Agenda item 2 is the committee's inquiry into the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. The committee agreed to take evidence on witnesses' experience of the justice system. With us this morning is Paul Lockley, who is a consultant with People Experiencing Trauma and Loss—PETAL for short. I welcome Paul to the committee and thank him for coming. We look forward to hearing more about your organisation and we have a number of questions. Before that, you have a few minutes to say something about PETAL.
PETAL was founded in March 1994 by two families who were bereaved by murder. It provides relief from the trauma of murder, although recently we have also helped those affected by suicide. A secondary, subsidiary, aim is to make relevant officials such as the police, lawyers and court helpers aware of the trauma and complicated grief of those who are affected by murder.
I would like to have a flavour of any differences between the experiences of families in 1994, when PETAL started, and their experiences now.
I was not in PETAL in 1994. PETAL was founded because no services existed for families. Services vary. In the past year, the Procurator Fiscal Service has improved. Now, it meets families before cases reach court. However, the Crown Office is rather different. Families do not receive replies from the Crown Office. The only people whom the Crown Office contacts are MPs or MSPs.
Are you saying that the Crown Office replies, but not in a way that satisfies the complainer?
After a trial, people want the Crown Office to tell them why decisions were made about that trial. They do not receive answers.
Do families of victims or witnesses feel excluded from the criminal justice process?
Yes, almost completely. Members must understand that we are talking about people who have lost someone through murder. They want to grieve for the person who has been lost, but they cannot. They have been traumatised by the murder and by the suddenness and unexpectedness of the death. When children are murdered, people are traumatised by the fact that they died before their parents. We expect our children to outlive us and it is traumatic when they die first. The unexpectedness of the death causes trauma and any violence involved in the death increases that. Family members might have witnessed the murder or they might have seen the marks of violence on the body. They might also have seen blood splattered on walls or heard about the violence that was involved.
When it comes to the trial, would it be helpful for families to have with them someone whose job is to explain what is going on in the trial as it proceeds?
Yes, absolutely. We have found that the new victim liaison officers in Hamilton are useful. Most people are not used to courts at all and, in particular, they are not used to the High Court. We conduct pre-trial court visits with them, simply to enable them to see where people stand in the court and what happens during the trial. They do not have even that basic information.
Thank you for coming today, Paul. We are already beginning to get a clear and valuable understanding of the experiences of relatives and friends of murder victims.
Our clients are concerned that they do not know what is going on. In particular, they are concerned about postponed trials. That has got worse over the past year. Nowadays, trials rarely start on the first day. That might seem to be just an inconvenience, but for families it is quite devastating. To go to a trial they have to rev themselves up. They prepare themselves, then they are told, "Sorry, it's not on today." They are not even told for sure when it will begin. We often have to phone up almost on a daily basis to find out when a trial is going to take place.
What notice of postponement are people getting? Is it adequate? Could it be better managed?
They can turn up to the court and then find that the trial has been postponed. In one case, the family waited around until the afternoon and then were told the trial was postponed. The issue is a physical one. They have to travel to the court, which is difficult if they have children, then they have to go home and go back again. That can happen several times.
Are there facets of the court experience that it would be useful for you to tell us about so that we can do something about them? Obviously, there is the court itself, the surrounding media attention, and the different roles of people in the court. How do you support people in dealing with those facets?
It should be realised that because people have been traumatised, and are being retraumatised, they tend to be sensitive to what is going on. If a trial is postponed, to some that might be an inconvenience, but to those people it sends a message. They are just told, "Sorry, it's not on today." As far as they are concerned, that means, "You are suffering now, and you will continue to suffer." That is what happens. People who are affected by murder view the situation differently from the way that the legal service sees it.
Finally—
Before your final question, I ask Bill Aitken to come in on that point.
In your experience, Mr Lockley, how many relatives of murdered people will go to court? That may be a difficult question.
Usually, relatives go to court. They want to hear what happens. They want to know why the murder happened. They want to get to the truth. Unfortunately, courts want to prove whether someone is guilty or not, which is different. However, relatives want to appear and that causes difficulties. You have to remember that they are walking into a court where the families of the accused might be, and they do not know who they are. We have had cases where they have sat down together, and the families of the accused have started speaking about the case. Obviously, they have their own side. That is quite difficult.
I read with interest about your organisation's positive contribution in the Chhokar case. One thing to come out of that case was that people are simply not aware of what happens—you spoke about that in your presentation. In counselling a client prior to a trial, do you go through the procedures and what could happen?
Yes. It is important that they have some idea of what is happening. It is also useful to be in the court with them to explain what is happening. The procedures are sometimes explained in the courts, but usually they are not.
PETAL explains matters, but should there be a separate Government agency—for want of a better term—with responsibility for doing so? There is a practical difficulty in that there cannot be a running commentary in the course of legal proceedings, but should an agency, rather than your organisation, explain what is happening from the start?
There probably should be an agency in the courts. I mentioned victim liaison officers. There are two in Hamilton and I know of one or two around the country. They are helpful. Perhaps the scheme can be expanded. We spend a lot of volunteer time in courts. That is useful, but a lot of time is spent sitting and waiting. In the main, that time is non-productive.
You pointed out, fairly, that some procurators fiscal are good in an advisory role. In your experience, do many attempt to carry out that role who are more inexperienced than the norm?
Over the past year, the service has become more aware of the needs of victims and those affected by murder, but perhaps some need more training. In the legal service, people are brought up in a certain way of thinking that is different from the victim's way of thinking. Those ways of thinking should be married together so that victims can understand more. That would be helpful because victims are often traumatised. Simple matters should be understood. For example, a person who has been traumatised does not easily take things in. A piece of paper should be given to them so that they can refer to it at a later date. Sometimes, solutions are as simple as that.
The convener has given me dispensation to move slightly away from the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service in the light of a constituency case that relates to civil consequences for the family of someone who was murdered. I will briefly paint the circumstances and ask if the case is typical or if there are similar cases.
To be honest, I would have to go back and check on that.
I realise that you did not come prepared to answer that sort of question.
There are a lot of difficulties after a murder, especially with children. Children are often overlooked, partly because parents are caught up in their own grief and cannot deal with the children. Children also respond differently to those situations. All I would say is that difficulties are likely and, if children are involved, those difficulties are always increased.
Your evidence has touched on some crucial issues. In coming to terms with what has happened, is it essential for the welfare and future recovery of relatives that they be fully informed about the progress of the case? Is that the crux of what you are telling us this morning?
Yes. When something like that happens, the family's whole life is put on hold, especially if relatives do not know what is happening in the case. The family cannot begin to move on until certain things are out of the way and the trial is over. In trying to get through the traumatisation and retraumatisation, the family members have to know what is happening, even if it is simply that someone is still interested in the case or that the police are still investigating. They might need to hear only one sentence to feel okay.
I turn to the issue of contact and liaison with the Crown Office and the Procurator Fiscal Service. What sort of contact do you have with those organisations prior to attending the court with your clients? You seemed to suggest that contact with the Procurator Fiscal Service is slightly better than contact with the Crown Office.
Recently we have found that, if phoned beforehand, procurators fiscal are much more inclined to meet the families. That makes a lot of different to the families. They are suddenly involved in the process and feel that they are being recognised and acknowledged. It does not matter that very little is said. They are recognised as the family involved.
Are you suggesting that, during the progress of a case, while liaison with the Procurator Fiscal Service could be improved but is okay, there is no such liaison with the Crown Office, that people do not know what is happening to the case during that period and that contact is made with the Crown Office only after the trial?
Yes.
From your perspective of working with families, would you rather have a system that allowed contact with the Crown Office during progress of the case in order to help people?
I would be quite happy if the Crown Office actually wrote to the families—full stop—and explained why it did something. However, that does not happen.
Why do you think that might be? Is neither the Crown Office nor the Procurator Fiscal Service aware of the needs of victims and their families? Is each branch so caught up in servicing the legal process that it does not think that such liaison is its job, or are the branches not sufficiently aware that there is something that they could be doing?
Each branch says that that is not its job, nor is it within its remit. Furthermore, the service overall is not user-friendly. There are ways of dealing with inquiries from people who have gone through a terrible experience—to be stonewalled or passed around only makes things worse. A few more social skills might be useful.
Has there been any progress in the area that the convener mentioned in her opening remarks, or are things just as bad as when your organisation was set up or when you became involved in it? Are people who are entering the service beginning to understand that there is a need to explain circumstances a bit more, to meet people and to talk to them in a more appropriate way than would have been the case 20 or 30 years ago?
There is a growing awareness of victims and co-victims and the fact that they are outside much of the legal system. The problem is often hidden. For example, in the Chhokar case, people were right to be concerned about racism, but there was no concern about how families are acted upon by the legal system. Inquiries about the Procurator Fiscal Service and the Crown Office simply highlight what happens to families who come into contact with the legal system. I am not criticising anyone—everyone does their job—but the systems have been set up in such a way and the perceptions are such that, for whatever reason, victims and co-victims do not get a look-in.
We have already taken evidence from the Procurators Fiscal Society which acknowledges—as you have done—that we must move the issue on and improve the system. On that point, how could the concerns of victims and their families be best conveyed to the Crown Office and the Procurator Fiscal Service?
There has been change in the Procurator Fiscal Service with the introduction of victim liaison officers. As it is, many procurators already show a fair degree of understanding. Perhaps training with other agencies would still be useful.
If there were no organisations such as yours, people who were coming to the justice system as victims for the first time would find it difficult to know where to go to. They would not know such things. That is one of the difficulties that people encounter.
I will ask a supplementary question before I come to my main questions. Twice this morning—in answer to the convener and to Bill Aitken—you said that the Procurator Fiscal Service has improved during the past year. Has there been any particular impetus for that improvement in that time scale? Is there anything on which we could build?
I am not sure why that improvement has taken place. You will have to ask the Procurator Fiscal Service. From our point of view there has been a welcome improvement. We find that the service is fairly flexible. We usually have good relationships with PFs.
You are probably aware that the Scottish Executive is consulting on proposals to introduce victim statements. Obviously, in murder cases, it is the families of victims who would make statements to the court if the consultation concluded that victim statements should be introduced. Would such statements be welcomed and would families find them useful?
I think that families of victims would find victim statements very useful. Families would feel that they had some input into the process. It would surely help families to write down and let someone in authority know what has happened to them and how they have been devastated—whatever happened to the statement. The statement might have some effect, but the mere fact that the family would be brought into the process is a definite advantage of the proposal.
Do you think that there would be quite an uptake of victim statements, if they were introduced?
Yes.
On the technicalities, do you envisage the victim statement being oral or written?
I would hope that the victim statement would be written. We would like to help people to prepare victim statements. We would want not to write the statements for them, but to help them. Families of victims can be all over the place and they would need support to write statements.
I have found the evidence that you have given today informative and moving. I am impressed by the work that you are doing. The leaflet that you have given us states that you are funded by
You will not be surprised to hear that we do not get enough funding. To be specific, we are seeking funding for at least one waged person. We get so many inquiries that we want someone permanently in the office. We are forced to have rotas as otherwise there would not always be someone in the office.
In your opening remarks, you referred to Lanarkshire and greater Glasgow, but do you receive inquiries from other areas of Scotland?
Yes.
What kind of mechanisms do you put in place to support people who phone from elsewhere?
We carry out home visits and try to persuade people to come to group meetings in Hamilton. Obviously, that is difficult for people who live some distance away so we offer them telephone support. Those people might have local services, but many people want to speak to someone who has been through similar experiences or has been affected by murder. It is their choice. We would like to help more people, but we cannot because the demand is too great.
You said that you want one permanent full-time waged person in your office. What kind of training would you expect that person to have? For example, would you like someone with a social work, counselling or legal background? The job is not simply picking up a phone.
We would require someone with administrative and managerial experience because the job would involve dealing with letters, making phone calls, fundraising and working with volunteers. We would want someone who was sympathetic to the ethos of the organisation. They would not have to have been affected by murder, but they would have to understand how people in that situation feel, so a counselling or social work background would be suitable.
I want to go over in more detail some of the points that you mentioned. What percentage of ethnic minority families do you deal with and what can you tell us about their experiences?
Apart from the well-known case, we have not dealt with people from ethnic minorities. We are aware of the difficulties of breaking into that area, which is why I have been in touch with racial equality organisations. We are considering not only how we can have the right services, but how we can provide a service that is useful. It might be that we cannot provide such a service for people from ethnic minorities because support should come from their communities. We do not want to colonise parts of ethnic communities in our work so we must consider whether it is acceptable.
You said that procurators fiscal often lack experience. How do you know that?
Volunteers are in touch with PFs and follow how the cases develop—PFs sometimes admit that they are not too experienced. We can quickly pick up a fair idea of whether they are experienced.
You would not be the first witness to make that statement. Would that extend into the trial itself, for instance to advocate deputes?
I am not sure. I would not like to give a definite answer on that.
On liaison, you talked about how important it is for families to get information. As the case progresses, families want to be kept in touch. You are saying that the family should know what is going on right through the trial. Are you clear about whether the person who does that job is independent from the Crown Office? I ask that because the Crown Office will say that the person who is prosecuting or conducting the trial has to be independent to do their job as a prosecutor and therefore may not be the right person to talk to the family. Do you have a view on that?
All I can say is that there are certain needs. It is up to the judicial system to work out who does what. We are not in the business of telling people what they should be doing. We are just saying, "Look, here is a need. Some people are fulfilling that need and some people are not." I understand that there are good reasons why people cannot always give information. For example, family liaison officers are part of an on-going inquiry so they can only give so much information. I also realise that victims or co-victims constantly want information and it can be slightly annoying for people to have to keep giving it to them.
I found your evidence particularly interesting. How many cases did you deal with in the past year?
I am afraid that I cannot give you any statistics. We sent a whole batch to the committee, but I understand that there have been some difficulties with the photocopying. We made the mistake of sending them in colour—apparently the colour cannot be duplicated. I hope that you will get the statistics.
My second question is on the extent to which your clients are kept informed of what is happening. Do you accept that it is sometimes difficult for the Crown Office to advise your client about the reason behind a decision, for example to accept a reduced plea, without hurting them more?
I accept some of that, but I do not accept that the Crown Office cannot reply at all to families. If the Crown Office says that there are difficulties it could give the family some kind of abbreviated response. We are all realistic and so are the families we deal with. It is the difference between being acknowledged and not being acknowledged.
I envisage a situation such as a murder in a gang fight. Two or three people are indicted for murder, then a culpable homicide plea is accepted from one or two of them because the victim of the crime was involved in the initial incident. Do you think that the victim's relatives, for example his parents, might find it difficult to be told that a plea had been accepted because their son was initially involved?
Yes. That might be difficult. However, it is much more difficult for the relatives to accept that they get no reply at all. The explanation that you have presented would be fine—the family could work on it and accept the situation. The main problem is that, by failing to reply to their letters, the Crown Office is further excluding people who have been excluded or who feel that they have been excluded.
That must be an issue of grave concern.
Thank you for your evidence. The committee has been very moved by your comments, which I am sure will be useful to our inquiry. I am certain that the committee will want to take action on many of the points that you have raised.
I also have some written evidence that I would like to leave with the committee.
If you give it to the clerks, we will be sure to read it.
Previous
Subordinate Legislation