The community trigger for anti-social behaviour: protecting victims or raising unrealistic expectations?

In October 2014, a statutory remedy for victims of anti-social behaviour became available called the community trigger. It affords complainants a right to request a review of their case if they consider that the response from local agencies has been inadequate. The Government has hailed the reform as “putting victims first”. This article first explores the context behind this reform. This includes a number of high profile cases involving the deaths of complainants after systematic failures led to prolonged exposure to anti-social behaviour. The article then examines the provisions and how they are likely to operate in practice. It argues that whilst much will depend upon implementation, the community trigger has the potential to improve the level of service offered to vulnerable complainants without necessarily impacting adversely on the rights of alleged perpetrators. As such, the community trigger may provide a model from which other areas of the criminal justice system may draw.

The inclusion and juridification of victims on the Island of Ireland

Concern for crime victims has been a growing political issue in improving the legitimacy and success of the criminal justice system through the rhetoric of rights. Since the 1970s there have been numerous reforms and policy documents produced to enhance victims’ satisfaction in the criminal justice system. Both the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland have seen a sea-change in more recent years from a focus on services for victims to a greater emphasis on procedural rights. The purpose of this chapter is to chart these reforms against the backdrop of wider political and regional changes emanating from the European Union and the European Court of Human Rights, and to critically examine whether the position of crime victims has actually ameliorated.

While separated into two legal jurisdictions, the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland as common law countries have both grappled with similar challenges in improving crime victim satisfaction in adversarial criminal proceedings. This chapter begins by discussing the historical and theoretical concern for crime victims in the criminal justice system, and how this has changed in recent years. The rest of the chapter is split into two parts focusing on the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. Both parts examine the provisions of services to victims, and the move towards more procedural rights for victims in terms of information, participation, protection and compensation. The chapter concludes by finding that despite being different legal jurisdictions, the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland have introduced many similar reforms for crime victims in recent years.

Reparations for ‘guilty victims’: Navigating Complex Identities of Victim-Perpetrators in Reparation Mechanisms

Reparations are often declared victim-centred, but in transitional societies defining who is a victim and eligible for reparations can be a politically charged and controversial process. Added to this, the messy reality of conflict means that perpetrators and victims do not always fall in two separate categories. Instead in certain circumstances perpetrators can be victimised and victims can be responsible for victimising others. This article explores complex victims, who are responsible for victimising others, but have themselves been unlawfully victimised. Looking in particular at the 1993 Shankill bombing in Northern Ireland, as well as Colombia and Peru, such complex victims are often seen as ‘guilty’ or ‘bad’ victims undeserving of reparations. This article argues that complex victims need to be included in reparation mechanisms to ensure accountability and to prevent their exclusion becoming a source of victimisation and future violence. It considers alternative avenues of human rights courts, development aid, services and community reparations to navigate complex identities of victim-perpetrators. In concluding the author finds that complex identities can be accommodated in transitional societies reparation programmes through nuanced rules of eligibility and forms of reparations.

A Pension for Injured Victims of the Troubles: Reparations or Reifying Victim Hierarchy?

Reparations have been often used victim-centred measures to redress both private harm and gross violations of human rights. However, with the increasing occurrence of internal armed conflict and political violence, identities of victims and perpetrators in protracted conflicts can become blurred for some individuals. In countries like Peru and Northern Ireland that have suffered protracted violence, victimhood has been contested around which individuals are seen as innocent and deserving to exclude any members of non-state armed groups from claiming reparations. This article explores the issue of a proposed bill on a pension for injured victims of the Troubles in Northern Ireland. It identifies that there is no consistent state practice or human rights jurisprudence in this area, but instead offers a more complex approach through four models that can grapple with the seeming diametrically opposed victimhood and responsibility, by including victimised-perpetrators in reparations programmes such as that proposed for a pension of seriously injured victims in Northern Ireland.

Complementarity’s monopoly on justice in Uganda: the International Criminal Court, victims and Thomas Kwoyelo

Complementarity has been extolled as the pioneering way for the International Criminal Court (ICC) to navigate the difficulties of state sovereignty when investigating and prosecuting international crimes. Victims have often been held up to justify and legitimise the work of the ICC and states complementing the Court through domestic processes. This article examines how Uganda has developed its laws, legal procedure, and accountability for international crimes over the past decade. This has culminated in the trial of Thomas Kwoyelo, which after five years of proceedings, has yet to move to the trial phase, due to the issue of an amnesty. While there has been a profusion of provisions to allow victims to participate, avail of protection measures and reparations, in practice very little has changed for them. This article highlights the dangers of complementarity being the sole solution to protracted conflicts, in particular the realisation of victims’ rights.

Victims, Violence and Voice: Transitional Justice, Oral History and Dealing with the Past

Transitional justice is concerned with the legal and social processes established to deal with the legacy of violence in post-conflict and post-authoritarian contexts. These processes are essentially “creatures of law” – they are established by statute, their work is molded and shaped by lawyers, and their outcomes are benchmarked against what is or is not acceptable in domestic and international law. Concerns have mounted in recent years about the dominance of legalism within the field and the instrumentalization of those most directly affected by past violence. A commonly prescribed – but as yet largely empirically untested – corrective is that transitional justice theory and practice must become more open to interdisciplinary insights and perspectives. The interview – in different guises, contexts and settings – is at the heart of most transitional justice processes. As a historian now working in a School of Law I reflect in this article on the theoretical and practical intersections between law, history, and the interview. Drawing on more than 200 interviews concerning the Northern Ireland conflict and six other international case studies I concentrate in particular on interview-based initiatives that purport to be “victim-centered”. Having identified three interrelated risks - the manipulation of victim voice by vested interests, the affording of authority to particular voices, and the reification or “freezing” of identity - and having related these to the constraints of legal mechanisms and a wider failure to manage victims’ expectations, I argue that a greater familiarity with oral history theory and praxis can usefully illuminate the tensions between legal and historical approaches to engaging voice, and ultimately offer guidance to the shared challenge of victim-centered transitional justice.

Victim impact reports in Northern Ireland: Victims’ voices influencing sentencing?

Discusses three Northern Ireland Court of Appeal decisions concerning the role of victim impact reports (VIRs) on sentencing in sexual violence cases, and illustrating how courts may be unable to rely on victims' accounts of the harm they suffered because the experts' reports were unreliable. Details key features of the cases, the use of VIRs as evidence-based harm, and why improved guidance on their use is needed in Northern Ireland.

Invisible Victims: Recorded Crime and Children in the UK

While violence against children is a common occurrence only a minority of incidents come to the attention of the authorities. Low reporting rates notwithstanding, official data such as child protection referrals and recorded crime statistics provide valuable information on the numbers of children experiencing harm which come to the attention of professionals in any given year. In the UK, there has been a strong tendency to focus on child protection statistics while children as victims of crime remain largely invisible in annual crime reports and associated compendia. This is despite the implementation of a raft of policies aimed at improving the system response to victims and witnesses of crime across the UK. This paper demonstrates the utility of a more detailed analysis of crime statistics in providing information on the patterns of crime against children and examining case outcomes. Based on data made available by the Police Service for Northern Ireland, it highlights how violent crime differentially impacts on older children and how detection rates vary depending on case characteristics. It makes an argument for developing recorded crime practice to make child victims of crime more visible and to facilitate assessment of the effectiveness of current initiatives and policy developments. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Reframing Public Inquiries as 'Procedural Justice' for Victims of Institutional Child Abuse: Towards a Hybrid Model of Justice

As the number of high profile cases of institutional child abuse mounts internationally, and the demands of victims for justice are heard, state responses have ranged from prosecution, apology, and compensation schemes, to truth commissions or public inquiries. Drawing on the examples of Australia and Northern Ireland as two jurisdictions with a recent and ongoing history of statutory inquiries into institutional child abuse, the article utilises the restorative justice paradigm to critically evaluate the strengths and limitations of the inquiry framework in providing ‘justice’ for victims. It critically explores the normative and pragmatic implications of a hybrid model as a more effective route to procedural justice and suggests that an appropriately designed restorative pathway may augment the legitimacy and utility of the public inquiry model for victims chiefly via improving offender accountability and ‘voice’ for victims. The article concludes by offering some thoughts on the broader implications for other jurisdictions in responding to large-scale historical abuses and seeking to come to terms with the legacy of institutional child abuse.