Victim Statements in Court

The Herald reports:

The Sensible Sentencing Trust has been warned it is going too far by calling on its members to break the law and defy court orders that censor victim impact statements.

Trust chairman Garth McVicar yesterday said members would say whatever they wanted in court until the law was changed.

His comments follow the news that Gil Elliott, father of murder victim Sophie, was forced to read a censored version of the statement he had prepared.

But the Law Society said the trust was using the wrong strategy if it wanted change.

Mr McVicar said the trust would run the “civil disobedience campaign” until Justice Minister Simon Power changed the law to give victims greater freedom with their statements.

The Herald yesterday revealed that sections of Mr Elliott’s statement had been crossed out at the judge’s request the night before Clayton Weatherston was to be sentenced.

Mr Elliott said it meant he did not get to “have a crack” at Weatherston, who stabbed his daughter 216 times.

There are two issues here – both the “censoring” of victim impact statements, and the way it is done.

From all accounts the process is very insensitive to victims families. They spends day and weeks working on their statements and then the day before court get sent the officially approved version. That is crappy.

The content issue is more difficult. First off I have to say they Courts should be more liberal as to what they allow. The trial is over. The sentencing is being dine by a Judge who will know what to take into account, and what not to. So let the victims and their families actually have the chance to say what they think. Especially when they have had to endure the trial.

Now that is not an argument for no rules at all. I don’t think we want victims or their families able to get up and say I hope you get killed in jail etc.

Mr McVicar said the campaign had been planned for some time and several members yet to present their statements in court had committed to reading them in full.

He said the campaign would go on, even though Mr Power had assured him yesterday that changes to statement rules would be announced by Christmas.

Personally I would wait to see what the changes are – Christmas is barely a month away.

Law Society president-elect Jonathan Temm said the issue was not going to be solved by contempt of court.

“You cannot bring the court into disrespect simply because it is bound by the law of the land.”

Mr Temm agreed that while improvements could be made to the process, the campaign was the wrong way to do it.

He questioned whether the Sensible Sentencing Trust would be satisfied even if the law was changed.

“Victims may be able to spend an hour on their feet, railing against the crime, have everybody listen to their anguish and pain and grief, and flog some individual.

“But no amount of victim latitude at sentencing is going to bring back the loved ones or heal the crushed bones.”

With all respect to Mr Temm, victims and their families know that. But there can be something very therapeutic in being able to look the killer in the eye and tell them they are scum of the earth.

VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENTS

What the law does now:

* Victims can speak of the impact of any physical injury or emotional harm suffered through the offence.
* They can also describe any loss of, or damage to, property and any other effects of the offence.
* They cannot criticise the offender or the justice system.

What the Sensible Sentencing Trust wants:

* Victims to be able to give their opinion on the sentence length, and argue for it to be increased to reflect any lack of remorse or misrepresentation of the victim during the trial.
* Victims to be able to ask a court to order specific reparation or compensation.
* Victims to be allowed to draw attention to any disgraceful conduct and attitude during the trail by the offender or their family or supporters.

I don’t see anything objectionable in those changes. The Judge will decide on the basis of case law the sentence, but why not allow the family of the victim, or the victim, to at least have their voice heard on desired sentencing. The prosecution doesn’t speak for them always. Of course the Court will be bound be precedent, but what is the harm by giving them a say?