training.
RR agreed to attend the next training session referred to by JL.
Action: RR/JL/RG to discuss outside the meeting how training should be progressed.
Date of Next Meeting 11th April 2016