Comprehension

JUSTICE AND RECOMPENSE

Being the victim of a crime may or may not mean involvement with the formalities of criminal process. The offence having been reported to the police, the offender must be caught and charged before the victim enters the scene as a witness. He will not be needed, even then, if the offender admits his guilt. His chances of receiving compensation from the offender are low.

Why, then, do victims decide to report an offence to the police? Through spontaneous anger and a desire to punish? A fear of repetition? A sense of public duty? Or simply to retrieve their property? It may be that they hope for compensation from the offender, or, in cases of injury, from public funds through the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. Do victims need help or advice with problems which arise out of the offence, and if so to whom do they turn? What treatment do they expect to receive at the hands of the criminal courts, and when proceedings are over, do they feel that the law has given them justice?

Whether or not the offender is convicted, assault victims may apply to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board for an award. Both they and property victims may also sue the offender for damages in the civil court, or recoup their losses through insurance. In the case of both groups of victims, the court can make an award for damages against the offender.
According to the court records, almost three-quarters (32) of the victims of property offences and a third (9) of the assault victims we interviewed got orders of compensation from their offenders. Only three people had tried to influence the court's decision on compensation by attending proceedings to make a personal application. The rest left this in the hands of the police, in the belief that they themselves could not affect the outcome.
The police who dealt with these cases recorded an application on behalf of 38 of the 45 property victims, and eleven of the 30 assault victims. It seems that when the police did not apply, fewer orders were made. None of the victims of property offences, and only four of the assault victims, got compensation when no application was made. These figures are interesting when you consider that the courts can, and are encouraged to, order compensation without any application, whenever possible. The attitude among some policemen seems to be that magistrates do need encouragement and a reminder of their powers to compensate victims. One or two policemen suggested to victims that they might increase their chances of receiving a sum by attending proceedings in person. It seems that magistrates do not always take the full initiative in ordering compensation where there has been no application.
Moreover, even when the police or victims do try to influence the outcome, magistrates seem reluctant to make orders in cases of personal injury. As one woman recalled, 'The police put in a plea for compensation, but the magistrates said they wouldn't entertain it as they hadn't done before (for injury) in that court.'
Magistrates are required to take into account the offender's means when making a decision on compensation; and they must also consider the sentence. For example, it is generally thought inappropriate to order compensation where the offender has received a custodial penalty. Yet none of the offenders convicted of assault were given custodial penalties; the majority were fined, and in all the cases where no order was made for compensation, the offenders were in jobs.
In those cases where the court did use its powers to make an order, the actual amount of compensation ordered did not always equal the victim's losses. This naturally produced dissatisfaction on the part of the victim. Half of those compensated described outstanding financial losses greater than the amounts received. This was particularly true of the assault victims. A number of these described loss of income through absence from work, or damage to personal property, not recorded by the police. The reasons for this discrepancy are not clear. In some cases the victims were vague in recalling the exact amount of their losses. Sometimes, too, the offender was caught and convicted before the victim realised the full extent of his injuries or expenses. Where the amount of compensation ordered by the court was less than that recorded by the police, the court may have reduced the amount to take into account insurance claims.