Victims And Justice

Australia Fiji Community Justice Program Victims and Justice Services Available to Victims: A Fiji Survey (2008) Doc 58834 ver 1

D e c e m b e r

2 0 0 8

T a b l e

o

f

C o n t e n t s 1.

Background: Victim Support Group (VSG) and Victim Services Research (VSR) _________________________________________________ 1 1.1 Services and Service Providers __________________________________________ 2 1.2 Victims ______________________________________________________________ 2

2.

Introduction______________________________________________________ 3

3.

Literary Landscape _______________________________________________ 4 3.1 UN Principles of Treatment of Victims______________________________________ 4 3.2 The South Pacific Literature _____________________________________________ 4 3.3 International Literature _________________________________________________ 9

4.

Method ________________________________________________________ 11 4.1 Sample ____________________________________________________________ 11 4.2 Time _____________________________________________________________ 12 4.3 Locations ___________________________________________________________ 12 4.4 Consultations________________________________________________________ 12 4.5 Research Tools ______________________________________________________ 13 4.6 Ethical Considerations_________________________________________________ 13 4.7 Fieldwork Experience _________________________________________________ 14

5.

Findings _______________________________________________________ 15 Layout of this Section______________________________________________________ 15 5.1 Part One: Service Providers ____________________________________________ 16 5.2 Part Two: Victims_____________________________________________________ 24 5.2.1 General Information about Victims ................................................................................. 24 5.2.2 Crime Information........................................................................................................... 26 5.2.3 Reporting........................................................................................................................ 28 5.2.4 The Police ...................................................................................................................... 31 5.2.5 The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions........................................................... 38 5.2.6 The Courts...................................................................................................................... 43

6.

Recommendations ______________________________________________ 46 6.1 Service Provider Organizations__________________________________________ 46 6.2 Police _____________________________________________________________ 46

T a b l e

o

f

C o n t e n t s 6.3 Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions________________________________ 47 6.4 Courts _____________________________________________________________ 47

7.

References _____________________________________________________ 48 L i s t

o f

T a b l e s

Table 1: Service organizations included in the research _____________________________ 16 Table 2: Services provided to victims of crime by service providers ____________________ 17 Table 3: Difficulties faced by service providers ____________________________________ 19 Table 4: Use of data collected _________________________________________________ 22 Table 5: Organizations told and assistance received________________________________ 29 Table 6: Reasons for not reporting to the police ___________________________________ 31 Table 7: Attitude of police officers towards victims__________________________________ 36 Table 8: Attitude of prosecutor towards victims ____________________________________ 39

L i s t

o f

F i g u r e s

Figure 1: Service providers collecting data _______________________________________ 22 Figure 2: Respondents by locality and sex (n=45) __________________________________ 24 Figure 3: Respondents by gender (n=45)_________________________________________ 24 Figure 4: Respondents by age (n=45) ___________________________________________ 25 Figure 5: Respondents by cultural affiliation (n=45) _________________________________ 25 Figure 6: Respondents by area of residence (n=45) ________________________________ 25 Figure 7: Respondents by offence type (n=45) ____________________________________ 26 Figure 8: General area where crime took place (n=45) ______________________________ 26 Figure 9: Where crime took place (n=45) _________________________________________ 27 Figure 10: Did you tell someone about the crime, leaving the police?___________________ 28 Figure 11: Leaving the police, who did you tell? ___________________________________ 29 Figure 12: Did you report the crime to the police? __________________________________ 31

T a b l e

o

f

C o n t e n t s Figure 13: Were you satisfied with the help provided by the police? ____________________ 32 Figure 14: Giving Statements __________________________________________________ 34 Figure 15: Were you satisfied with the way in which your statement was taken? __________ 34 Figure 16: Did you receive any information on services you could access if you wanted to, from the police? ________________________________________________________________ 35 Figure 17: Did the police contact you about the progress of the case? __________________ 37 Figure 18: Did you meet your prosecutor? ________________________________________ 38 Figure 19: How many times did you meet with your prosecutor? ______________________ 38 Figure 20: Did your prosecutor change during the prosecutions process? _______________ 39 Figure 21: Did your prosecutor provide you with any pre-court preparation help? _________ 40 Figure 22: Were you asked for information for a victim impact statement? _______________ 41 Figure 23: Were you satisfied with your prosecutor? ________________________________ 41 Figure 24: Did you experience a lot of delays and adjournments at court? _______________ 43 Figure 25: If you needed an interpreter was there one available? ______________________ 43 Figure 26: Did you access any support service during the court process? _______________ 44 Figure 27: Were you satisfied with the court process?_______________________________ 44

A p p e n d i c e s 1

Service Provider Questions

2

Victim Questions

3

Information Leaflet

4

Service Provider Consent Form

5

Victim Consent Form

6

Ethical Considerations and Guidelines

A b b r e v i a t i o n s

AFCJP

Australia/Fiji Community Justice Program

CSD

Community Services Directory

DoSW/DSW

Department of Social Welfare

FASW

Fiji Association of Social Workers

FWCC

Fiji Women’s Crisis Centre

MoE

Ministry of Education

ODE

Office of Development of Effectiveness

ODPP

Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions

PCSS

Pacific Counselling and Social Services

SEEDS

Sustainable Economic and Empowerment Development Strategy

UNICEF

United Nations Children’s Fund

VSG

Victim Support Group

VSR

Victim Services Research

Australia Fiji Community Justice Program Victims and Justice – Services Available to Victims: A Fiji Survey (2008)

1.

Background: Victim Support Group (VSG) and Victim Services Research (VSR) The Victim Support Group (VSG) was established in March 2008. The group’s core representation has been the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP), the Department of Social Welfare (DoSW), the Australia/Fiji Community Justice Program (AFCJP), as well as the Fiji Women’s Crisis Centre (FWCC), Fiji Association of Social Workers (FASW), United Nations Children’s Fund (UNCIEF), Pacific Counselling and Social Services (PCSS) and the Ministry of Education (MoE). The terms of reference for the VSG require the group to: 1. consider information gained from the Victim Services Research (VSR) to inform future directions and priorities of the Group. 2. identify those individuals and organizations who might, from time to time, be invited to sit on the Group and identify those individuals or organizations to whom information from the Group may be circulated from time to time. 3. identify strategies to improve service delivery, processes and partnerships to respond to the needs of victims of crime. 4. identify changes that might best be gained by legislative responses. 5. review and modify the Terms of Reference as considered appropriate. In guiding the work of the VSG and for the purpose of this group and for the research the definition of “Victim” is understood to be: “Persons who have suffered harm, including physical or mental injury; emotional suffering including grief; economic loss and/or substantial impairment of rights accorded them by law through acts or omissions that are in violation of the criminal law in Fiji. Without limiting the foregoing, the definition includes people who have suffered such harm as a result of the death of a person upon whom they are financially or psychologically dependant and/or to whom they are closely related. The definition includes people who are not financially and/or psychologically dependent on the harmed person if they see or hear the harm being done to the person directly affected in circumstances where it is probable that they will themselves suffer harm.”1 The terms of reference for the VSR referred to at cl 1 of the Terms of Reference (above) for the VSG are:

1

This definition, with an amendment is taken from the Australia Capital Territory Law Reform Commission Report Number 6 “Victims of Crime” and borrows from the United Nations Definition in the “United Nations Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power.” Page 1

Australia Fiji Community Justice Program Victims and Justice – Services Available to Victims: A Fiji Survey (2008)

1.1

Services and Service Providers 1. identify service providers 2. describe services 3. within the service providers identify which services are used most and how that is measured; 4. describe the difficulties faced by service providers in providing services to victims; • identify the existence and use of referral networks between service providers; • outline the referral process 5. identify and describe coordination and communication between service providers

1.2

Victims 1. Gather victim information about: • age, gender, race, area of residence (but not personal information that can identify); • the offence including type and location; • experiences with service providers . 2

2

For the purpose of the research ‘service providers’ broadly speaking refers to social services as well as organizations within the criminal justice system Page 2

Australia Fiji Community Justice Program Victims and Justice – Services Available to Victims: A Fiji Survey (2008)

2.

Introduction The FWCC indicated a slight increase in the number of reports being made to the police with regard to domestic violence and sexual assault cases (FWCC, 2001). With increased reporting of crime, it is increasingly important that service providers and criminal justice agencies are sensitive and equipped to provide assistance to victims of crime. Improvements to service provision can only be effectively brought about if those accessing the services are given the opportunity to voice opinions about the services accessed. This research asked victims of crime to identify: •

the areas in which the most assistance was required;

•

whether their needs were met or otherwise; and

•

gaps in services.

Aside from Australia and New Zealand, Fiji has the most sophisticated legal system in the South-west Pacific region. There is a growing awareness that the legal system needs to improve its treatment of victims of crime. The Government of Fiji has, within its strategic planning document; Sustainable Economic and Empowerment Development Strategy SEEDS (see Literature Review) identified the development of support services to victims of crime as a Government strategy. The ODPP is committed to improving services that the office providers, however, it has also come to the attention of the Office that often delays and frustrations begin at the police level (Pulea, 2005) which has a large bearing on the likelihood of the matter reaching the prosecutions stage. Equipping service providers, including criminal justice agencies with the skill and resources to provide assistance to victims of crime is fundamental to improving the rate of reporting, improving the treatment of those who report, and improving the rate of conviction of the guilty. This research documents the realities of service provision to victims of crime in Fiji and attempts to provide a snapshot of the experiences of victims in accessing support services and the justice system in an attempt to fill a gap in the knowledge base on victims of crime in Fiji.

Page 3

Australia Fiji Community Justice Program Victims and Justice – Services Available to Victims: A Fiji Survey (2008)

3.

Literary Landscape There has been limited work conducted on the situation of victims of crime within the formal justice system in Fiji (Pulea, 2005; FWCC, 2001). Whilst memoranda of understanding exist3 between government departments pertaining to victims of crime, little has been done to understand the situations of victims in accessing services (including, but not limited to, the police, prosecutions and courts).

3.1

UN Principles of Treatment of Victims Globally, criminal justice systems have embraced the need to improve access to justice and fair treatment, restitution, compensation and assistance to victims of crime through the United Nations Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power adopted by the General Assembly in 1985.

3.2

The South Pacific Literature The Government of Fiji strategic planning document for 2008-2010, SEEDS sets out at cl 4.3 the policy objective: “People are served by ethical, professional, independent, transparent and accountable legal and registry services to enhance access to justice and good governance.” One of the strategies set out in the document to achieve this objective is to “develop support services for victims of crime.” The 13th Annual Conference of the ODPP in Fiji in 2007 focused on the needs of victims of crime and produced resolutions called the “Navau Resolutions”. These Resolutions are to: 1. Improve internal systems in the ODPP by: • developing and implementing “best practice” policies, guidelines and procedures to allow the adjustment of internal processes; • coordinating with, and making better use of, services and resources available by liaison with other agencies dealing with victims; and • coordinating with, and making better use of, services and resources available by liaison with other agencies dealing with victims. 2. Measure and monitor progress in the treatment of victims within the ODPP. 3. Draft and present to government: • a victim’s charter; and • suitable victim protection legislation.

3

The following protocols existed; between the Fiji Police and Department of Social Welfare Regarding Protective Services for Children and Young People in Fiji (1999), the Protocol Between the Fiji Police and the Ministry of Health Regarding the Provision of Medical Services (1999) and the Memorandum of Understanding between the Fiji Police and the Ministry of Education and Technology (1999). Many of these protocols have lapsed without either party seeking to renew the protocol. Page 4

Australia Fiji Community Justice Program Victims and Justice – Services Available to Victims: A Fiji Survey (2008)

4. Convey policy recommendations to Government promoting improvement in the treatment of victims by changing legislation or enacting new legislation that: • protects the interests and rights of victims and witnesses; and • supports a victim’s rehabilitation and compensation program. 5. Advocate allocation of national resources to: • allocate resources to provide improved facilities for the protection of the interests and rights of victims; and • when possible provide funding by the State or other appropriate funds providers to support a victim’s compensation scheme. AFCJP (2007) as part of a Business Process Review for the ODPP conducted a survey on the issues that victims face at the prosecutions level. Victim workshops were conducted in Lautoka (9 participants) and Suva (6 participants). The purpose of the survey was to find out how the ODPP was delivering services. The participants of the survey were service providers who related the experiences of the victims with the ODPP. Questions for the survey were framed around the areas of communication, bail, separation from the accused at court, the trial process, compensation or restitution, victim impact statement, pleas of guilty by the offender and the sentencing process and withdrawal of charge. The questions were prepared for the purpose of dealing with the areas that were suspected most likely to raise difficulties with victims. The current research used these survey questions as a base for developing the victim questions. Discussions from the workshops in Lautoka and Suva yielded many issues; the following are some of issues that were identified: • Lack of training (police prosecutors and legal officers are badly matched against defense counsels) • Prosecutors do not communicate with the victim (do not provide feedback about the progress of the case and fail to introduce themselves or have anything to do with the victim except in court) • Difficulties arise when prosecutors change and there is no advice given about the change • Police write statements for victims using police jargon, often missing important evidence (prosecutors rely upon victims’ statements written by the police and do not ask the victim about its accuracy before the court) • An application for child witnesses or other vulnerable witnesses should be standard procedure for prosecutors • Victims of violent and traumatic crimes are often left to wait in the same waiting area as the accused • Cases are delayed for many years. Continued adjournments cause victims to give up and not go to trial (Sexual matters, child abuse matters and sexual matters need to be given priority) • Long delays cause the victim’s family in intra-familial sex cases to focus on the impact of the sentence rather than the impact of the offence

Page 5

Australia Fiji Community Justice Program Victims and Justice – Services Available to Victims: A Fiji Survey (2008)

• No assistance by prosecutors to prepare victims for court (showing them the layout of the courtroom and explaining the processes) • Victims often find it difficult to communicate with police and prosecutors (the terminology is confusing and the situation is difficult and unfamiliar) • Prosecutors rarely ask victims about compensation or restitution • Concerns over privacy of the information The issues and comments raised in the 2007 survey are similar to those raised in the current research. Previous research conducted in Fiji regarding victim support and services related to crimes against women such as rape, sexual assault, and domestic violence. The FWCC (2001) identified the use of support services and victim views on the effectiveness and helpfulness of these services. The main support services identified in the FWCC Report (2001) were medical services, police, DoSW, religious organizations, counsellors and FWCC. The Report found a lack of services and community support for victims of domestic violence and their families. However, these findings are limited to female victims of domestic violence and sexual assault who access additional services to victims of robbery, robbery with violence, larceny and others. A report by the Office of Development of Effectiveness (ODE) entitled Violence Against Women in Melanesia and East Timor: A Review of International Lessons (forthcoming) found that violence against women is “severe and pervasive” in countries such as Fiji, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands and Vanuatu. The aims of the ODE research was to generate specific ideas for “new interventions and new ways of working with partners, including partner governments, civil society and other donors, to address violence against women.” The recommendations of this report will be useful once the services available to victims are understood and documented. Giving victims a voice improves the chances of delivering appropriate services. Pulea (2005) undertook a community survey on the police, courts, and prisons service in Fiji. The purpose of this survey was to gauge the public’s perceptions and opinions of the justice services provided by the police, courts, and prisons services. This report provided information on how people perceived law and order, fair justice, equality of treatment, individual and community safety and the quality of the services provided by the above mentioned justice agencies. The Pulea survey highlighted that the public perceived problems with the police as institutional and long-standing and impossible to resolve by short-term measures. More than one-third (38.7%) of the respondents indicated that they were not aware of the police emergency number and hence did not report incidents of crime; others stated a lack of confidence in police capacity to provide protection and the fear of further victimization at the hands of sections of the community if it became known that they were informers. About a third of the respondents had a low level of satisfaction with the police. Further investigations are needed into the reasons for this dissatisfaction with police.

Page 6

Australia Fiji Community Justice Program Victims and Justice – Services Available to Victims: A Fiji Survey (2008)

With regards to the court system, Pulea (2005) found that respondents: • did not know in most cases how to initiate court proceedings; • perceived timeliness in hearings and disposal of cases by the courts as a problem; • were unaware of the functions of the Legal Aid Commission; • were unaware of where they could go for assistance when not represented by • lawyers; and • perceived the courts as being influenced by the police, politicians and the government. However, this survey looked at the perceptions of the general public towards the relevant sectors of the justice system, which could vary greatly with the actual experiences of victims of crime with the justice system. The UNICEF/Government of Fiji Baseline Research on Child Protection (forthcoming) conducted, under the legislative component of the research, a review of current legislation and regulations of Fiji against established legislative compliance indicators. In total, there were 278 indicators, one of which, related to Child Friendly Investigative and Court Procedures. Under this main subject were 24 indicators, of that, 13 showed compliance, 6 showed partial compliance4 and 5 were non compliant on indicators5. The report on the legislative component: •

sought to identify gaps in existing legislation relating to child protection issues;

•

proposed reforms

The recommendations that relate to the current victims research were that: • some emphasis be given to psychological counselling as a resource available at • the court house for children and juveniles; • child/juvenile/young persons sensitization training of judges/magistrates be • conducted regularly, and certainly at induction; and • quasi judicial officers and their staff, and prosecutors who come into contact with • children/young persons/juveniles, receive child/juvenile/young persons sensitization training at induction. The Fiji Law Reform Commission Part 1 Children and Sexual Offences (1999) recommends the use of screens, evidence by closed circuit television, and pre-trial video evidence for child victims. The Law Reform Commission view is that these measures

4

Examples of indicators that showed partial compliance were: inter-agency referral procedures to promote coordination between police, health care workers, social workers and other service providers; coordination/referral mechanism is in place for children who come to the attention of the police; in any actions taken the best interests of the child will be the primary consideration; special procedures to reduce the number and length of interviews child victims are subjected to and children are entitled to have a support person present with them at all stages of the investigation and trial proceedings (legal/social)

5

Examples of indicators that showed non-compliance were: law guarantees the right to participate in any judicial proceedings that affect them, to express their views, and to have those views given due weight; child-friendly interview environments and interview techniques (police, prosecutors, judges, social workers); victim/witness support program to familiarize children with the court process and provide support at all stages of the process, including social and legal counseling; measures to ensure child victims are protected from direct confrontation with persons accused of violating their rights and from hostile, insensitive or repetitive questioning or interrogation; requirement that police prosecutors, lawyers and judges receive specialized training in dealing with cases where children are victims and police prosecutors and courts have specialized units, or designated specialists to handle cases involving child victims/witnesses Page 7

Australia Fiji Community Justice Program Victims and Justice – Services Available to Victims: A Fiji Survey (2008)

have a great deal of merit and should be established. The Commission in this report is of the view that treatment centres with trained counsellors are vital and that resources be made available to meet this need. The report criticized members of the judiciary in the way in which they deal with child sexual offence cases, especially with the language used and inappropriate comments made, indicating the need for awareness and educational programs specifically designed for the judiciary. The Fiji Law Reform Commission Criminal Evidence Report (1999) found that no special arrangements were made for vulnerable witnesses but the need for more thoughtful and protective procedures for such witnesses has been increasingly recognized. The report highlighted that the use of screens to prevent children and other vulnerable witnesses from being seen or intimidated by the accused has been informally approved on a case by case basis but lack any detailed guideline issued by the High Court or the Fiji Court of Appeal for their use. The report called for fundamental changes in the way vulnerable witnesses give their evidence. The use of screens, closed courts, video links and support persons were all recommended. The Fiji Law Reform Commission Reform of the Criminal Procedure Code and Penal Code, The Sexual Offences Report (1999) contained two sections (Bail and Reconciliation) relevant to this research about victims. The report highlighted the concerns of victims in allowing the accused bail. Some of the highlighted reasons were the prevalence of small, close knit communities. Evidence shows that rape victims and their families are occasionally subjected to various forms of harassment by offenders, or by families and friends of the offenders. Some victims fear further harm from the offender, if they pursue the charges. The report found that victims with such concerns drop charges or do not proceed with the charges. Whilst the granting of bail may appear to protect the interests of the accused, the victim feels disadvantaged. The report draws recommendations from laws elsewhere on bail and suggests that the complainant can oppose bail and can be heard at a bail application; that procedures ensure that the complainant has knowledge of the proceedings and provide for the compulsory introduction of bail conditions to ensure that the accused does not make contact with the complainant. This would provide for a balance of the rights of the complainant with those of the accused when considering an application for bail. This report also includes a section on reconciliation. In Fiji, amongst indigenous Fijians the custom of i bulubulu is the traditional ceremony in which an individual or community asks for forgiveness from the victim or from the victim’s family6. Following that, if accepted, reconciliation takes place. Some sections of the community suggested that rape and indecent assault be accepted as reconcilable offences. Similar legislation in other Pacific Islands do not list rape or any other sexual offence as a reconcilable offence. In the Cook Islands, reconciliation does not seem to affect sentencing. Customary forgiveness is sought, but the courts do not regard the fact of reconciliation as

6

There appears to be no traditional Indo Fijian that can be likened to the i bulubulu practiced by the Indigenous Fijians; however, this is an area for future research. Page 8

Australia Fiji Community Justice Program Victims and Justice – Services Available to Victims: A Fiji Survey (2008)

justifying a reduction in sentence. The report illustrated that some magistrates in Fiji have 7 accepted traditional reconciliation as a factor in reducing sentencing in cases of rape . The report recommends that the i bulubulu may take place but that it should never be regarded as a substitute for formal legal punishment; that rape and sexual assault not be made reconcilable offences and that traditional methods of reconciliation not serve to reduce the sentence of the accused. Jalal (1998) in Law for Pacific Women highlights a range of issues that concern women and their rights. Included in the diverse issues covered are sexual offences against women and children and assault, as well as recommended strategies for change. It focuses on criminal laws governing sexual offences, child sexual abuse and criminal assault against women in the home as well as many others. It provides an in-depth look at laws that cover such issues and deal with issues such as the promotion of reconciliation in Pacific Courts. This book gives an idea of how the court works and what is involved in the prosecution of a case. It also discusses the challenges that exist in the law and in the process of investigation. An area of concern is how customary practices of reconciliation excuse from punishment the perpetrators of violence in the homes.

3.3

International Literature Whilst the review of local literature yielded little in terms of previous research on victims of crime and service provision, there exists substantial information on work done with victims in other parts of the world. The Commonwealth Guidelines for the Treatment of Victims of Crime (2002) has been guiding work relating to victims of crime in Fiji and has had a role in drafting a Victims’ Charter by the ODPP in Fiji. This document has also helped to identify minimum standards that should be adhered to when dealing with victims of crime. The minimum standards allow for comparison in terms of what is expected of service providers and what the reality is in Fiji. The United Nations Economic and Social Council Guidelines on Justice in Matters Involving Child Victims and Witnesses of Crime (2005) recognizes that children who are victims and witnesses are particularly vulnerable and need special protection, assistance and support appropriate to their age, level of maturity and unique needs in order to prevent further hardship and trauma from their participation in the criminal justice process. These guidelines may suit the Fijian context. The Report on the Laws Relating to the Investigation and Prosecution of Sexual Assault in the Northern Territory (1999) compiled by the Northern Territory Law Reform Committee (Australia) identified recommendations on the responsibilities of police and prosecutors with regards to victims of crime and vulnerable witnesses.

7

Reconciliation is provided for in the Penal Code (s163) for some matters, but not for sexual offences. Page 9

Australia Fiji Community Justice Program Victims and Justice – Services Available to Victims: A Fiji Survey (2008)

French (2007)8 highlighted the importance of considering culture and the significance of culture on the court process and outcome and looked at the interactions of courts with indigenous and ethnic communities. French highlighted some studies of court room culture; a specific example looked at how court room culture impacts minority cultures. Occurring when “witnesses look down or fail to look into the eyes of the examiners…there is a tendency for courts and judicial cultures to regard such people as evasive or dishonest.” This is relevant to Fiji where the formal justice system is influenced by traditional and informal reconciliation. Pulea (2005) says that systems of traditional settlement are influenced by the police and other government agencies. French (2007) suggests it is essential to the proper functioning of legal institutions that those involved recognize and are aware of traditional reconciliation and the way it can result in inequality. This research differs from any previous studies about victims in Fiji in that it is inclusive of a wider sample of victims of crime, ranging from rape, robbery to families of homicide victims. The research maps services available to victims, the effectiveness of these services, the views and experiences of victims themselves in accessing these services and their experience with the formal justice system. The research will add to the information about the experiences of victims of crime, the services required by them and the services available to them in the Fiji Islands.

8

th

French’s paper presented at the 25 Australian Institute of Judicial Administration Annual Conference is titled Speaking in Tongues – Courts and Cultures Page 10

Australia Fiji Community Justice Program Victims and Justice – Services Available to Victims: A Fiji Survey (2008)

4.

Method This research was designed to gather literature pertaining to victims in Fiji; to map the services available to victims of crime in Fiji and to gather information about the experiences of victims with service providers and the formal justice system. The following subsections detail how this study was conducted.

4.1

Sample a) Service Providers Service providers were identified via a number of ways; through a consultative process, through listings in the Fiji Telephone Directory, and through interviews with victims on where they went to for assistance. Two sampling techniques were used in this research - purposive9 and snowball10 sampling. b) Victims To access victims, the researcher worked closely with the DoSW and the ODPP to access closed files of victims that met the set out criteria. The criteria and justification used for the selection of victims were: • the victim was now over the age of 18 years (this was done to avoid issues surrounding children and research, particularly due to the nature of the research) • the case was closed (only closed cases were included in this research so that the victim could give a holistic view on his/her experience with the justice system, additionally with research carried out on victims in other countries, speaking to a victim during the progress of the case was thought to have the possibility of influencing the case) • the case was fairly recent (cases in this research ranged from 1999-2008) The staff of DoSW and the ODPP were given this criteria and were asked to randomly select files and match the file to the above mentioned criteria. Upon successfully locating the requirement number of files (5 victims per location), the case worker would then establish contact with the victim, gain primary consent and set up the interview with the researcher. A total of 45 respondents were interviewed across Fiji; of these 11 (24%) were males and 34 (76%) were females. More victim information is available under Part 2(a) of this report.

9

Purposive sampling is to obtain a sample of people who meet some predetermined criterion (for instance age, closed cases, victims of crime) 10 Snowball sampling occurs whereby the researcher asks respondents to give referrals to other possible respondents Page 11

Australia Fiji Community Justice Program Victims and Justice – Services Available to Victims: A Fiji Survey (2008)

4.2

Time This research took place between June to November 2008. In this period administrative planning, research planning, consultations, the data collection, data analysis, reporting writing and presentation to the VSG took place.

4.3

Locations Major population centres around Fiji were included, as were accessible outer islands. At the beginning of the research and during the consultation phase, thirteen locations were included: Locations Suva Nausori Sigatoka Nadi Lautoka Ba Tavua Rakiraki Labasa Savusavu Taveuni Levuka Kadavu11

However, given the difficulty in organizing consultations in Kadavu let alone victim respondents; and taking into account time and resource constraints, it was decided to remove Kadavu from the final list of locations. Therefore, only 12 locations were included in the data collection process.

4.4

Consultations Prior to the data collection, the researcher travelled to each of the thirteen locations to meet with members of the community and organizations that provided services to victims. This consultation process was to familiarize service provides with the Victim Support Group (VSG), the research, and the researcher. This consultative process allowed other service providers in the community to be identified and allowed the researcher to engage key service providers in accessing victims for the interviews during the data collection period.

11

Kadavu was removed from the final list of locations for the data collection process Page 12

Australia Fiji Community Justice Program Victims and Justice – Services Available to Victims: A Fiji Survey (2008)

This consultative process spanned three weeks and proved useful in establishing contacts and easing the usually complex issues related to the data collection process.

4.5

Research Tools The research tools for the field work were designed by the researcher in consultation with the VSG. For both the service providers and victims, the researcher utilized a semi structured interview guide; comprising of a mixture of closed ended and open ended questions. The final research tools were vetted by the VSG before the commencement of the data collection process. The service provider questions involved questions on types of services provided, limitations in providing these services and the reactions and responses of victims towards the services and service providers. These interviews usually lasted between 20 and 30 minutes. The victim questions covered the following: • general information about the victim; • general information about the crime; • reporting and responses of reporting the crime to individuals and organizations • other than the police • reporting to the police; • contact with the ODPP; and • the court process. Refer to appendix 1 and 2 for copies of service provider and victim questions. Interviews usually averaged between 30 to 45 minutes depending on how far along the justice system the case extended and the willingness of the victim to share their experiences openly.

4.6

Ethical Considerations For the purpose of this research an information leaflet was designed to inform victims about the research and answer some questions that they may have. The leaflet addressed questions such as what the research was about, where the interview would take place, how long would it take and so on. Please refer to Appendix 3 for a copy of the leaflet. Consent forms were also developed to address ethical issues. Please refer to Appendix 4 and 5 for copies of the service provider and victim consent forms. In addition to the information leaflet and consent forms; ethical considerations and guidelines when working with victims of crime were developed to guide the ethical aspects of this research. For a copy of the ethical considerations and guidelines please refer to Appendix 6.

Page 13

Australia Fiji Community Justice Program Victims and Justice – Services Available to Victims: A Fiji Survey (2008)

4.7

Fieldwork Experience All the areas visited allowed the researcher to collect a diversity of experiences from victims in relation to their experiences with the justice system and from service providers in relation to their experience with victims and other sectors of the justice system. The responses were enthusiastic. This may be due to a close rapport developed between case workers and victims. This rapport was developed from the initial contact between the victim in reporting the crime to the caseworker and later contact through arranging meetings. Case workers accompanied the researcher and assisted with interviews when the respondent wanted it. Respondents tended to be friendly, responsive and willing to list their concerns and frustrations with the justice system.

Page 14

Australia Fiji Community Justice Program Victims and Justice – Services Available to Victims: A Fiji Survey (2008)

5.

Findings Layout of this Section This section is divided into two main parts; part one presents information gathered from service providers and part two presents information gathered from victims. Part two is further broken down into sections relating to: a) General information about victims b) Crime information c) Reporting d) The Police e) Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions f) Court Process

Page 15

Australia Fiji Community Justice Program Victims and Justice – Services Available to Victims: A Fiji Survey (2008)

5.1

Part One: Service Providers Table 1: Service organizations included in the research Organization

Location

Labasa Hospital

Labasa

Department of Social Welfare

Labasa Nadi Rakiraki Nausori Ba

Red Cross

Nadi

Gold Foundation

Tavua

Salvation Army

Sigatoka Labasa

Lifeline Counseling Services

Ba

Fiji Women’s Crisis Centre

Ba Suva

Dream Centre

Nadi

FRIEND

Lautoka

Department of Multi Ethnic Affairs (Advisory Councillors)

Nausori

Department of Women

Nadi

Nadroga/Navosa Counseling Centre

Sigatoka

Matanisiga Christian Fellowship

Sigatoka

Pacific Counselling and Social Services

Suva

Table 1 shows all the service providers that were interviewed for the purpose of this research. In some locations namely Savusavu, Taveuni and Levuka no service providers were identified. Majority of the service providers interviewed were those from the DoSW offices; DoSW was identified as one of the key organizations that people turn to when they are in need of help. Welfare officers were then also able to identify other service providers in the area if these existed.

Page 16

Australia Fiji Community Justice Program Victims and Justice – Services Available to Victims: A Fiji Survey (2008)

Table 2: Services provided to victims of crime by service providers Organization

Services Provided to Victims

Department of Social Welfare

- counselling - family assistance - assistance in court - home visits - child welfare and protection - referrals - technical assistance

Department of Women

- counselling - referrals

Department of Multi Ethnic Affairs

- counselling - referrals - technical assistance

Labasa Hospital

- medical attention - counselling

Red Cross

- counselling - financial assistance - referrals

Gold Foundation

- counselling - legal advice - referrals

Salvation Army

- shelter - counselling

Matanisiga Christian Fellowship

- spiritual counselling - home visits - shelter - financial assistance - referrals

Lifeline Counselling Services

- 24 hour telephone counselling - face to face counselling - referrals

Fiji Women’s Crisis Centre

- counselling - assistance in court - referrals - technical assistance

Dream Centre

- counselling - shelter

Page 17

Australia Fiji Community Justice Program Victims and Justice – Services Available to Victims: A Fiji Survey (2008)

Organization

Services Provided to Victims

FRIEND

- counselling - assistance in court - technical assistance - referrals

Nadroga/Navosa Counselling Services

- counselling - referrals - technical assistance

Pacific Counselling and Social Services

- counselling - referrals - assistance in court - technical assistance

Whilst most organizations offer counselling services to their clients, the type of counselling being offered is often very basic. Welfare officers involved in counselling often admit to not having enough knowledge and training to be able to effectively deliver the necessary counselling required by clients. A lot of the “counselling” conducted are sessions of advice giving than proper counselling. One respondent12 indicated that she “wanted to go for counselling but only to a professional counsellor, not to the talatala or anyone like that.” Assistance in court usually entails a service provider accompanying a victim to the court sessions to provide moral support. Assistance in court takes place when the victim indicates not feeling comfortable going to court on his/her own. None of the service providers that assist victims in court indicated any objection from the accused or their counsel. FRIEND provides sign language interpreters to the courts in Lautoka when the need arises. Some organizations (FWCC, FRIEND, PCSS, Gold Foundation and Nadroga/Navosa Counselling Services) provide technical assistance to victims in helping write letters, filling out forms; negotiating with police, prosecutors and other relevant stakeholders. Some also provide small amounts of financial assistance to victims; however, this is done on a case by case basis and the financial assistance is usually minimal, enough usually to meet transportation costs to and from court. The majority of the organizations involved in service provision to victims of crime ultimately resort to referring such cases to the DoSW or the police. Therefore, the referral process and the handing over of the case from one organization to another is of great importance. The referral process is discussed in more detail on page 21.

12

Female, 18-25 years, Indigenous Fijian, from Savusavu, attempted rape case Page 18

Australia Fiji Community Justice Program Victims and Justice – Services Available to Victims: A Fiji Survey (2008)

Table 3: Difficulties faced by service providers Difficulties Stressful working environment Long process and extensive delays Financial constraints Lack of supportive structures Lack of resources Lack of gender balance in organization Language barriers Lack of privacy

Service providers identified that the nature of the work (assisting victims of crime) could be stressful. Service providers usually found themselves at a loss for being able to cope with the stress of the circumstances that victims of crime find themselves in, especially when the victims happen to be children or young people. The inability to cope was related to the nature of the crimes and circumstances that victims found themselves in - service providers often found these circumstances difficult to comprehend. Service providers indicated that this could be countered by support mechanisms in the organization such as in-house counselling and de-brief sessions for staff. Service providers usually face a lot of difficulties relating to the long and drawn out process of the justice system. The delays involved from the point when the report is made to the police, the case being dealt with by a prosecutor and then the court process makes service provision to victims of crime difficult. Welfare officers indicate that there is a long lapse of time between the report of the crime, to police action and court action, within this period clients constantly take their complaints to DoSW, as approaching the police directly tends to be futile. DoSW (as well as other service providers) are then left to follow up cases with the police and prosecutions. Most service providers draw particular attention to financial constraints faced by the organizations in providing services as well as a lack of other resources such as staff, volunteers, office equipment and transportation. For instance, some welfare offices have restrictions on telephone services (mainly restrictions on ringing mobile telephones) which affects the ability of welfare officers to effectively carry out their work. Service providers highlight that often the office does not allow privacy, additionally; most indicate that the office does not have a friendly and safe enough environment to cater for the clientele that access the services. For instance, welfare officers interviewed indicated that the core clientele for DoSW are children and families, however the waiting areas and office set up is not child friendly and there is no space for children to play whilst waiting for their parents. Lack of supportive structures refers to the lack of half way homes or safe houses for those who need to be removed from their immediate environment. The Nadroga/Navosa

Page 19

Australia Fiji Community Justice Program Victims and Justice – Services Available to Victims: A Fiji Survey (2008)

Counselling Services ran a half way home in Sigatoka, but this has been closed due to the lack of available funds to maintain such a service. Salvation Army branches provide temporary/emergency accommodation but this usually depends on availability. The Hart organization also provides accommodation but service providers in Labasa indicated that to get victims into the Hart Homes involves too much procedure and administrative work, which is often impossible to do in emergency situations where immediate shelter is required. Service providers also draw attention to the fact that finding emergency and temporary accommodation for male victims when the need arises is difficult, especially for young males. Most homes only cater for female victims. Service providers indicated that there needs to be half way homes or safe houses located all over the country. Salvation Army Captain in Sigatoka mentioned that because no safe house exists in Sigatoka, victims need to be relocated to Lautoka or Suva, which victims often do not want. Service providers also highlight that often the lack of gender sensitivity in the organizations mean that female victims have to share their stories with male service providers, which often results in a lot of additional discomfort for the victim. In addition language often becomes a problem when the victim is only able to communicate the information effectively in a particular language but individuals within the service provider organization are not well versed with the language. Recommendations 1. There needs to be increased training and up-skilling of service providers against a set of standards. These standards should incorporate support mechanisms for service providers as well 2. Service provider organizations should seek, where possible to achieve gender representation amongst their staff to better serve those who access their services Communication and Coordination between Service providers All the service providers interviewed for this research indicated that the most communication and coordination with regards to their work with victims occurred between themselves, the police, DoSW and the hospitals. DoSW tends to communicate with the Salvation Army in attempting to acquire shelter for their victims. A lot of the interaction between the organizations in dealing with victims of crime is limited to referrals. When an organization feels that it is powerless to help a victim directly, the organization provides a referral to a relevant service provider in the area. There is no established system of information sharing between organizations, however, when the need for information arises, services providers tend to call the organizations and request what is needed. Service providers indicated that they are at present satisfied with the informal means of communication (in that there is no defined procedure) that exists between them.

Page 20

Australia Fiji Community Justice Program Victims and Justice – Services Available to Victims: A Fiji Survey (2008)

Recommendations 3. As the police, DoSW and hospitals have been identified as having the most communication occur between them with regards to victims of crime, lasting protocols and memorandums of understandings between these organizations which have review dates but no expiry dates may prove effective. Referral Processes From the interviews conducted, it became apparent that there is no clearly defined referral process between the organizations that communicate with each other regarding victims of crime. The current system; which service providers have indicated works very effectively; includes phone calls to relevant organizations. Apart from phone calls, emails are also exchanged between service providers regarding cases, or a letter is taken by the victim from one service provider to another indicating that the case is being referred. Whilst there is no established system for telephone calls and emails, the service providers usually know each other and have a point/person of contact in the various other service organizations. If victims are referred to another organization, they are usually given the name(s) of persons they should speak with (this is prominent in towns such as Rakiraki and Ba). Service providers state that there is no written administrative procedure involved in the referral process; however other organizations (such as DoSW) may require the victim to present relevant documentation such as birth certificates and other documents for identification purposes (however, these documents are not required on first contact). The DoSW in partnership with AFCJP is developing a Community Services Directory (CSD) a searchable online database of comprehensive information of community service organizations and programs. It contains details of services available in different locations around Fiji and contact details of community organizations and the services they provide. The directory will be used by DoSW as a referral directory and will be available to all NGOs and community organizations to utilize. The Fiji Red Cross Society (2008) has a Register for Health and Welfare Services in Fiji. This Register is designed to be a useful guide for the Fiji Red Cross Society Health and Welfare Officers in making referrals and liaising with stakeholders at the community level. It is not an exhaustive list of all Health and Welfare services in Fiji however; it does provide a list of some of the organizations, the services they provide and their contact details. This register is a working document and was proposed to be updated 6 monthly. The present system is seen to be very flexible, and where problems arise with the referral process, service provider’s deal with these through follow up phone calls or meetings. Service providers highlighted their preference for this system; stating that a more formal system with paperwork and proper procedures would only make their work more difficult and complex; especially given that most of these organizations are under-resourced and under-staffed.

Page 21

Australia Fiji Community Justice Program Victims and Justice – Services Available to Victims: A Fiji Survey (2008)

Figure 1: Service providers collecting data

Figure 1 illustrates the percentages of service providers that collect data pertaining to the services they offer and client information. Of the twenty service providers interviewed, 85%, that is 17 of the 20 indicated that they did collect data; while 15% (3) indicated that they did not collect any type of data. The 3 organizations that indicated they did not collect data were NGOs. Service providers that do collect data usually do so in the following ways: • On a case by case basis, whereby as individual clients come in a record of their details and the service they have accessed is recorded • Field workers, most organizations such as the DoSW have field workers that collect individual information from clients whilst in the field The type of data collected is broken into two categories firstly, data about the types of services being accessed and secondly, data about the clients accessing these services. Data on the types of services being accessed relates generally to a breakdown of how many people access the different services offered by the organization. Data about the client relates to personal information about the client (ethnicity, age, gender, area of residence, case history, a brief description on the nature of the case, the progress of the case and so on). A lot of the data collection is usually done by service providers simply making notes which are then compiled into reports or filed away for later use. Table 4: Use of data collected Use of Data Collected Making project decisions Compiling reports Advising policy Compiling national statistics13 For securing funding and resource allocation Means of gaining credibility for work done by organization14 13

This is especially in the case of the DoSW, where the data colleted is used to compile national statistics by the Fiji Islands Bureau of Statistics. PCSS also provides data to the National Committee on the Prevention of Suicide (NCOPS) to put together national statistics for attempted suicide and suicide cases Page 22

Australia Fiji Community Justice Program Victims and Justice – Services Available to Victims: A Fiji Survey (2008)

Use of Data Collected Identifying trends in services being accessed Guiding service improvement Evaluation and monitoring There appears to be no standard means of collecting data relating to services provided and services provided to victims of crime. Often there exists gaps in data collection; where for months no data collection takes place. Reasons stated for this, usually revolve around the lack of resources, staff and time to carry about data collection effectively. There also appears to be no or very limited data sharing between organizations and the type of data collected also differs. Recommendations 4. Using established systems where they exist: (eg Fiji Islands Bureau of Statistics): •

develop a standard means of collecting data; or

• improve the collection of data; and • develop a system that allows data to be shared amongst organizations working with victims. 5. Train staff in the methods of data collection and analysis; 6. Link organizational performance to keeping proper data.

14

Smaller organizations such as Life Line Counseling and Nadroga/Navosa Counseling Services indicated collecting data to illustrate the degree to which their services are accessed by the community thus giving their work credibility especially when applying for funding Page 23

Australia Fiji Community Justice Program Victims and Justice – Services Available to Victims: A Fiji Survey (2008)

5.2

Part Two: Victims 5.2.1

General Information about Victims

The following figures illustrate the socio-demographic characteristics of the respondents. Figure 2: Respondents by locality and sex (n15=45) 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

Male F emale

ka

i

vu

un

Le

ve

a

va Ta

Su

to k

vu

ga

sa

Si

us

vu

or i Sa

a Na

di

ut ok

a

La

Na

vu Ta

sa ba

Ba

La

Ra

k ir ak

i

Total

The highest number of respondents interviewed were in Rakiraki and Levuka; followed by Taveuni, Labasa, Nausori and Sigatoka. The large sample in Rakiraki and Levuka were because service providers (police and DoSW) were able to encourage victims to participate in the study - due to the rapport between the service providers and the victims. Figure 3: Respondents by gender (n=45)

Male  24%

F emale 76%

Majority of the respondents were females. However, this was not intentional on the part of the researcher and those identifying victim files.

15

n refers to “total” Page 24

Australia Fiji Community Justice Program Victims and Justice – Services Available to Victims: A Fiji Survey (2008)

Figure 4: Respondents by age (n=45)

56+  years 11%

18 ‐ 25 years 31%

46 ‐ 55 years 20%

36 ‐ 45 years 22%

26 ‐ 35 years 16%

The bulk of the respondents in the study fell in the 18 – 25 year age group, whilst there were also a large number of respondents between the ages 36-45 years and 46-55 years. Figure 5: Respondents by cultural affiliation (n=45) E uropean 2%

C hines e 2%

O thers 2%

P art E uropean 2%

Indigenous   F ijian 38%

Indo F ijian 54%

Majority of those interviewed were Indo-Fijian (54%, n=22) and Indigenous Fijians (38%, n=16) ranked second. Figure 6: Respondents by area of residence (n=45)

S ettlement 22%

V illage 24%

Town/C ity 34%

S uburb 20%

There was a fairly good balance of respondents coming from the town/city area, suburbs, villages and settlements.

Page 25

Australia Fiji Community Justice Program Victims and Justice – Services Available to Victims: A Fiji Survey (2008)

5.2.2

Crime Information

The following diagrams present information relating to the crime type and locations where the crimes took place. Figure 7: Respondents by offence type (n=45)

Missing Child 2% Larceny 4% Property Damage 7% Physical Assault 27% Road Accident 4%

Robbery 4%

Rape and attempted rape 30% Relative of Homicide victim 2%

Robbery w ith violence 13% Sexual Assault 7%

Majority of the cases that victims of this study were involved with were Rape and attempted rape (13 cases), Physical assault (12 cases), Robbery with violence (6 cases), Sexual assault and property damage (3 cases each), Robbery, Road accidents and larceny (2 cases each), relative of homicide victim and missing child (1 case each). Figure 8: General area where crime took place (n=45)

S ettlement 22% Town/C ity 46% V illage 16% S uburb 16%

Page 26

Australia Fiji Community Justice Program Victims and Justice – Services Available to Victims: A Fiji Survey (2008)

Figure 9: Where crime took place (n=45) J ungle/B us h  area P ublic  P lac e 11% 4% W ork 9%

R oad 11%

Home 65%

Figure 6 suggests that there was somewhat of a balance between the areas represented by the respondents, however Figure 8 shows a more unequal distribution; indicating that in the case of this sample, most of the crimes occurred in the town/city area followed by settlements. Figure 9 highlights where the crimes actually took place16; the data indicates that majority of the crimes took place in the home, followed by crimes taking place along the roadside or in jungle and bushy areas; at the work place and other public places (such as the bus stand and shops).

16

Some examples of the crimes that took place in the home were attempted rape, rape, sexual assault, physical assault, robbery, robbery with violence and property damage. Examples of crimes that took place by the road side were murder and property damage. Crimes that took place in the jungle and bushy areas were attempted rape, rape and sexual assault. Crimes that took place at work places were larceny and physical assault. Page 27

Australia Fiji Community Justice Program Victims and Justice – Services Available to Victims: A Fiji Survey (2008)

5.2.3

Reporting

The following diagrams and tables present information relating to the individuals and organizations that victims went to for help, apart from the police; and reasons as to why they did not access any services. Figure 10: Did you tell someone about the crime, leaving the police? (n=45) No 24%

Y es 76%

Majority of the respondents (76%,34) did tell someone (apart from the police) about the crime. The percentage of respondents that indicated that they did not tell anyone about the crime cited the following reasons for this choice: •

Only the police could help

•

Did not know who to tell

•

Scared of the consequences of telling

•

Did not feel comfortable telling

For respondents who did report the crime, Figure 11 identifies the people and organizations the respondents approached

Page 28

Australia Fiji Community Justice Program Victims and Justice – Services Available to Victims: A Fiji Survey (2008)

Figure 11: Leaving the police, who did you tell? Friend 25

Family Hospital

20

Social Welfare Religious Teacher

15

Teacher

Numbers

Ombudsman

10

Regional Development Girmit Centre

5

FWCC Advisory Councilor

0 Persons/Organizations Told 1

Legal Aid Employer/Colleague Military

The top three organizations/ people that victims in this study identified going to for help were their family, the hospital and social welfare. Family members are usually the first people that victims report a crime to, highlighting that in doing so they are seeking moral support and information on where to go to next and what to do. Respondents highlighted that because information on where to go when a crime happens and the proper procedures are not available, social welfare proves to be the one place that could possibly provide this information and assistance. Table 5: Organizations told and assistance received Organization

Assistance Received

Regional Development

- provided resources

Girmit Centre

- temporary shelter17

FWCC

- counselling - encouragement to report matter to police - advice - home visits

Advisory Councillor

- encouraged reconciliation

Legal Aid

- legal advice

Employer/Colleague

- support at hospital - moral support - encouragement to report matter to police

Military

- immediate action18 - provided security19

Department of Social Welfare

- counselling - advice

17

The Girmit Centre in this case allowed the victims to live on the property of the centre for two weeks; this is usually not done, and is not the core business of the centre. 18 The military identified and apprehended the perpetrators of the crime 19 The military also provided security to the family whilst the perpetrators were being apprehended Page 29

Australia Fiji Community Justice Program Victims and Justice – Services Available to Victims: A Fiji Survey (2008)

Organization

Assistance Received - financial help - support at hospital - removed victim from unsafe environment

Hospital

- medical treatment - medical examination - provide medical report - sent ambulance - contacted family

Religious leader

- moral support - support at hospital

Teacher

- referral (to Social Welfare)

Table 5 highlights the type of assistance that victims of crime received from the service providers they approached on the wake of their victimization. 3 victims indicated that they received no assistance at all from the DoSW, FWCC and Advisory Councillors; however, this is representative of only a very small portion of cases. Respondents presented their opinion as to why no assistance was received from these organizations. Comments ranged from organizations having inadequate resources (finance and staff particularly) to the organizations themselves not knowing how best to help the victim.

Page 30

Australia Fiji Community Justice Program Victims and Justice – Services Available to Victims: A Fiji Survey (2008)

5.2.4

The Police

The following diagrams and tables present information relating to experiences that victims of crime have had with the police. Figure 12: Did you report the crime to the police? n=45

No 7%

Yes 93%

93% (42) of the sample indicated that they did report the crime to the police. This figure is however, not indicative of an increase in reporting crimes to the police. The percentage of respondents reporting the crime to the police is great largely because participants for this research were selected through files from the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, thus indicating that these respondents had reported the crime. The 7% (3) that did not report the crime were participants from the Department of Social Welfare files. Table 6: Reasons for not reporting to the police Reasons for not Reporting No one cared I was scared Finance (costs related to reporting) Did not wish to go through the long process Worried about the consequences of reporting Was not comfortable reporting

Above are the most common reasons for not reporting a crime to the police from the sample. Often victims are concerned about the consequences of reporting; how much would it cost the family to report the crime, go to court and so on. Victims also consider the consequence of reporting a crime where the perpetrator is a family member, especially if this person is the breadwinner of the family. This is highlighted in a comment made by a respondent20 “It is a shameful thing to talk about. Worried about what would

20

Female, 36-45 years, Indo-Fijian, from Taveuni, physical assault case Page 31

Australia Fiji Community Justice Program Victims and Justice – Services Available to Victims: A Fiji Survey (2008)

happen if I reported, the person would go to jail maybe and then who would look after the family. It’s better that I just keep quiet. I was just protecting the family.” Another respondent21 commented “I was scared and I didn’t want to go through the long process of going to the police…I heard it takes a long time and nothing happens…it costs money to go to the police all the time. And then they (the police) tell you to reconcile. I don’t want that!” “Finance is a big issue when you have to report something and then chase the police to do their work. It’s hard. You have to think about the crime but then think about the money to report.”22 Respondents also cited that they were not comfortable talking to police officers about the crime, highlighting that most police officers are judgmental and unprofessional in dealing with their reports. This respondent23 explains her experience with the police when reporting that her daughter was missing and the manner in which police responded to her, “the police laughed at me and told me that she had probably run away with her boy friend…they did nothing….if they had started looking for her on that day they might have found her but they didn’t…they just laughed at me.” “There is no point reporting…I reported once, it takes too long. The police don’t know anything. I don’t know about DPP…the investigation process is slack. Once you report 24 and go through it you don’t feel like going back.” The three victims of crime who did not report the matter to the police were all females (aged 18-25 years, 36-45 years and 46-55 years), the crimes that these respondents were victims of were physical assault (2 respondents) and sexual assault (1 respondent). Recommendations 7. Public awareness work to inform citizens of the steps of reporting a crime and their rights. Figure 13: Were you satisfied with the help provided by the police? n=42

Initially 12%

No 31%

Yes 57%

21

Female, 18-25 years, Indo-Fijian, from Labasa, sexual assault case Male, 36-45 years, Indo-Fijian, from Nausori, property damage case Female, 46-55 years, Indo-Fijian, from Rakiraki, missing child case 24 Male, 36-45 years, Chinese, from Levuka, larceny case 22 23

Page 32

Australia Fiji Community Justice Program Victims and Justice – Services Available to Victims: A Fiji Survey (2008)

Majority of the respondents (57%, 24) indicated that they were satisfied with the help they received from the police, a small percentage (12%, 5) stated they were satisfied with the initial help provided by the police but later found themselves being very dissatisfied with the police. Very positive feedback on the work of the police came from one respondent25 who noted that “the police were very precise with their work, within 2 weeks all 8 men were arrested, all the stolen goods worth $26,000, except one camera, was recovered. The police handled everything. I did not even need to be present in court – I was very happy with this.” Similarly another respondent26 commented that “the police handled the whole case, I think this was good but I also think they became a bit slack because it was only attempted rape.” This initial satisfaction stemmed from a quick response time by the police to attend to the crime, the support which the police provided the victim and victims’ family at the scene of the crime and the initial communication and approach by the police. Following this initial contact, respondents commented that the police became complacent and failed to investigate the case properly and provided no communication and follow up to the victim about the investigation process or general communication relating to the case. For respondents who stated they were not satisfied at all with the police, the most common reasons for this dissatisfaction related to the police acting unprofessionally in their approach to the victim, important documentation such as statements were lost by the police and there was no follow up contact with the victim. Most victims were dissatisfied with that fact that nothing eventuated of the case, this was linked to a general perception that police did not effectively investigate the case. “There was a suspect in my case but nothing was done…the police don’t do anything when the suspect is someone they know. They just stopped investigating the case.”27 Recommendations 8. The police need to look into internal and external communication strategies to ensure effective communication from the police department to the victim 9. Resources need to be allocated to the police to facilitate this communication process

25 26 27

Female, 46-55 years, Indigenous Fijian, from Savusavu, robbery case Female, 18-25 years, Indigenous Fijian, from Savusavu, attempted rape case Male, 18-25years, Indo-Fijian, from Tavua, property damage case Page 33

Australia Fiji Community Justice Program Victims and Justice – Services Available to Victims: A Fiji Survey (2008)

Figure 14: Giving Statements n=42

No statement taken 7%

Wrote my own statement 7%

Statement written for me 86%

In giving statements to the police, majority of the respondents were not aware that they could write their own statements if they wanted to. In most cases, the police officers would ask the victim to sign the statement without the victim having read it or having it read to them. Figure 15: Were you satisfied with the way in which your statement was taken? n=42

No 16%

Don't Know 5%

Yes 79%

Majority of the respondents (79%, 33) were satisfied that the police wrote the statements for them. The 16% (7) who reported that they were not satisfied with this highlighted that they did not know they could write their own statements.

Page 34

Australia Fiji Community Justice Program Victims and Justice – Services Available to Victims: A Fiji Survey (2008)

Recommendations 10. Police should inform the victim that they can write their own statements or have them written for them by the officer. Police should read the statement to the victim, or offer the statement for the victim to read before asking the victim to sign the statement. These should be part of the training at the Police Academy level. Figure 16: Did you receive any information on services you could access if you wanted to, from the police? n=42

This figure presents data on victims of crime receiving information on support services they could access. In 83% (35) of the cases, the victims did not receive any information on victim services from the police. One respondent who indicated that he did not receive any information on victim services from the police highlighted that the crime committed against him (larceny by servant) did not require any additional service with the exception of what was provided by the police (in terms of the investigation process). For those who responded yes the following organizations were identified as being organizations that the police referred them to: •

Hospital

•

Department of Social Welfare

•

Fiji Women’s Crisis Centre

Some officers also suggested that victims should go for counselling but do not specify where they can go to access this service. Recommendations 11. The Police should be equipped with information relating to services that victims may need. The CSD project by the DoSW and AFCJP would be useful in aiding this process. 12. The use of the CSD should be accompanied by training to enable officers to effectively utilize the Directory

Page 35

Australia Fiji Community Justice Program Victims and Justice – Services Available to Victims: A Fiji Survey (2008)

Table 7: Attitude of police officers towards victims Attitude

Responses

Percentage

Sympathetic

7

10%

Polite and Kind

17

23%

Helpful

23

32%

Friendly

2

3%

Apologetic

1

1%

Unhelpful

8

11%

Waste of his/her time

1

1%

Rushing

3

4%

Unsympathetic

2

3%

Angry

2

3%

Just did his/her job

4

5%

Negligent

1

1%

Judgemental

1

1%

Disrespectful

1

1%

Totals

7328

100%

Respondents identified an array of attitudes of police officers towards them. The responses ranged from being positive (sympathetic; polite and kind, helpful, friendly and apologetic) to more negative (unhelpful; waste of his/her time; rushing; unsympathetic; angry; just did his/her job; negligent; judgmental and disrespectful). Most of the responses 32% (helpful) and 23% (polite and kind) reflected positively on the attitudes of police towards victims. Of the 73 responses, 23 responses (30%) were negative in nature. Recommendations 13. Police require sensitization training especially in dealing with children/young people and female victims of crime. 14. There should exist some means of police-victim matching, allowing the victim to be interviewed by a police officer who is matched to the victim by some identified feature to minimize discomfort.

28

Respondents could give more than one answer Page 36

Australia Fiji Community Justice Program Victims and Justice – Services Available to Victims: A Fiji Survey (2008)

Figure 17: Did the police contact you about the progress of the case? n=42

98% (41) of the respondents reported that there was no contact intiated by the police to inform them of the progress of the case. The 2% of the respondents who indicated that there was some contact with the police on the progress of the case also reported that this contact was usually only in the intial stages of reporting the crime and giving a statement; police contact decreasing and eventually halting thereafter. 29

“My last contact with the police was when I went to report the case, after that nothing.” Similarly another respondent30 noted that “the police handled the whole case and I did not talk to them again after reporting…I have no idea what happened.”

29 30

Female, 26-35 years, Indo Fijian, from Taveuni, rape case Female, 26-35 years, Indigenous Fijian, from Lautoka, attempted rape case Page 37

Australia Fiji Community Justice Program Victims and Justice – Services Available to Victims: A Fiji Survey (2008)

5.2.5

The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions

The following diagrams and tables present information relating to experiences that victims of crime have had with the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP). Of the 45 interviews conducted for this study, 42 (93%) were reported to the police, 3 (7%) were not reported. Of the 42 cases reported to the police 31 (74%) reached the Prosecutions stage. Figure 18: Did you meet your prosecutor? n=31

Of the cases that reached prosecutions, 61% (19) of the respondents reported meeting their prosecutor whilst 39% (12) indicated that they did not meet their prosecutor at all. All the respondents that did not meet their prosecutor also indicated that they had no contact (telephone, letters and so on) with their prosecutor either. Figure 19: How many times did you meet with your prosecutor? n=31 6+  times 3% 4‐6 times 23%

0 times 39%

1‐3 times 35%

The majority of the respondents who did meet with their prosecutor indicated meeting their prosecutor between 1 – 3 times (35%, 11 of the respondents); only one respondent indicated meeting their prosecutor more than 6 times. For the 39% (12) of the respondents who indicated not meeting their prosecutor at all, they also highlighted that there was no other means of communication between themselves and the prosecutor. 6 respondents (of the 10) who indicated meeting their prosecutor between 1-3 times, mentioned that they only met their prosecutor in court on the day of the trial or hearing.

Page 38

Australia Fiji Community Justice Program Victims and Justice – Services Available to Victims: A Fiji Survey (2008)

Recommendations 15. There needs to be a minimum and mandatory number of contacts between prosecutors and victims at certain stages of the prosecutions process. 16. Increased communication between prosecutors and victims regarding the court process Table 8: Attitude of prosecutor towards victims Attitude

Responses

Percentage

Kind

13

48%

Helpful

8

30%

Friendly

1

4%

Angry

2

7%

Unhelpful

2

7%

Just did his/her work

1

4%

Totals

2731

100%

Respondents identified attitudes of prosecutors towards them. The responses ranged from being positive (kind; helpful and friendly) to more negative (angry; unhelpful and just did his/her work). Most of the responses 48% (kind) and 30% (helpful) reflected positively on the attitudes of prosecutors towards victims. Of the 27 responses, 5 responses (18%) were negative in nature. Recommendations 17. There is a need for sensitization training in dealing with victims for ODPP prosecutors and police prosecutors Figure 20: Did your prosecutor change during the prosecutions process? n=31

Yes ,12%

No, 88%

Most respondents (88%, 27) did not experience a change in prosecutor during the prosecutions process, however, the 12% (4) that did have their prosecutors change

31

More than one comment was possible Page 39

Australia Fiji Community Justice Program Victims and Justice – Services Available to Victims: A Fiji Survey (2008)

during the prosecutions process, highlighted not being notified of this change and not meeting the new prosecutor. Figure 21: Did your prosecutor provide you with any pre-court preparation help? n=31

Yes, 35%

No, 65%

65% (20) of the respondents indicated that they received no pre-court preparation help from the prosecutor such as showing the victim the court room and explaining what would happen in court. The 35% (11) that did receive pre-court preparation were children32 at the time of the crime and were victims of rape and attempted rape. In these cases the prosecutors showed the victims the layout of the court and explained the trial process, especially the process of cross-examination. Most of this pre-court preparation was offered by the prosecutors in Labasa, Nadi and Lautoka. None of the respondents indicated that they were kept separate from the accused before and during court. No special arrangements were made in any of the cases to shield the victim from the accused. Recommendations 18. Pre-court preparation made compulsory for victims who are children/young people, women and other vulnerable victims/witnesses. 19. Prosecutors be equipped with information relating to services that victims may need, the CSD project by the DoSW and AFCJP would be useful in aiding this process.

32

Under 18 years of age Page 40

Australia Fiji Community Justice Program Victims and Justice – Services Available to Victims: A Fiji Survey (2008)

Figure 22: Were you asked for information for a victim impact statement? n=31

Don't Know , 12% No, 24% Yes, 65%

In most cases (65%, 20) victims were asked by the prosecutor for information for a victim impact statement, 12% (4) of the respondents did not know what a victim impact statement was and did not recall hearing about it from their prosecutors. Recommendations 20. Increase in the use of victim impact statements by prosecutors regardless of the magistrate/judge request for the statement or not 21. Prosecutors being equipped with the knowledge and skill to assist victims in filling in the victim impact statement Figure 23: Were you satisfied with your prosecutor? n=31

No, 47%

Yes, 53%

Whilst 53% (16) of the respondents were satisfied with the prosecutions process and the work of the prosecutor. One respondent33 noted that “when all this first happened I didn’t know that I could get a free lawyer, but the government gave us a lawyer and it only took three months to complete the case, for some people it can take years…I was very happy.” 47% (15) of the respondents were dissatisfied, citing the following reasons: The prosecutor agreed to reconciliation Prosecutor was not well prepared There was no communication and contact 33

Male, 26-35 years, Indo-Fijian, from Labasa, physical assault case Page 41

Australia Fiji Community Justice Program Victims and Justice – Services Available to Victims: A Fiji Survey (2008)

No feedback from the prosecutor on the outcome of the court process Recommendations 22. Delays and adjournments on court cases need to be explained to the victim by the prosecutor to minimize any discomfort and frustration 23. If an interpreter is needed the prosecutor should make prior arrangements to see that this is fulfilled

Page 42

Australia Fiji Community Justice Program Victims and Justice – Services Available to Victims: A Fiji Survey (2008)

5.2.6

The Courts

The following diagrams and tables present information relating to experiences that victims of crime have had with the Courts. Figure 24: Did you experience a lot of delays and adjournments at court? n=20

65% (13) of the respondents indicated that for their case there were a lot of delays and adjournments. The 15% (3) that indicated “don’t know” responded as such as they were unaware at the time that the case had gone to court and were not part of the court process. Those indicating that there were delays highlighted that they felt it was often due to delaying tactics on the part of the defense; lack of adequate police reports; difficulties getting people to court to testify and other reasons unknown to the respondents. Recommendations 24. Delays and adjournments need to be explained to the victim by the magistrate or judge to minimize any discomfort and frustration. Figure 25: If you needed an interpreter was there one available? n=20

This figure presents the information on if interpreters were present at the court if one was needed by the victim. In only 3 cases (13%) indicated that they required an interpreter but none was present at the court.

Page 43

Australia Fiji Community Justice Program Victims and Justice – Services Available to Victims: A Fiji Survey (2008)

Recommendations 25. All courts should have interpreters available; additionally, if an interpreter is needed the prosecutor should make prior arrangements to see that this is fulfilled Figure 26: Did you access any support service during the court process? n=20

This figure presents information on whether respondents accessed support services during the court process, the figure indicates that 82% (16) of the respondents did not access support services. The 18% (4) that did identified going to DoSW for counseling, the FWCC (Labasa Branch) for counseling and to the Legal Aid Commission. Recommendations 26. Where possible relevant services such as counsellors should be available/located within the court premises. Figure 27: Were you satisfied with the court process? n=20

Whilst 50% (10) of the respondents were satisfied with the court process, those indicating they were not highlighted the following reasons for their dissatisfaction: •

no information about the court dates and times;

•

did not understand the process and it was not clear what was taking place;

•

not involved in the process as expected

•

no feedback on court outcomes

•

process was too long

•

sentence was inadequate

Page 44

Australia Fiji Community Justice Program Victims and Justice – Services Available to Victims: A Fiji Survey (2008)

One respondent34 indicated that he “should have been kept informed about the process but I wasn’t aware of the dates and times of the court hearings, later I found out there was an appeal at the High Court on the sentence. I was not aware of any of this at the time.” Another respondent35 mentioned “I was not part of the court case…I have no idea about the sentence. Police said it’s closed now; they did not even explain to me what happened to the accused in court and didn’t explain why I couldn’t go to court. I had no lawyer.” One respondent36 commented that often sentencing was not fair, “…sentencing is also funny…no standard…for small crimes they give many years and for big crimes they give only a few years.” Recommendations 27. Sensitization training for magistrates/judges and court officials in dealing with victims 28. Pamphlets and posters explaining the rights of the victim and the court process be available around the courts and police stations 29. There should be a court direction that the impact of the victim is taken into account in all bail applications 30. In all bail applications always consider the restriction of contact of the accused with the victim/victim’s family 31. A Victims’ Compensation Scheme be explored

34

Male, 46-55 years, European, from Suva, robbery with violence case Female, 26-35 years, Indigenous Fijian, from Rakiraki, robbery case 36 Male, 36-45 years, Chinese, from Levuka, larceny case 35

Page 45

Australia Fiji Community Justice Program Victims and Justice – Services Available to Victims: A Fiji Survey (2008)

6.

Recommendations This section summarizes the recommendations from the previous section.

6.1

Service Provider Organizations 1. There needs to be continuous training and up-skilling of service providers against a set of standards. These standards should incorporate support mechanisms for service providers as well. 2. Service provider organizations should seek, where possible to achieve gender representation amongst their staff to better serve those who access their services 3. As the police, DoSW and hospitals have been identified as having the most communication occur between them with regards to victims of crime, lasting protocols and memorandums of understandings between these organizations with review dates but without expiry dates may prove effective 4. Using established systems where they exist: (eg Fiji Islands Bureau of Statistics): ™ develop a standard means of collecting data; or ™ improve the collection of data; and ™ develop a system that allows data to be shared amongst organizations working with victims 5. Train staff in the methods of data collection and analysis 6. Link organizational performance to keeping proper data

6.2

Police 7. Public awareness work to inform citizens of the steps of reporting a crime and their rights. 8. The police need to look into internal and external communication strategies to ensure effective communication from the police department to the victim. 9. Resources need to be allocated to the police to facilitate this communication process. 10. Police should inform the victim that they can write their own statements or have the statement written for them by the officer. Police should read the statement to the victim, or offer the statement for the victim to read before asking the victim to sign the statement. These should be part of the training at the Police Academy level. 11. The Police should be equipped with information relating to services that victims may need. The CSD project by the DoSW and AFCJP would be useful in aiding this process. 12. The use of the Community Services Directory should be accompanied by training to enable officers to effectively utilize the directory 13. Police require sensitization training especially in dealing with children/young people and female victims of crime. 14. There should exist some means of police-victim matching, allowing the victim to be interviewed by a police officer who is matched to the victim by some identified feature to minimize discomfort.

Page 46

Australia Fiji Community Justice Program Victims and Justice – Services Available to Victims: A Fiji Survey (2008)

6.3

Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions 15. There needs to be a minimum and mandatory number of contacts between prosecutors and victims at certain stages of the prosecutions process. 16. Increased communication between prosecutors and victims regarding the court process 17. There is a need for sensitization training in dealing with victims for ODPP prosecutors and police prosecutors 18. Pre-court preparation made compulsory for victims who are children/young people, women and other vulnerable victims/witnesses. 19. Prosecutors be equipped with information relating to services that victims may need, the CSD project by the DoSW and AFCJP would be useful in aiding this process. 20. Increase in the use of victim impact statements by prosecutors regardless of the magistrate/judge request for the statement or not 21. Prosecutors being equipped with the knowledge and skill to assist victim in filling in the victim impact statement 22. Delays and adjournments of court cases need to be explained to the victim by the prosecutor to minimize any discomfort and frustration. 23. If an interpreter is needed the prosecutor should make prior arrangements to see that this is fulfilled

6.4

Courts 24. Delays and adjournments needs to be explained to the victim by the magistrate or judge to minimize any discomfort and frustration. 25. All courts should have interpreters available; additionally, if an interpreter is needed the prosecutor should make prior arrangements to see that this is fulfilled. 26. Where possible relevant victim support services should be available/located within the court premisis. 27. Sensitization training for magistrates/judges and court officials in dealing with victims 28. Pamphlets and posters explaining the rights of the victim and the court process be available around the courts and police stations 29. There should be a court direction that the impact of the victim is taken into account in all bail applications 30. In all bail applications always consider the restriction of contact of the accused with the victim/victim’s family. 31. A Victims’ Compensation Scheme be explored

Page 47

Australia Fiji Community Justice Program Victims and Justice – Services Available to Victims: A Fiji Survey (2008)

7.

References Commonwealth Secretariat. (2002). Commonwealth Guidelines for the Treatment of Victims of Crime. London: Commonwealth Secretariat.

Department of the Attorney General. (2006). Protocol Involving Victims of Crime. Western Australia: Department of the Attorney General, Government of Western Australia.

Fiji Law Reform Commission. (1999). Criminal Evidence Report. Suva: Fiji Law Reform Commission.

Fiji Law Reform Commission. (1999). Part 1 Children and Sexual Offences. Suva: Fiji Law Reform Commission.

Fiji Law Reform Commission. (1999). Reform of the Criminal Procedure and Penal code: The Sexual Offences Report. Suva: Fiji Law Reform Commission.

Fiji Women’s Crisis Centre. (2001). The Incidence, Prevalence and Nature of Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault in Fiji. Suva: Fiji Women’s Crisis Centre. French, R.S. (2007). Speaking in Tongues – Courts and Cultures. 25th Australian Institute of Judicial Administration Annual Conference 12-14th October.

Government of Fiji Strategic Planning Document (2008-2010). The Sustainable Economic and Empowerment Development Strategy (SEEDS).

Jalal, I. (1998). Law for Pacific Women: A Legal Rights Handbook. Suva: Fiji Women’s Rights Movement.

Memorandum of Understanding Between the Fiji Police and Ministry of Education and Technology. (1999). Navau Resolution. (2007). 13th Annual Prosecutors’ Conference, at the Warwick Resort and Spa 3-5th December, 2007. Navau, Fiji.

Northern Territory Law Reform Committee. (1999). Report on the Laws Relating to the Investigation and Prosecution of Sexual Assault in the Northern Territory. Northern Territory: Northern Territory Law Reform Committee.

Office of the Development of Effectiveness. (forthcoming). Violence Against Women in Melanesia and East Timor: A Review of International Lessons. Suva: Office of the Development of Effectiveness. Page 48

Australia Fiji Community Justice Program Victims and Justice – Services Available to Victims: A Fiji Survey (2008)

Protocol between the Fiji Police and Department of Social Welfare Regarding Protective Services for Children and Young People in Fiji. (1999).

Protocol between the Fiji Police and the Ministry of Health Regarding the Provision of Medical Services. (1999).

Pulea, M. (2005). Community Survey on the Police, the Courts and the Prisons Service. Suva: University of the South Pacific.

United Nations Children’s Fund. (forthcoming). UNICEF/Government of Fiji Baseline Research on Child Protection. Suva: UNICEF.

United Nations Economic and Social Council. (2005). Guidelines on Justice in Matters Involving Child Victims and Witnesses of Crime. United Nations.

United Nations. (1985). Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power. United Nations.

Page 49

A p p e n d i x

1

Service Provider Questions

Victim Services Research: Service Provider Interview Number ______ Date: ____________ Location: ________________________ Victim Services Research Service Provider Interview Guideline 1. Name of organization 2. Title of person being interviewed 3. Goals of service 4. Target population 5. Type of Service provided 6. Cost of service 7. Does your organization have links to other services/organizations? Yes

No

8. If Yes, which services/organizations? 9. Could you please explain the nature of these links? 10. Could you please describe the referral process? 11. Are there other organizations providing similar services to what your organization provides? Yes

No

12. If Yes, which organizations? 13. Which organizations do you coordinate and communicate with to provide services to victims of crime? 14. Where do you normally meet with victims of crime? 15. Is this a private area? Yes

No

16. What difficulties do you face in providing these services? 17. What does your organization do (as a standard) for victims of crime? 18. Is this always done? Yes

No

19. If No, why not? 20. What do you think the main frustrations of victims of crime who access your services are? 21. In what ways do you think your organization could better serve victims of crime? 22. In what ways do you think your organization could better serve the families of victims of crime?

23. Relating to your experience with victims of crime, do most victims report the crime to the police? Yes

No

Don’t Know

24. If No, Are you aware of why victims generally do not report crimes to the police? 25. If the matter was reported to the police were you still involved? Yes

No

26. If yes, in what way? 27. If no, do you think you should have been involved? Yes

No

28. If yes, in what way? 29. If the matter went to prosecutions were you still involved? Yes

No

30. If yes, in what way? 31. If no, do you think you should have been involved? Yes

No

32. If yes, in what way? 33. If the matter went to court were you still involved? Yes

No

34. If yes, in what way? 35. If no, do you think you should have been involved? Yes

No

36. If yes, in what way? 37. Does your organization collect data about the services you provide and your clients? Yes

No

38. If Yes, what sort of information do you collect on: (a) The services you provide: (b) Your clients: 39. How is this data collected? 40. How is this data used? (Data sharing among linked organizations?)

A p p e n d i x

2

Victim Questions

Victim Services Research : Victim Interview Number ______ Date: ____________ Location: ________________________ Victim Services Research Victim Interview Questions Section 1. General Information About You This section asks a few questions about you – your age, gender, location and so on

1. Your age: 18-25 years 26-35 years 36-45 years 46-55 years 56+ years 2. Are you:

Male

Female

3. What do you consider yourself to be? Indigenous Fijian Indo-Fijian Rotuman Chinese Part European European Other (please speicify ____________________________)

4. Where is your general area of residence? Town/City _____________________________________ Suburb _____________________________________ Village _____________________________________ Settlement _____________________________________ 5. Are you prepared to tell me what your religion is? _________________________________________________________________________ 6. Education level: Did not attend school Primary school Secondary school University education Vocational studies Other (please speicify ____________________________)

Section 2. Crime Information This section asks a few questions about the crime – the type and location

7. How long ago did the crime take place? ____________________________________________ 8. What type of crime was committed against you? Physical Assault Robbery Robbery with Violence Sexual Assault Relative of homicide victim Other (please speicify ____________________________) 9. Where (general area) did the crime occur? Town/City _____________________________________ Suburb _____________________________________ Village _____________________________________ Settlement _____________________________________ 10. Where did the crime occur? (home, shop, car park) _________________________________________________________________________ Section 3. Reporting This section asks a few questions about whom you told about the crime (can refer to individuals or organizations but not including the police)

11. Did you tell anyone about the crime? Prompt: friends, relatives, service provider organizations; leaving the police? Yes

No

(If No, skip to 13)

12. Who did you tell? Why? i. ii. iii. iv. v.

_____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________

13. Why did you not tell anyone? Didn’t feel comfortable telling someone Wasn’t sure who to talk to Scared or threatened I knew the person who committed the crime Other (please speicify ________________________________________________)

Section 4.

Responses to Reporting

This section asks a few questions about how the people you reported the crime to responded 14. How did the persons you identified in question 12 help or support you? i.

_____________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ii. _____________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ iii. _____________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________

15. Could these above mentioned people have done more to help? i. ii. iii. iv. v.

___________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

No No No No No

16. If Yes, in what way could these people have helped you more? i.

______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________

ii. iii. iv. v.

17. Did you feel comfortable telling these people/using these services? i. ii. iii. iv. v.

___________________________________ Yes ___________________________________ Yes ___________________________________ Yes ___________________________________ Yes ___________________________________ Yes

No No No No No

18. If No, why did you not feel comfortable? _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ 19. Is there anything else that you think Service Providers could have done to better support your family? Yes

No

Don’t Think So

20. If yes, how so? ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________

Section 5. The Police This section asks a few questions about your experience with the police department

21. Did you make a report to the police? Yes

No

22. If No, why did you not report this incident to the police? _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ 23. If Yes, can you describe how the police helped you? _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ 24. Were you statisfed with the way they helped you? Yes

No

25. If No, please explain? ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ 26. Did you write your own statement or was it written for you? Own Statement

Written for Me

27. Were you happy with this? Yes

No

28. If No, please explain why? ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ 29. If the police wrote the statement for you, did it tell the story of what happened to you as you wanted to tell it? Yes

No

30. If No, please explain what happened in giving your statement _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________

31. Were there other witnesses to the offence? Yes

No

32. If Yes, did the police speak to them? Yes

No

33. If Yes, did they get statements from them? Yes

No

34. Did you receive, from the police, informaton of victim services? Yes

No

35. Where were you interviewed? _________________________________________________________________________ 36. Was it private? Yes

No

37. Was the officer male or female? Male

Female

38. What was the attitude of the police officer/s that you dealt with? (angry, impatient, frightening, unhelpful, helpful, sympathetic etc) _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ 39. Were you informed about whether anyone was arrested? Yes

No

40. Were you always aware of the progress of the incident by the Police? Yes

No

Section 6. Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions This section asks a few questions about the prosecutions process

41. How often did you meet with the prosecutor? 0 times 1-3 times 4-6 times 6+ times 42. If not at all what communication did you have with the prosecutor? _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________

43. If you did meet with the prosecutor, where did you meet? _________________________________________________________________________ 44. Was it private? Yes

No

45. Did you feel comfortable with the police prosecutor and/or legal officers assigned to your case? Yes

No

46. Was the prosecutor male or female? Male

Female

47. What was the attitude of the prosecutor/s who dealt with you? (angry, impatient, frightening, unhelpful, sympathetic etc) _________________________________________________________________________ 48. Did the prosecutor change during the prosecutions process? Yes

No

Don’t Know

49. If Yes, were you notified of this change? Yes

No

50. Did your meet your new prosecutor during the prosecutions process? Yes

No

51. Did anyone from the Office of the DPP (including police prosecutors) communicate with you Yes

No

Before the prosecution During the prosecution After the prosecution

52. Did you receive any assistance by prosecutors to prepare you for court, by showing you the court room and explaining what would happen in court? Yes

No

53. Were you kept separate from the accused before the court? Yes

No

54. Was any special arrangement made in court to shield you from the view of the accused? (eg. Screens or closed circuit television) what shielded you from the accused? Yes

No

55. If Yes, what was used? _________________________________________________________________________ 56. Were you told about the trial process, particularly about cross examination? Yes

No

57. Were you aware that you could be present at the hearing if you wanted to be? Yes

No

58. Did anyone discuss compensation and restitution with you? Yes

No

59. Were you asked for any information for a victim impact statement? Yes

No

BAIL 60. If there were applications for bail by the accused, did you receive any advice about the applications? Yes

No

61. Was this before or after the application? Before

After

62. Were you asked if you wanted the person kept in custody, or if you wanted some restrictions to what they did when released? (for example that they were to stay away from you?) Yes

No

TRIAL 63. Was there a plea of guilty to a lesser charge? Yes

No

Don’t Know

64. . If yes, were you consulted? Yes

No

65. 62. Was there a plea of guilty in exchange for a reduced sentence? Yes

No

66. If yes, were you consulted? Yes

No

67. Was there a withdrawal of the charge? Yes

No

68. If yes, were you consulted about that? Yes

No

Don’t Know

69. Were you satisfied with what the prosecutor did? Yes

No

70. If not, what should he or she or they have done? _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ Section 7. process

The Court Process

This section asks a few questions about the court

63. Were there a lot of delays and adjournments especially when you came to give evidence? Yes

No

Don’t Know

71. Generally what were the reasons for the delays and adjournments? ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ 72. If you needed an interpreter, was there one available? Yes

No

Didn’t Need One

73. During the trial process did you access other services to help during the trial? Yes

No

74. If Yes, which services? ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ 75. Were you informed about the date of the offender’s earliest possible release from incarceration? Yes

No

76. If your property was used as exhibits in the process did you get them back? Yes

No

(If No, go to 76)

77. If Yes to 74, did it take long and was it difficult? ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ 78. If No, why did you not get it back? ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ 79. Were you satisfied with the court process? Yes

No

80. If no, what else should have been done? ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________

Section 8. Concluding Questions and Comments This section asks a few questions how you feel about the overall process and comments you may wish to make Victims Rate Overall Criminal Justice Processing

Aspects of Processing

More than adequate

Adequate

Somewhat less than adequate

Completely inadequate

Don’t Know

Efforts to apprehend the perpetrator Efforts to inform the family about progress of the case Ability to have impact in the case Thoroughness of case preparation Fairness of the trial Fairness of the verdict of plea Fairness of the sentence Speed of the process Support services

Would you like to make any additional comments?

If you would like to know about the final report regarding Victim Services in Fiji, you can contact the Australia/Fiji Community Justice Program Suva Office on 327 0282 or email [email protected] or Lautoka Office on 666 3868 or email [email protected] The final report will not be available until early October.

A p p e n d i x

3

Information Leaflet

A p p e n d i x

4

Service Provider Consent Form

Victim Services Research: Consent Form ______ Location:__________________ Date:__________________ Victim Services Research Service Provider Consent What’s This All About? This is a research study that aims to learn more about how victims of crime feel about the services they have received. The research wants to find out about the services available to victims of crime, victims experiences with these service providers and the difficulties they have encountered in accessing these services. By being part of this interview you can help service providers such as you improve services to victims of crime. The interview will take about 30 minutes to complete depending on how much you wish to say. It will include questions about the type of services your organization providers and your experiences with victims of crime. I will not ask you for names or any other identifying details about what your experiences. If you would like to see the questions before you decide to participate, please feel free to let me know. Do I Have To Do This? You do not have to participate. If you choose to participate, you may stop the survey at any time and you have the right to not answer questions if and when you feel like. Who’s Going to See My Answers? Only I will have access to your answers, and your name will not be on the interview sheet. No one will ever know that any particular answer came from you. All the information you provide will be completely confidential. What if I Have More Questions? If you have any questions about this research project or the interview you can talk to me or you can contact the Australia / Fiji Community Justice Program team leader Michael Brownjohn (on 932 4841 or 327 0282 or email [email protected]). Please indicate your willingness to participate in this interview by ticking the appropriate box below. Yes, I would like to participate in this study. I have read this page and understand that my participation is completely voluntary. No, I would not like to participate in this study.

Signature ___________________________

Date ______________

A p p e n d i x

5

Victim Consent Form

Victim Services Research: Consent Form ______ Location:__________________ Date:__________________ Victim Services Research Victim Consent What’s This All About? This is a research study that aims to learn more about how victims of crime feel about the services they have received. The research wants to find out about the services available to victims of crime, victims experiences with these service providers and the difficulties they have encountered in accessing these services. By being part of this interview you can help service providers improve their services to others like you. The interview will take about 30 minutes to complete depending on how much you wish to say. It will include questions about where you went to for help, the nature of help you received and the shortcomings in the services you were provided. I will not ask you for names or any other identifying details about what you experienced. If you would like to see the questions before you decide to participate, please feel free to let me know. Do I Have To Do This? You do not have to participate. If you choose to participate, you may stop the survey at any time and you have the right to not answer questions if and when you feel like. If you do not participate, this will in no way affect your relationship with your service provider. Who’s Going to See My Answers? Only I will have access to your answers, and your name will not be on the interview sheet. No one will ever know that any particular answer came from you. All the information you provide will be completely confidential. What if I Have More Questions? If you have any questions about this research project or the interview you can talk to me or you can contact the Australia / Fiji Community Justice Program team leader Michael Brownjohn (on 932 4841 or 327 0282 or email [email protected]). Please indicate your willingness to participate in this interview by ticking the appropriate box below. Yes, I would like to participate in this study. I have read this page and understand that my participation is completely voluntary. No, I would not like to participate in this study. Signature ___________________________

Date ______________

A p p e n d i x

6

Ethical Considerations and Guidelines

Ethical Considerations and Guidelines when Working with Victims of Crime

Background The purpose of this research is to identify the services available to victims of crime in Fiji and the gaps in these services. For the purpose of this research the term “victim” refers to a:

“Persons who have suffered harm, including physical or mental injury; emotional suffering including grief; economic loss and/or substantial impairment of rights accorded them by law through acts or omissions that are in violation of the criminal law in Fiji. Without limiting the foregoing, the definition includes people who have suffered such harm as a result of the death of a person upon whom they are financially or psychologically dependant and/or to whom they are closely related. The definition includes people who are not financially and/or psychologically dependent on the harmed person if they see or hear the harm being done to the person directly affected in circumstances where it is probable that they will themselves suffer harm.”

Ethical Considerations

It is critical that the requests of victims be respected and followed to avoid inflicting a second victimization. The consent of the victim to share their experience with regards the formal justice system and service providers should not be construed as a sign that the trauma of their victimization is no longer a factor to be considered. The anxiety produced by talking about their experience (with the justice system and service providers and not the crime itself), combined with the trauma of victimization, creates an environment in which a victim needs additional support and control over the situation. Researchers have the duty and responsibility to victims such as the prevention of retraumatisation of the person. Researchers who wish to involve victims of crime in their research should demonstrate that they have knowledge of and sensitivity towards victim issues.

Recommended Guidelines for Talking to Victims of Crime 1. Only talk to those victims who have had the benefit of counselling and guidance from a trained victim counsellor, professional, or advocate. 2. Victims of crime should not be spoken to in the immediate wake of their victimization. 3. Only victims who have a current contact with the service provider should be contacted. 4. The contact should initially be directly from the service provider to the victim; which may the result in subsequent direct contact between the victim and researcher. 5. Child victims of crime should not be spoken to without their consent and the consent of their parents/guardians. 6. Inform victims that their participation is completely voluntary and has on bearing on the quality of service they receive or the outcome of trial. Inform victims that they may withdraw from the research at any time and inform them of protocols in place in relation to victims who wish to withdraw from the research.

7.

A professionally trained victim advocated and/or counsellor should be at hand.

8. Victims of crime should always be fully informed about the format of the interview, the purpose of the interview, what will become of the results of the interview, who else will be at the interview and what subjects will be discussed. 9. Victims should be informed in advance of the option to protect their anonymity. 10. Victims should be informed of when the report will be ready; how it will be used and who will have access to it. 11. At the end of the interview session there should be debriefing strategies in place for the victims to minimize any trauma caused by the interview. 12. Identify to the victim post-contact support if the victim should require this. (Guidelines adapted from the United States of America National Centre for Victims of Crime – Talk Show Guidelines for Crime Victim Guests and Government of Western Australia, Department of the Attorney General: Protocols for Research Involving Victims of Crime, September 2006)