Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Victims in the Australian Criminal Justice System: Principles, Policy and (Distr)action

  • Chapter
Crime, Victims and Policy

Part of the book series: Palgrave Studies in Victims and Victimology ((PSVV))

Abstract

The last three decades have seen sustained and comprehensive efforts to address the problems of ‘secondary victimization’ that are experienced by victims of crime when they are involved in criminal justice processes. Governments have introduced a range of reforms that include the provision of specialised liaison and support services at the reporting, investigative and prosecution stages; advice and practical assistance to enhance future safety; better information about justice procedures and outcomes; changes to investigative, evidentiary and witness procedures; and the use of victim impact statements in court proceedings. While reforms directed at secondary victimisation have undoubtedly bought about improvements in victims’ experiences, their impact has been limited by a reluctance to cede real power to victims as participants in justice processes. More recently, victim policy reforms have become increasingly politicised, and the linkages between victim policy and punitive populism have become increasingly evident.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • ALRC/NSWLRC (Australian Law Reform Commission and the New South Wales Law Reform Commission). 2010. Family Violence — A National Legal Response. ALRC Report 114 NSWLRC Report 128 (Vol. 1). Canberra: Australian Law Reform Commission and New South Wales Law Reform Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • Angle, H., Malam, S. and Carey, C. 2003. Witness Satisfaction: Findings from the Witness Satisfaction Survey 2002. Online Report 19/03. London: Home Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Auditor General Western Australia. 2012. Victim Support Service: Providing Support to Victims of Crime. Report 6 — May 2012. Perth, WA: Parliament of Western Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Australian Domestic and Family Violence Clearinghouse 2010. Submission to the Victim of Crime Compensation Review. Melbourne: Australian Domestic and Family Violence Clearinghouse.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartels, L. 2013. Parole and Parole Authorities in Australia: A System in crisis? Criminal Law Journal 37(6), pp. 357–376.

    Google Scholar 

  • Black, M. 2003. Victim Submissions to Parole Boards: The Agenda for Research. Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice No. 251. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Booth, T. and Carrington, K. 2007. A Comparative Analysis of Victim Policies across the Anglo-speaking World. In: S. Walklate ed. Handbook of Victims and Victimology. Cullompton: Willan, pp. 380–415.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buzawa, E.S. and Austin, T. 1993. Determining Police Response to Domestic Violence Victims: The Role of Victim Preference. American Behavioural Scientist 36(5), pp. 610–624.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Callanan, M., Brown, A., Turley, C., Kenny, T. and Roberts, J. 2012. Evidence and Practice Review of Support for Victims and Outcome Measurement. Ministry of Justice Research Series 19/12: Ministry of Justice (UK).

    Google Scholar 

  • Callinan, I. 2013. Report of the Review of the Parole System in Victoria. Melbourne: Department of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cammiss, S. 2006. The Management of Domestic Violence Cases in the Mode of Trial Hearing: Prosecutorial Control and Marginalizing Victims. British Journal of Criminology 46(4), pp. 704–718.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, R. 2006. Rape Survivors’ Experiences with the Legal and Medical Systems: Do Rape Victim Advocates Make a Difference? Violence Against Women 12(1), pp. 30–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, R. 2008. The Psychological Impact of Rape Victims’ Experiences with Legal, Medical and Mental Health Systems. American Psychologist 63(8), pp. 702–717.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chung, D., O’Leary, P.J. and Hand, T. 2006. Sexual Violence Offenders: Prevention and Intervention Approaches. ACCSA Issues No. 5. Melbourne: Australian Centre for the Study of Sexual Assault.

    Google Scholar 

  • Commonwealth Secretariat 2003. Commonwealth Guidelines for the Treatment of Victims of Crime London: Commonwealth Secretariat.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cook, B., David, F. and Grant, A. 1999. Victims’ Needs, Victims’ Rights: Policies and Programs for Victims of Crime in Australia. Research and Public Policy Series No. 19. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corntassel, J. and Holder, C. 2008. Who’s Sorry Now? Government Apologies, Truth Commissions, and Indigenous Self-Determination in Australia, Canada, Guatemala, and Peru. Human Rights Review 9(4), pp. 465–489.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Council of Europe (CoE). 1985. Council of Europe, Committee of Ministers: Recommendation No. R (85) 11 on the Position of the Victim in the framework of Law and Justice. Council of Europe, Committee of Ministers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cretney, A. and Davis, G. 1996. Prosecuting Domestic Assault. Criminal Law Review (March 1996), pp. 162–174.

    Google Scholar 

  • Criminal Policy Unit 2010. Victims of Crime Fund: A Consultation. Summary of Responses and Way Forward. Belfast: Department of Justice (Northern Ireland).

    Google Scholar 

  • Department of Health and Ageing 2011. National Mental Health Reform 2011–12. Ministerial Statement 10 May 2011. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia

    Google Scholar 

  • Department of Justice (Victoria) 2009. Reviewing Victims of Crime Compensation: Sentencing Orders and State-funded Awards: Discussion Paper. Melbourne: Department of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doak, J. 2008. Victims’ Rights, Human Rights and Criminal Justice: Reconceiving the Role of Third Parties. Portland, OR: Hart Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Douglas, H. and Chrzanowski, A. 2013. A Consideration of the Legitimacy and Equity of Queensland’s Offender Levy. Current Issues in Criminal Justice 24(3), pp. 317–339.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, C. 2013. Spacing Access to Justice: Geographical Perspectives on Disabled People’s Interactions with the Criminal Justice System as Victims of Crime. Area 45(3), pp. 307–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, I. 2004. An Ambiguous Participant: The Crime Victim and Criminal Justice Decision-Making. British Journal of Criminology 44(6), pp. 967–982.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Englebrecht, C.M. 2011. The Struggle for ‘Ownership of Conflict’: An Exploration of Victim Participation and Voice in the Criminal Justice System. Criminal Justice Review 36(2), pp. 129–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erez, E. 2000. Integrating a Victim Perspective in Criminal Justice Through Victim Impact Statements. In: Crawford, A. and Goodey, J. eds. Integrating a Victim Perspective within Criminal Justice. Aldershot: Ashgate, pp. 165–184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erez, E. and Rodgers, L. 1999. Victim Impact Statements and Sentencing Outcomes and Processes: Perspectives of Legal Professionals. British Journal of Criminology 39(2), pp. 216–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erez, E., Roeger, L. and Morgan, F. 1997. Victim Harm, Impact Statements and Victim Satisfaction with Justice: An Australian Experience. International Journal of Victimology 5, pp. 37–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • European Forum for Victim Services 1996. Statement of Victims’ Rights in the Process of Criminal Justice. In: European Forum for Victim Services ed. Brixton, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fagan, J. and Tyler, T. 2005. Legal Socialization of Children and Adolescents. Social Justice Research 18(3), pp. 217–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farrell, G. and Pease, K. 1993. Once Bitten, Twice Bitten: Repeat Victimization and its Implications for Crime Prevention. Police Research Group Crime Prevention Unit Series Paper No. 46. London: Home Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fattah, E. 1991. Understanding Criminal Victimization: An Introduction to Theoretical Victimology. Scarborough, ON: Prentice-Hall Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fattah, E. 2000. Victimology: Past, Present and Future. Criminologie 33(1), pp. 17–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flatman, G. and Bagaric, M. 2001. The Victim and the Prosecutor: The Relevance of Victims in Prosecution Decision Making. Deakin Law Review 6, pp. 238–255.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frazier, P. A. and Haney, B. 1996. Sexual Assault Cases in the Legal System: Police, Prosecutor and Victim Perspectives. Law and Human Behavior 20(6), pp. 607–628.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gardner, J. 1990. Victims and Criminal Justice. Adelaide: Office of Crime Statistics, SA Attorney-General’s department.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garkawe, S. and O’Connell, M. 2007. The Need for a Federal, Australia-Wide Approach to Issues Concerning Crime Victims. Current Issues in Criminal Justice 18(3), pp. 488–493.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garland, D. 2001. The Culture of Control. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garside, R. 2006. Right for the Wrong Reasons: Making Sense of Criminal Justice Failure. In: Garside, R. and MacMahon, W. eds. Does Criminal Justice Work? The ‘Right for The wrong Reasons’ Debate. London: Crime and Society Foundation, pp. 9–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gelb, K. 2011. Purposes of Sentencing: Community Views in Victoria. Melbourne: Sentencing Advisory Council.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grubin, D. 1998. Sex Offending Against Children: Understanding the Risk. Police Research Series Paper 99. London: Home Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, M. 2010. Victims and Policy Making: A Comparative Perspective. Abingdon: Willan Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamlyn, B., Phelps, A., Turtle, J. and Ghazala, S. 2004. Are Special Measures Working? Evidence from Surveys of Vulnerable and Intimidated Witnesses. Home Office Research Study 283. London: Home Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanley, N. and Ross, S. 2013. Forensic Mental Health in Australia; Charting the Gaps. Current Issues in Criminal Justice 24(3), pp. 341–356.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansard 2013. Parliament of Victoria, Legislative Assembly 19 September 2013, p. 3234.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanson, R.F. and Self-Brown, S. 2010. Screening and Assessment of Crime Victimization and its Effects. Journal of Traumatic Stress 23(2), pp. 207–214.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haynes, S.H. 2011. The Effects of Victim-Related Contextual Factors on the Criminal Justice System. Crime and Delinquency 57(2), pp. 298–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hicks, A.J. and Lawrence, J.A. 2004. Procedural Safeguards for Young Offenders: Views of Legal Professionals and Adolescents. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology 37(3), pp. 401–417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holder, R. 2007. Police and Domestic Violence: An Analysis of Domestic Violence Incidents Attended by Police in the ACT and Subsequent Actions. Research Paper 4: Australian Domestic and Family Violence Clearinghouse.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hood, C. and Peters, G. 2004. The Middle Aging of New Public Management: Into the Age of Paradox? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 14(3), pp. 267–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koss, M.P. 2000. Blame, Shame and Community: Justice Responses to Violence Against Women. Paper presented at the 108th Annual American Psychological Association Convention, Washington DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lacey, N. 1994. Government as Manager, Citizen as Consumer: The Case of the Criminal Justice Act 1991. The Modern Law Review 57(4), pp. 534–554.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacCormick, N. and Garland, D. 1998. Sovereign States and Vengeful Victims: The Problem of the Right to Punish. In: Ashworth, A. and Wasik, M. eds. Fundamentals of Sentencing Theory. Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 11–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacCoun, R. and Tyler, T. 1988. The Basis for Citizens’ Preferences for Different Forms of Criminal Jury. Law and Human Behavior 12(3), pp. 333–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macmillan, R. 2001. Violence and the Life Course: The Consequences of Victimization for Personal and Social Development. Annual Review of Sociology 27, pp. 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maguire, M. 1991. The Needs and Rights of Victims of Crime. In: Tonry, M. ed. Crime and Justice: A Review of Research (Vol. 14). Chicago: Chicago University Press, pp. 363–433.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maguire, M. and Kynch, J. 2000. Public Perceptions and Victims’ Experiences of Victim Support: Findings from the 1998 British Crime Survey. London: Home Office Communications Development Unit.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malsch, M. and Carriere, R. 1999. Victims’ Wishes for Compensation: The Immaterial Aspect Journal of Criminal Justice 27(3), pp. 239–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Melup, I. 1999. United Nations Victims of Crime: Implementation of the Conclusions and Recommendations of the Seventh United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and Treatment of Offenders. International Review of Victimology 2, pp. 29–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyering, I.B. 2010. Victim Compensation and Domestic Violence: A National Overview. Stakeholder Paper 8. University of New South Wales: Australian Domestic and Family Violence Clearinghouse.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Justice (UK) 2013. Code of Practice for Victims of Crime: October 2013. London: HMSO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Montada, L. and Lerner, M. J. 1998. Responses to Victimization and Belief in a Just World. New York: Plenum Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Morabito, V. 2000. Compensation Orders Against Offenders — An Australian Perspective. Singapore Journal of International and Comparative Law 4(1), pp. 59–114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, R. and Sanders. 1999. The Uses of Victims Statements, Occasional Paper. London: Home Office, Research, Development and Statistics Directorate.

    Google Scholar 

  • New South Wales Department of Attorney General and Justice/PriceWaterhouse-Coopers. 2012. Review of the Victims Compensation Fund. Sydney: NSW Department of Attorney-General.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norris, F.H. and Thompson, M.P. 1993. The Victim in the System: The Influence of Police Responsiveness on Victim Alienation. Journal of Traumatic Stress 6(4), pp. 515–532.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orth, U. 2002. Secondary Victimization of Crime Victims by Criminal Proceedings. Social Justice Research 15(4), pp. 313–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ota, T. 2008. The Development of Victim Support and Victim Rights in Asia. In: Chan W.-C. ed. Support for Victims of Crime in Asia. Abingdon: Routledge Law in Asia, pp. 113–148.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parkinson, D. 2010. Supporting Victims Through the Legal Process: The Role Of Sexual Assault Service Providers. ACSSA Wrap No. 8. Melbourne: Australian Centre for the Study of Sexual Assault, Australian Institute of Family Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parsons, J. and Bergin, T. 2010. The Impact of Criminal Justice Involvement on Victims’ Mental Health. Journal of Traumatic Stress 23(2), pp. 182–188.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quas, J.A. and Goodman, G.S. 2012. Consequences of Criminal Court Involvement for Child Victims. Psychology, Public Policy and Law 18(3), pp. 392–414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rawls, J. 1999. A Theory of Justice: Revised Edition. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reeves, H. and Mulley, K. 2000. The New Status of Victims in the UK: Opportunities and Threats. In: Crawford, A. and Goodey, J. eds. Integrating a Victim Perspective within Criminal Justice. Aldershot: Ashgate, pp. 125–146.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richards, K. 2009. Child Complainants and the Court Process in Australia. Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice No. 380. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riggs, D.S. and Kilpatrick, D.G. 1990. Families and Friends: Indirect Victimization by Crime. In: Skogan, W., Davis, R. and Lurigio, A. eds. Victims of Crime: Problems, Policies and programs. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 120–138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, L. and Indermaur, D. 2009. What Australians Think about Crime and Justice: Results from the 2007 Survey of Social Attitudes. Research and Public Policy Series No. 101. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruback, R.B., Cares, A.C. and Hoskins, S.N. 2008. Crime Victims’ Perceptions of Restitution: The Importance of Payment and Understanding. Violence and Victims 223(6), pp. 697–710.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanders, A. and Jones, I. 2007. The Victim in Court. In: Walklate, S. ed. Handbook of Victims and Victimology. Cullompton: Willan, pp. 282–308.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sellin, T. and Wolfgang, M.E. 1964. The Measurement of Delinquency. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shapland, J. 2000. Creating Responsive Criminal Justice Agencies. In: Crawford, A. and Goodey, J. eds. Integrating a Victim Perspective Within Criminal Justice. Farnham: Ashgate

    Google Scholar 

  • Shapland, J., Willmore, J. and Duff, P. 1985. Victims and the Criminal Justice System. Aldershot: Gower.

    Google Scholar 

  • Standing Council on Law and Justice. 2013. National Framework of Rights and Services for Victims of Crime: 2013–2016. Canberra: SCLJ, pp. 52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strang, H. and Sherman, L.W. 2003. Repairing the Harm: Victims and Restorative Justice. Utah Law Review 15(1), pp. 15–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sunshine, J. and Tyler, T. 2003. The Role of Procedural Justice and Legitimacy in Shaping Public Support for the Police. Law and Society Review 37(3), pp. 513–548.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thibaut, J. and Walker, L. 1975. Procedural Justice. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. 1997. Citizen Discontent with Legal Procedures: A Social Science Perspective on Civil Procedure Reform. The American Journal of Comparative Law 45(4), pp. 871–904.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. 2002. A National Survey for Monitoring Police Legitimacy. Justice Research and Policy 4, pp. 71–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. 2006a. Restorative Justice and Procedural Justice: Dealing with Rule Breaking. Journal of Social Issues 62(2), pp. 307–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. 2006b. Why People Obey the Law. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. and Boeckmann, R. 1997. Three Strikes and You Are Out, but Why? The Psychology of Public Support for Punishing Rule Breakers. Law and Society Review 31(2), pp. 237–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. and Degoey, P. 1995. Collective Restraint in Social Dilemmas: Procedural Justice and Social Identification Effects on Support for Authorities. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 69(3), pp. 482–497.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Office for Drug Control and Crime Prevention. 1999. Handbook on Justice for Victims on the Use and Application of the Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power. New York: Centre for International Crime Prevention.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Dijk, J. and Groenhuijsen, M. 2007. Benchmarking Victim Policies in the Framework of the European Union Law. In: Walklate, S. ed. Handbook of Victims and Victimology. Cullompton: Willan, pp. 363–379.

    Google Scholar 

  • Victorian Auditor-General’s Office 2011. Effectiveness of Victims of Crime Programs. PP No. 6, Session 2010–2011. Melbourne: Victorian Government Printer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walklate, S. 2012. Courting Compassion: Victims, Policy, and the Question of Justice. The Howard Journal 51(2), pp. 109–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waller, I. 2003. Crime Victims: Doing Justice to their Support and Protection. Publication Series 39. Helsinki: European Institute for Crime prevention and Control (HEUNI).

    Google Scholar 

  • Waller, I. 2011. Rebalancing Justice: Rights for Victims of Crime. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warner, K. and Gawlik, J. 2003. Mandatory Compensation Orders for Crime Victims and the Rhetoric of Restorative Justice. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology 36(1), pp. 60–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wemmers, J. 2013. Victims’ Experiences in the Criminal Justice System and their Recovery from Crime. International Review of Victimology 19(3), pp. 221–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitehead, E. 2001. Witness Satisfaction: Findings from the Witness Satisfaction Survey 2000. Home Office Research Study No. 230. London: Home Office (UK).

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiebe, R.P. 1996. The Mental Health Implications of Crime Victims Rights. In: Wexler D. and Winick, B. eds. Law in a Therapeutic Key. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press, pp. 17–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winick, B. and Wexler, D. 2003. Judging in a Therapeutic Key: Therapeutic Jurisprudence and the Courts. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zedner, L. 1997. Victims. In: Maguire, M., Morgan, R. and Reiner, R. eds. The Oxford Handbook of Criminology. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 577–612.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Stuart Ross
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Sussex, UK

    Dean Wilson

  2. University of Melbourne, Australia

    Stuart Ross

Copyright information

© 2015 Stuart Ross

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Ross, S. (2015). Victims in the Australian Criminal Justice System: Principles, Policy and (Distr)action. In: Wilson, D., Ross, S. (eds) Crime, Victims and Policy. Palgrave Studies in Victims and Victimology. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137383938_10

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation