The courts of summary jurisdiction in Victoria have recently streamlined procedures for the hearing of guilty pleas: sentencing decisions are now determined largely on the basis of a brief summary of ‘facts’ presented by the prosecution. To assess the extent to which these summaries detail the harm suffered by victims we analysed 276 assault case summaries. The data indicate that summaries rarely report details of victim injury even where this information had been gathered by police. However, the data also suggest that disclosing details of victim injury makes little difference to sentencing and other decisions. This article outlines how existing procedures have allowed information about victims to ‘get lost’ in the system. It argues that demands for reform of the criminal justice system to give greater attention to the interests of victims must take into account the system's commitment to administrative rationalism and technocratic justice. Systematising police summaries in the mention court may prove to be a practical way of reconciling the concerns of victims with the organisational priorities of criminal justice agencies.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AustinJ.KrisbergB. (1981). Wider, stronger and different nets: The dialectics of criminal justice reform. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 18, 165–96.
2.
Australian Law Reform Commission (August 1988). Sentencing, Report No. 44, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra.
3.
BaconMowbray (1987). Crime, the state and social policy. In The Criminal Injustice System (Volume 2) (ZdenkowskiG.RonaldsC.RichardsonM., eds) pp. 158–70. Pluto Press; Sydney.
4.
BartholomewT. (1991). Guilty Pleaders in the Melbourne Magistrates' Courts: The Role of the ‘Mention Court‘ Procedures and Personnel in Case DispositionsMA thesis, Melbourne University; Parkville.
5.
BrownD.HoggR. (1992). Essentialism, radical criminology and left realism. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 25, 195–230.
6.
CornsC. (1986). Restoring justice for crime victims. Law Institute Journal, 60, 1090–95.
7.
CornsC. (1988). Offenders and victims. In Current Australian Trends in Corrections (BilesD., ed.) pp. 204–16. The Federation Press; Australia.
DouglasR. (1982). Case structure, participation and verdict in the Melbourne Magistrates Courts. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 15, 195–206.
10.
DouglasR. (1986). Social Position and Magistrates' Court Outcomes. PhD dissertation, La Trobe University; Bundoora.
11.
DouglasR.LasterK. (1992). Reforming the Peoples' Court: Victorian Magistrates' Reactions to Change. Criminology Research Council; Australia.
12.
EliasR. (1986). The Politics of Victimization: Victims, Victimology and Human Rights. Oxford University Press; New York.
13.
ErezE. (1989). The impact of victimology on criminal justice policy. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 3, 236–56.
14.
ErezE. (1990). Victim participation in sentencing: Rhetoric and reality. Journal of Criminal Justice, 18, 19–31.
15.
ErezE. (1991). Victim Impact Statements. Trends and Issues No. 33, Australian Institute of Criminology; Canberra.
16.
ErezE.TontodonatoP. (1990). The effect of victim participation in sentencing on sentence outcome. Criminology, 28, 451–474.
17.
FeeleyM.SimonJ. (1992). The new penology: Notes on the emerging strategy of corrections and its implications. Criminology, 30, 449–74.
18.
GardnerJ. (1990). Victims and Criminal Justice. Research Department, Office of Crime Statistics, Attorney- General's Department; South Australia.
19.
GraboskyP. (1987). Victims. In The Criminal Injustice System (Volume 2) (ZdenkowskiG.RonaldsC.RichardsonM., eds.), pp. 140–157. Pluto Press; Sydney.
20.
GraboskyP. (1989). Victims of Violence. Australian Institute of Criminology, Canberra.
21.
HendersonL. (1985). The wrongs of victims' rights. Stanford Law Review, 37, 937–1021.
22.
HeydebrandW.SeronC. (1990). Rationalizing Justice: The Political Economy of Federal District Courts. State University of New York Press; New York.
23.
La Trobe Study (Department of Legal Studies) (1980). Guilty Your Worship: A Study of Victoria's Magistrates' Courts. La Trobe University; Bundoora, Victoria.
24.
McLeodM. (1986). Victim participation at sentencing. Criminal Law Bulletin, 22, 501–17.
25.
MyersM. (1979). Offended parties and official reactions: Victims and the sentencing of criminal defendants. The Sociological Quarterly, 20, 529–40.
26.
National Committee on Violence (1990). Violence: Directions for Australia. Australian Institute of Criminology; Canberra.
27.
New South Wales Task Force on Services to Victims. (1987). Report and Recommendations. Attorney-General's Department; Sydney.
28.
O'MalleyP. (1984). Technocratic justice in Australia. Law in Context: A Socio-Legal Journal, 2, 31–49.
29.
PackerH. (1968). The Limits of the Criminal Sanction. Stanford University Press; California.
RanishD.ShichorD. (1985). The victim's role in the penal process: Recent developments in California. Federal Probation, 49, 50–7.
32.
SallmanP.WillisJ. (1984). Criminal Justice in Australia. Oxford University Press, Melbourne.
33.
SebbaL. (1985). Victims and the Parameters of a Justice System. Presented at the Fifth International Symposium on Victimology, August; Yugoslavia.
34.
SmithB.HuffC. (1992). From victim to political activist: An empirical examination of a statewide victims rights movement. Journal of Criminal Justice, 20, 201–15.
35.
SumnerC.J. (1987). Victim participation in the criminal justice system. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 20, 195–217.
WalkerS. (1989). Sense and Nonsense About Crime: A Policy Guide. (2nd ed) (Brooks/Cole Publishing Company; California.
38.
WellingS. (1987). Victim participation in plea bargaining. Washington University Law Quarterly, 65, 301–56.
39.
YoungI. (1984). Victim rights: The roots of a new jurisprudence. National Judicial College and National Organization for Victim Assistance. Participants Manual for Judges on the Rights of Victims and Witnesses 2.
