, Labour’s Shadow Solicitor General, responding to
the HMCPSI report on letters to victims from the CPS, said;
“Communication with survivors of rape and domestic abuse is
essential to maintain confidence in the criminal justice system.
But this report shows a stark deterioration and a lack of
Government action over the last two years.
“The fact that so few case letters are of the right quality, and
so many are lacking in empathy, is a stark reminder that the
Conservatives are letting down victims.
“The CPS must urgently review whether it is delivering on its
commitments to ensure victims have faith that the criminal
justice system will be there for them.”
Ends
Notes to editors
- The report can be accessed here: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmcpsi/our-reports/
- This follow up report from the Chief Inspector’s initial
recommendations made in 2018 highlights the stark deterioration
in quality of communication to victims.
- Inspectors looked at 490 letters and rated less than one in
four letters (24.1%) as being of a satisfactory standard, an
improvement of 0.1% since 2018.
- Empathy was still lacking in 42% of the letters and lacking
in 47% of rape and serious sexual assault letters
- HMCPSI found that the overall timeliness of letters sent out
by the CPS has deteriorated, with 65.1% of letters sent in a
timely manner, compared to 72% in the 2018 inspection. Timeliness
has not improved overall. For letters that should be sent to
victims who qualify for an enhanced service (one-day letters)
timeliness has deteriorated since 2018.
- Only 18.6 per cent of RASSO cases letters were of the right
quality.
- All letters should be subject to a quality check by
colleagues before being sent out to victims. From the sample,
44.1% of letters (213) were subject to quality checks.
- One such error that HMCPSI saw often involved letters
incorrectly offering a review under the Victims’ Right to Review
(VRR) scheme, because they used pre-written templates
- Examples of errors made by VLU staff included: setting out
the wrong date of incident and stating that it was the victim,
rather than a witness, that had withdrawn their support.
- Letters we assessed as not having enough empathy: failing to
offer an apology when decisions were delivered late or where
there had been general delay throughout the life of a case; and
failing to convey a level of empathy appropriate for the case
through the tone of the letter, including some cases of victim
blaming language (for example, one letter highlighted the words
“and you” in bold, which could be perceived as accusatory)
