About

Lothian and Borders Community Engagement Event 12 May 2011

LOTHIAN & BORDERS COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT EVENT
 
Meeting on 12 May 2011 at 12.30am, Livingston Civic Centre
 
Present:    
Marsha Scott (Chair of EAG)

Alan Parfery (Minutes)    

 

 

 

Attending: Guests
Organisation
Ann Paget,
Inspector Helen Boyle
Professor Geoff Palmer, ELREC
Nina Giles, ELREC
Janet Wood, LGBT
Miranda Pio,
Hannah Edwards
 
Mental Health and Wellbeing.
Lothian and Borders Police
Edinburgh & Lothians Regional Equality Council
Edinburgh & Lothians Regional Equality Council
West Lothian Council
West Lothian Council
West Lothian LGBT Youth Forum
Delegates
Apologies:
Bushra Iqbal, EAG
Liz O’Neill, EAG
Dave Young, SCS
Graham Fraser, COPFS
Audrey Blake, COPFS
Dinesh Joshi, MBE, COPFS
John MacFarlane, COPFS
Geri Watt, COPFS
Karen Kennedy, COPFS
Morag McLaughlin, COPFS
Ruth McQuaid, COPFS
Lesley Shoniwa, COPFS
 
Chief Insp Gavin Phillip, Lothian & Borders Police
Nicola Swan, Stonewall Scotland
Ewan Rintoul, Stonewall Scotland
Tim Hopkins, Equality Network
Girijamba Palumbothu, Shakti Women’s Aid
Julie Houston, Edinburgh Equalities Network 
Andrew Baird, Disability West Lothian
Renner Mbireaye, Community Race Forum
Jillian Dougall, Senior Peoples’ Forum
Claire Carbray, Youth Congress
Victor Spence, Edinburgh Inter-Faith Association
 

 
NOTE OF THE MEETING
 
Welcome and Introductions:
 
  1. MS welcomed everyone to the forum. She drew everyone’s attention to the quote inscribed along the Chamber wall which, it could be argued, was not equality compliant. Any suggestions for an alternative quote would be most welcome.
 
  1. MS invited each attendee to introduce themselves to the group. She then gave the background to the creation of the Equality Advisory Group (EAG) and its role within the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS). She described the relationship between the EAG and COPFS as one of a “critical friend”.
 
  1. MMcL, the Area Procurator Fiscal for Lothian and Borders, gave an overview of COPFS’ role and function. She stressed that she, in her capacity as the Diversity Champion for COPFS, was very eager to hear from the community on how COPFS was doing, and how we could better engage with community groups.
 
  1. MMcL then explained recent equality and diversity successes, including an in-house excellence award for the Lothian and Borders team, and a 3 week season to raise equality and diversity awareness in Lothian and Borders. MMcL also expressed the view that this is an area of work requiring constant refreshment and update and COPFS is always looking for input on how to better serve the community. MMcL then opened the floor for discussion.
 
 
COPFS’ treatment of victims and witnesses
 
  1. Nina Giles (NG), from ELREC, spoke about her experiences of COPFS and VIA staff (Victim Information and Advice) in relation to victims and their treatment at the Sheriff Court and High Court: The whole experience for victims is so disappointing. They have been badly treated by so-called “professionals”. The whole bureaucracy of the system is not good for victims. Victims and witnesses are not informed of the court process.  At the Sheriff Court, everybody seems to know the accused but nobody knows the victim or their family. The High Court seems to be better equipped for victims.
 
  1. NG then went on to describe a particular case she was involved with: a victim of a crime had later been accused of a separate crime that was alleged to have occurred during the initial incident. NG expressed disappointment at the handling of a particularly sensitive case by COPFS, and that the general attitude of lawyers within COPFS has been ‘stuck-up’. NG called for more privacy for victims and families, and better explanations for when cases will call and what is likely to happen at trial. NG also advised that there has been a lack of support following racial harassment crimes. She said that despite all the policies in place, she didn’t see any improvement in the treatment of victims and witnesses.
 
  1. NG also spoke about another situation where there was a lack of respect during meetings where an explanation regarding a “No Proceedings” decision was not fully or satisfactorily explained to a victim’s family. The fiscal at the meeting said “My role here today is to explain to you why we make our decisions, not to explain anything else”.
 
  1. Bushra Iqbal (BI) said that the victim support system seemed to be geared towards the indigenous population and not people from other countries / cultures / races who may have different needs.
 
  1. BI added that the victim won’t always distinguish between COPFS, the Scottish Court Service and the Witness Service etc. However, it is the whole experience that affects the witness. BI advocated that a joint approach is needed to join up the various support services to give victims the support they need. For example, issues of witnesses leaving home / work to attend at Court, and being concerned that their families were at risk while they were at Court. The different needs of witnesses could be conveyed via the police to the Prosecutor and the Court Service.
 
10.      MMcL was very saddened by what NG had reported. She felt that any such fall down as expressed by NG was an honest mistake, as COPFS staff were trained and professionally committed to caring for the public and that this is the type of feedback needed in order to improve COPFS’ service to the community.
 
11.      MMcL also expressed disappointment at how victims had been made to feel, and that ultimately COPFS was a public service that should be providing a better service to the public.  She also accepted there is more work to be done by COPFS in this area.  MMcL also asked for case specific feedback so that investigations could be made at the time the incident happened, and apologised for the bad experience that had occurred.  She added that the service was currently revamping its core values of respect and professionalism. She said that these should be at the heart of how COPFS engages with people. COPFS has a collective responsibility to ensure that the court process doesn’t exasperate and frustrate witnesses.
 
12.      MMCL further elaborated that there is a presumption for a prosecution following a hate crime, and if asked for, COPFS will provide an explanation why it is unwilling or not intending to prosecute. About 80% of High Court cases are proceeded with compared with about 45% for other types of crime.
 
13.      MS asked NG if she had any way of feeding back such experiences to COPFS. NG was not aware of any but that ELREC intended to formally feedback about the case referred to. NG also advised that victims should be at the heart of the justice system, not the accused.
 
14.      HB explained that the Police record hate crimes in 2 ways:
 
    1. Recording an incident based in the perception of the victim. This is called an Incident Report.
    2. Recording details about a criminal event that has a hate crime element attached to it. This would be a criminal event where there are two pieces of independent evidence to support the charge and one piece of independent evident to support the hate crime aggravation. The perception of the victim is not an independent piece of evidence but words spoken during the crime or immediately before or after would be enough to support the “hate” element.  
 
15.      HB added that Lothian and Borders Police are in the process of re-writing guidance for officers on how to deal with Hate Crimes and felt that it would be a good idea to work with COPFS on the distinction between “incidents” and criminal events.
 
16.      GF’s position on the ‘counter-allegations’ was that any crime with a racial aggravation would be a priority for him.  However, a Prosecutor looking at an allegation on paper could not make a judgement on whether or not that counter allegation is true.  It is a difficult situation but race crimes should be dealt with as a priority.  GF was concerned with NG’s remarks and passed on his personal contact details to NG, asking her to provide additional information about the case referred to as there could be a lot of learning issues for Edinburgh staff he was responsible for.
 
Action Point 1:
Outcome of GF’s research to be made available to the EAG.
 
17.      GP asked if victims can be represented by a lawyer?  MMcL explained they cannot be as it’s a public prosecution service, not a victim’s prosecution service. COPFS prosecutes in the public interest, and although victim’s views are taken into account, public interest is paramount. It sounds very dismissive of the victim’s interest but it is not meant to be. We do represent the interests of the victim by prosecuting the crime but we also have responsibilities to victims and witnesses and the manner they are treated by the justice system. COPFS must work to improve communication on these issues.
 
18.      GP replied that this could be a dangerous situation and described it as “I can’t defend myself within this system therefore I won’t complain because I can’t defend myself.”
 
19.      BI stated that she was happy that this conversation was taking place and raised the fact that the Scottish system is confusing.  More clarification and clarity is needed.  Better understanding needed in the community, and COPFS must explain that they are ‘angels’ trying to help communities.
 
20.      GF described his personal experience of giving a statement to the police. He was so upset that he couldn’t remember whether the accused was a man or a woman. Issues of shock and emotional stress are compounded by language and cultural difficulties. 
 
21.      MP noted that council based domestic abuse teams linking in with COPFS has been very positive.  She also asked what are the equality and diversity events and training tools in place to keep professionals up to speed?
 
22.      MMcL replied that staff training is organised nationally and explained there is a 2 day compulsory diversity awareness course; mandatory e-learning pack; and additional e-learning packs coming in with the Equalities Act. At a local level, there is office based raising awareness during community events.  There are special interest groups within COPFS to discuss how awareness is raised and evaluated, and how we can do better. There is also an Induction pack for every Area.  Each office also has its own local induction programme which every new member of staff will go through.
 
23.      MS advised turnover of staff gives cause for concern as people coming in that may not fully understand equality and diversity obligations.
 
24.      LO’N raised anecdotal story of how it might be better to get across the importance of the messages and experiences people have within the system more sensitively.
 
25.      MMcL responded that in the current climate, there is a freeze on recruitment and there would be far less turnover of staff which would lead to greater continuity.
 
26.      JW spoke about raising awareness and noted a recent excellent presentation by Hannah Edwards (HE) at a recent LGBT meeting.  She hopes to look at consultations in Schools to see what systems can be put in place to help young LGBT people to show it is unacceptable to have such negative behaviour and bullying.  JW described further initiatives to help young people and is hoping to have dedicated workers in future. Problems do remain in schools, and a culture change is needed.
 
27.      HB raised that pilots in West Lothian have been run on restorative justice to help criminals appreciate the affect they have had on victims. HB offered to link this pilot with schools in West Lothian to show what is unacceptable. JMacF offered to link in with Janet’s group.
 
28.      MS asked if there are any records on prosecution of school age LGBT offences? GF replied that offences of those under 16 are dealt with by Children’s panels and consequently COPFS would have no knowledge of those records.
 
29.      LS advised that May 16th will see publication of Hate Crime statistics.  She also explained that an LGBT network had recently been set up in COPFS called ‘Proud in COPFS’.  Group has been welcomed and COPFS is attempting to change culture as some gay staff still don’t feel comfortable about revealing their sexual orientation to fellow workers.
 
30.      GP emphasised that it is illegal to discriminate and this should be communicated and emphasised to the public. He added that British people are very good at obeying laws but that they have to be aware of the legislation first.
 
31.      MS acknowledged that a school atmosphere on this issue could be poisonous and a culture change needed to be actioned.
 
32.      LO’N was concerned that jokes against older people seem to be accepted and should be borne in mind that this is also unacceptable.  There is a lack of training in some areas.  For example the negative attitude of professionals towards older people and people with mental health issues needs to be addressed.
 
33.      AP noted that there is a gulf between paid professional and volunteers, who, because of cutbacks, are stepping in to do work usually performed by professionals but without any recognition for their skills or experience. She said that volunteers were treated as 2nd class citizens. In relation to COPFS, the only contact a person might have is during a very stressful episode of their life.
 
34.      BI stated the majority of people who are elderly now still have a problem with language if they have immigrated to Scotland.  Abuse of these older people goes on and they will not divorce due to Islamic law.  More needs to be done.
 
Action Point 2:
MS to make outcome of this meeting available to the community and to be emailed to all guests who have attended today. 
 
 
35.      HB asked if VIA (Victim Information and Advice) could be invited to these community meetings as they seem to be the link between witnesses and COPFS. Lack of communication is the most usual bug bear of witnesses.
 
36.      MMcL agreed that VIA staff would be invited to future community events.
 
Action Point 3:
KK to ensure that community event organisers invite local VIA staff to these meetings.
 
 
37.      JMacF offered COPFS involvement in all groups round the table.
38.      MMcL advised that COPFS is connected on restorative justice issues, and once this is more established, should be more linking in between criminal justice partners and EAG partners to provide integrated guidance on equality and diversity issues.
 
39.      JW seeks greater after care support for victims and families of victims of serious crime.  LO’N suggested lack of resources may make it difficult to start a victim support service of this type that goes beyond the end of the Prosecutorial process.  Often groups are set up by previous victims and that should not be their responsibility.
 
40.      LO’N said that National Government are keen to support a local network of support rather than provide the support directly.
 
41.      MS stated that any financial change planning would have to undergo an EqIA to ensure negative impact does not adversely affect equality and diversity, as this is a legislative requirement.
 
42.      BI looking for investment from organisations to provide victim support which in turn would lead to greater intelligence being received back from the community which would be used to shape the provision of future services.  Lack of intelligence currently is a big problem.
 
AOCB
 
43.      MS thanked everyone for attending and confirmed communication would follow and invited groups to contact MS on any follow up issues.