Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation

Putting People First?
A survey of witness satisfaction
in three Gauteng Magistrates' Courts

by
David Bruce & Mark Isserow

Research report written for the Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation, September 2005.

David Bruce is a Senior Researcher in the Criminal Justice Programme at the Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation.

Mark Isserow is a an independent consultant.

Contents

Acknowledgements

Executive Summary

1. Introduction
   The motivation for the focus on witnesses
   The survey and this report

2. Methodology – comparison with the British Witness Satisfaction Survey

3. The Sample

4. Profile of respondents

5. Results of the Survey Part 1 — Support, Information, Facilities and Response to Complaints
   Support received
   Provision of information to witnesses
   Information regarding witness fees
   Notice to attend court
   Facilities
   Provision for the disabled
   Handling of complaints

   Discussion

6. Results of the Survey Part 2 — Remands and Time Spent Waiting at Court
   Time elapsed since alleged offence
   Opportunity to refresh memory
   Waiting period before testimony
   Time wasted at court

   Discussion

7. Results of the Survey Part 3 — Intimidation 32

   Discussion

8. Results of the Survey Part 4 — Overall Satisfaction, Sense of Being Appreciated and Willingness to be a Witness in Future

   Discussion

9. Results of the Survey Part 5 — Complaints and Recommendations
   Main issues raised by witnesses
   Time, remands and delays
   Officials
   Facilities
   Information, communication and assistance
   Intimidation
   Due process
   Money/transport
   Food

   Discussion

10. Conclusions and recommendations
   Extending the use of witness surveys
   Improvements to services

References

Acknowledgements

Thanks to Advocate Charien de Beer, the Director of Public Prosecutions for the Witwatersrand, who kindly provided permission for the study to be conducted, as well as to Advocate Dakana who assisted with the process, and to a number of magistrates and prosecutors who facilitated access to the courts at which the study was conducted.

Thanks also to Professor Sangweni, Chairperson of the Public Service Commission (PSC) for permission to quote from the PSC survey of court users.

Survey fieldwork was managed by the Community Agency for Social Enquiry (CASE). Special acknowledgement is due to the CASE fieldworkers and fieldwork managers who carried out the survey. Elco van der Colf of Business Against Crime and later the Department of Justice, provided extensive support and guidance to us in carrying out the survey. Gareth Newham in the Criminal Justice Policy Unit provided assistance, guidance and encouragement as did Amanda Dissel, the programme manager in the Criminal Justice Policy Unit at CSVR, who also provided editing assistance on various occasions. Zuzelle Pretorius of Business Against Crime and subsequently Themba Lesizwe, Ansie Swanepoel from the Alpha Trauma Centre in Vereeniging, and Karen Tewson of Bee Court Wise all provided advice regarding the content of the questionnaire. Christine Carey of BMRB International Limited, who provided a copy of the questionnaire for the British witness satisfaction survey. Bilkees Vawda at CSVR assisted with the final production of the report and Sasha Gear and Bronwyn Harris provided advice on this. Muff Anderson assisted editing on the final draft of the report.

Special thanks also to the Development Cooperation Ireland for their financial assistance.

Executive Summary

This report reflects the findings of a survey of witnesses – including victims and other prosecution and defence witnesses – conducted in late 2003 at three magistrates' courts in Gauteng.

While witnesses are sometimes presented as recipients of state services, they should preferably be seen as a group of people who assist the courts, and the state, by providing information relevant to reaching a verdict in criminal cases.

The interest in witnesses is motivated by a concern to support witnesses through encouraging a positive attitude towards their role in the courts, as well as the need to ensure that the witness is able to give truthful evidence to the best of his or her ability.

Several aspects of the experience of serving as a witness have the potential to undermine witness motivation, and the quality of witness evidence. In addition to the negative impact for victims (who may be particularly vulnerable) and other witnesses, such factors also have an overall negative impact in reducing the willingness of members of the public to cooperate with the criminal justice system.

This report discusses information from the survey on:

The findings of the survey are compared with the results of a Public Service Commission (PSC) national survey of witnesses, conducted at roughly the same time, and with a 2001 survey of witnesses conducted on behalf of the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA).

The survey does not deal with expert witnesses or state officials, such as police, who serve as witnesses in their professional role.

Selected findings
Conclusion

In addition to motivating for further attention to be paid to the issues that are highlighted, the report also motivates for witnesses' surveys to be carried out on a regular (perhaps bi-annual) basis. This will be a way of assessing progress in developing a court system more sensitive about the way in which it works with witnesses.

1. Introduction

The motivation for the focus on witnesses

The people who are the focus of this survey fall into three categories of witnesses important to criminal cases: victim witnesses, other prosecution witnesses, and defence witnesses.1 These three categories of witnesses might have quite different motivations for participating in the court process.

Witness evidence is not always truthful or accurate. Criminal justice officials including police, prosecutors and presiding officers, always have to assess whether such evidence is reliable.

But whatever the motivation of the witness, and despite the challenges in assessing truthfulness and accuracy, witness evidence is crucial to the ability of the criminal justice system to investigate and prosecute criminal cases, and to decide on the validity of accusations against specific individuals through the trial process.

The problem of the potential unreliability of witness evidence links in with one of the challenges facing criminal justice officials and others providing support to witnesses: witness evidence relies on the faculty of memory. Supporting witnesses involves helping them to present evidence in a way that minimises the impact of the deterioration of memory over time. One way of supporting the effective use of witness evidence in this respect is for the police to ensure that full and accurate statements are taken from witnesses. Beyond this, it is important to ensure that unnecessary delays are avoided. Other steps that can be taken include providing witnesses with an opportunity to refresh their memory by ensuring they read their statement prior to giving evidence in court.

Another challenge facing the criminal justice system is that witnesses do not necessarily have a positive motivation to assist the courts. They may be frightened, or have occupations which require their presence, or simply be uninterested in being involved in the case. But even positive motivation may be lost if their participation causes them discomfort or unhappiness. Examples of factors which impact on the motivation of witnesses are (Ntuli and Bruce, 2001, pp. 19-23):

A concern with the views of witnesses should therefore be related to optimising the use of witness evidence within the criminal justice system. This means trying to ensure that witness evidence of the best quality is presented, as well as trying to ensure that witnesses are positively motivated to assist the court in making a determination about the truth, and that the negative consequences of participating in the court process for them are minimised.

These concerns also dovetail with the concerns of government, expressed most directly in the Batho Pele policy, to ensure that the recipients of government services are served efficiently and are satisfied with the quality of service they receive.

Victims who are witnesses are in some ways receiving a service from government, in that the government has investigated and prosecuted violations that have allegedly been committed against them. But the idea that they are recipients of government services is in some ways mistaken.

In an accusatorial system such as exists in South Africa, the state bears the onus of proving guilt in criminal trials. The state is also viewed as the aggrieved party in that an offender has broken a state law. So, even where victim-witnesses are providing evidence, they are supporting the interests of the state, and the general public, in bringing offenders to justice, even though they may also be acting in their own best interests. The need to provide victim-witnesses with assistance and support is confirmed through government's focus on victim empowerment. This is in part intended to assist them in overcoming the consequences of victimisation. High standards of service, provided to victims in the courts, can contribute towards this end, through helping victims overcome some of the feelings of hopelessness, despair or shame which arise from their experience of victimisation. On the other hand, poor quality services and secondary victimisation, such as insensitive treatment, may have the reverse effect.

But whether they are victims or not, witnesses are not primarily recipients of government services. Witnesses are in general terms a category of people, whose unifying characteristic is that they are providing information to the courts, and assisting the courts to come to a finding about the truth.

Particularly notable here are those witnesses who come forward to give evidence out of a sense of concern, public duty and social responsibility. Special value and acknowledgement should be given to these people in relation to the assistance they provide to the criminal justice system.

The role of defence witnesses should also not be devalued. One of the hazards of criminal justice, particularly where the accused are not properly represented, is the risk that innocent people may be convicted. Defence witnesses may therefore have information relevant to proving the innocence of an accused person, or simply provide information to the court which presents a fuller understanding of the case before it. Defence witnesses also need to be supported in participating fully in the criminal justice process.

The survey and this report

The original interest in conducting this survey lies in work conducted at the Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation (CSVR), which had focused largely on the challenges and problems facing criminal justice officials in working with witnesses.3 The broader project was intended to support optimum use of witness evidence in the South African criminal justice system. Motivating this is a concern to promote effective due-process based criminal justice that conforms to the principles espoused by the South African Constitution.

The survey was conducted at three regional magistrates' courts over two weeks in late October and early November 2003.

The survey is an exploratory one intended to illustrate the potential benefits of the greater use of witness surveys in the criminal justice system.

After discussing the methodology, the sample and the profile of respondents, this report then discusses information from the survey on:

In discussing these findings, the survey also makes reference to selected findings from two other recent surveys. These are:

In conclusion the report makes a number of recommendations regarding the use of surveys to measure witness satisfaction, and priority areas for intervention.

As indicated above, the CSVR survey forms part of a body of work intended to promote effective use of witness evidence as part of the transformation of the criminal justice system in South Africa. At the time it was done, no large-scale surveys had been conducted in South Africa focussing on the broad experiences of witnesses in the courts. The NPA survey is specifically focused on satisfaction with prosecutors. The PSC survey, which was conducted shortly after the CSVR survey, was motivated by broad concerns regarding the responsiveness of government services to the public, and not by a specific awareness of the importance of witnesses to the criminal justice system.

2. Methodology – comparison with the British Witness Satisfaction Survey

The questionnaire for the survey was developed using the questionnaire for the British 2002 Witness Satisfaction Survey (Angle, et al, 2003) as a point of departure. The British questionnaire was adapted and scaled down in length. In adapting the survey, CSVR was assisted by suggestions made by staff of organisations in the victim empowerment field, and from the Department of Justice, as well as drawing on its own background of research on witness issues.

For purposes of comparison it is also important to note that the British witness satisfaction survey uses a somewhat different methodology to that employed in this survey. The British survey followed a two-stage process in terms of which witnesses were first approached while at court and asked if they would be willing to participate in the survey. If they agreed, their contact details were taken and interviews were conducted, generally by telephone, only after the verdict in the case had been given.6

For reasons such as time and resource constraints, the CSVR survey was conducted at the courts themselves, to which a small team of a dozen fieldworkers (including two fieldwork supervisors) was deployed. The courts were chosen because they were busy ones. The relatively high volume of cases, they dealt with each day meant the survey could be completed timeously.

The courts were regional magistrates' courts in Johannesburg, Soweto and in a primarily black residential east of Johannesburg. Regional magistrates' courts were chosen because they deal with a large number of witnesses and also a significant proportion of the cases involving serious offences which are processed by the court system.

It must be emphasised therefore that the survey was conducted while most of the cases were still in progress.7 This factor impacted on which questions were selected. For instance, the British survey asked questions not only about specific facets of the witnesses' experience before and at court, but also about their overall satisfaction and dealings with the police, the witness and victim support services, the prosecutor, defence lawyers and the judge or magistrate. It asked about the actual experience of giving evidence, as well as the witnesses' views with regards to the fairness of the verdict and the sentence. The CSVR researchers decided not to include some of these types of question as we anticipated that many of our interviewees would not as yet have given evidence.8 A further concern was the length of the questionnaire. A number of other possible questions were excluded so as to limit the interview to a maximum of half an hour.

3. The Sample

The survey was conducted in the hallways and waiting areas of the three courts. People waiting in these areas were approached by the fieldworkers and asked if they would be available to answer the questions. Respondents were randomly selected, and the times of interviews were staggered throughout the day.

The total number of persons interviewed was 456. Of these, 157 (35%) indicated that they were the victim of the offence, 71 (16%) were other prosecution witnesses, and 221 (49%) that they were defence witnesses. Expert witnesses or public officials such as police officers or state social workers were not interviewed.

This report is intended as an exploratory witness satisfaction survey not intended as an evaluation of the individual courts. The names of the courts are therefore not provided. Instead, the letters A, B and C have been assigned to the three courts. Overall, the greatest proportion of respondents (43%), were interviewed at Court A. One in three respondents were interviewed at Court B and one in five came from Court C (Table 1). The breakdown of interviews conducted at these three courts was representative of the proportional volume of cases heard in each.

Table 1: Distribution of respondents by court
Court Frequency %
Court A 194 43
Court B 160 36
Court C 95 21
Total 449 100

4. Profile of respondents

Of the 456 respondents, 386 (85%) were 'African', 34 (7%) 'Coloured', 22 (5%) White, 12 (3%) 'Indian' and 1 'Other'.

Overall 274 men (61%), and 173 women (39%) were interviewed. The greatest proportion of respondents was defence witnesses, accounting for nearly one in two respondents (Table 2).9

Table 2: Gender of persons interviewed

 Victim/injured party Other prosecution witness Defence witness Total
Male 87 43 144 274
Female 70 28 75 173
Total 157 71 219 447
Male 32% 16% 53% 61%
Female 41% 16% 53% 61%
Total 35% 16% 49% 100%

In terms of age, 63% of respondents were 34 years or younger. Twenty-nine respondents (6%) were younger than 18 years. There were only two respondents over 64 years of age (Table 3).

Table 3: Age of respondents

 Frequency %
Less than 18 29 6
18-24 91 20
25-34 167 37
35-44 109 24
45-54 45 10
55-64 13 3
65-74 1 <1
75 and older 1 <1
Total 456 100

The breakdown of respondents in relation to the question, 'What language do you primarily speak at home?' is given in Figure 1. Slightly less than one in three respondents said their main home language was isiZulu, while slightly more than one in six said their main home language was Sesotho. Responses here reflect the high level of heterogeneity of Gauteng's population which, more so than other provinces, serves as a 'melting pot' of South African, and other, language groups.

Seventy eight percent of respondents said they reside permanently in Gauteng, while one in five (21%) said they lived in one of the other provinces. Only 1% said they were from outside South Africa.

Two in three respondents had at least some high school education, or had completed high school. Only two percent of respondents had not received any formal education, while approximately 12% had some tertiary education or held a college or university/technikon qualification (Figure 2).

This indicates that respondents had a similar educational profile with the adult population of Gauteng province, according to the 2001 Census results. According to the Census, of those aged 20 years and older, 62% of Gauteng province respondents had some secondary education, or had completed high school, while 13% had some post high school exposure or qualification. However the sample of witnesses in this survey is not directly comparable to that reflected in Census data on those 20 years and older, partly as somewhere in the region of 10% of respondents to the survey were less than 20 years of age (see Table 3 above) (Statistics South Africa, 2003).

Nearly four in ten respondents (39%) said they were unemployed, while one in three were working either full-time, or part-time for a salary. One in sixteen were working in the informal economy, and one in twenty five were self-employed in the formal sector (Figure 3).

These figures are congruent with the 2001 Census data. Within Gauteng census figures reflect an unemployment rate10 of 36%, while for the country as a whole, the unemployment rate is pegged at 42%.

In relation to the question 'How long have you been at court today, the majority of respondents (51%) said they had been in court for one to four hours. Thirty eight percent said they had been in court for an hour or less, while the remaining 11% said they had been in court for four hours or more. This reflects the time at which respondents were interviewed and does not necessarily indicate how much time the average witness waits at court when they attend court (on questions of time spent at court see the data in Section 7).

The types of offences that were the subject matter of the cases in relation to which respondents were appearing as witnesses in court are reflected in Table 25.

5. Results of the Survey Part 1 — Support, Information, Facilities and Response to Complaints

Support received

In response to a question on whether anyone had offered them support 'as a witness or victim' 341 respondents (75%) said that they had been offered support. As outlined in Table 4 below, family and/or friends were the most likely source of support for witnesses, accounting for nearly two in three cases. A victim/witness support service was least likely to be the main source of support.

Table 4: Main person who offered support

 Frequency %
Family/friends 218 64
Prosecution/lawyers 52 15
Police 46 14
Other 14 4
Victim/witness support services 10 3
Do not know 1 0
Total 341 100

Table 5 illustrates witness responses in relation to who accompanied them to court. By comparison with the 75% of witnesses who had been offered support, 294 (66%) indicated that someone had accompanied them to court to support them or ensure that they were safe. Witnesses or victims were most likely to be accompanied to court by a family member or a friend, with 90% of all responses being from respondents who were accompanied by people in one of these two groups.

Table 5: Who accompanied you to the court today?

 Frequency %
Family member 203 69
Friend 62 21
Person from victim/witness support service 6 2
Police 6 2
Other victims or witnesss 4 1
Other 13 4
Total 294 100

As reflected in Table 6, 86% of minors said that they had been accompanied to court. The same percentage of male and female witnesses was accompanied to court by someone.

Table 6: Profile of those who were accompanied to court
Did anyone accompany you to court for support or to ensure your safety? %
Witness type Yes
Victim/injured party 68
Other prosecution witness 73
Defence witness 61
All respondents 66
Race group Yes
African 67
White 41
Indian 50
Coloured 68
Other 100
All respondents 66
Age category Yes
Less than 18 86
18-24 73
25-34 64
35-44 58
45-54 59
55-64 77
65-74 100
75 and older 100
All respondents 66
Sex Yes
Male 65
Female 66
All respondents 66
Provision of information to witnesses

Witnesses were asked a series of questions about the information they had received regarding attendance at court (see Table 7). On average 31% of witnesses had received information on these questions with the highest percentage (91%) having received information on what time they would need to arrive at court and 44% having received directions to the court. Respondents were least likely to have received information on:

Table 7: Information provided to witnesses
Were you given any information about any of the following? Yes No % yes
What time you needed to arrive at court 413 43 91
Directions to the court 199 257 44
What to do when you arrived at court 120 336 26
What you needed to bring with you to court 85 371 19
What would happen in court 72 384 16
How much time would be involved in being a witness in court 57 399 13
How long you would need to wait at court before being called to give evidence 26 430 6
Average (Mean) 139 317 30

Respondents were also asked whether they thought that the information provided was sufficient. Of the 30% of witnesses who said they had received information on each of these topics, most (71%), said they had received sufficient information.

Respondents who had received information, were most likely to say that the information was insufficient regarding:

Table 8: Whether information received by respondents was sufficient
Were you given any information
About any of the following?		 Yes How much information
Enough Not enough Don't know Total
How much time would be involved
In being a witness in court		 57 56% 44%
100%
What you needed to bring with
You to court		 85 79% 18% 4% 100%
What time you needed to arrive at
Court		 413 87% 12% 1% 100%
Directions to the court 199 82% 17% 1% 100%
What to do when you arrived at
Court		 120 74% 22% 4% 100%
What would happen in court 72 64% 30% 6% 100%
How long to wait at court before
Being called to give evidence		 26 56% 36% 8% 100%
Average (Mean) 139 71% 26% 3% 100%

Where witnesses received information prior to going to court, they were most likely to have received this information from the police (38%), or a prosecutor/lawyer (24%). Least likely sources of information were a leaflet/brochure (.2%), or TV, radio or newspaper (1%). One in five witnesses said they had not received any information before going to court (Figure 4).

Seventy one percent of witnesses said that they knew where to go when they arrived at court. Responses to the question 'If you have any questions, where is the main place that you can go at this court to have your questions answered?' are reflected in Table 9. Altogether, 305 respondents (67%) identified a specific place where they could go, or person they could ask about their query. This was most frequently identified as the information desk with prosecutors or lawyers and police also mentioned a significant number of times. However, nearly one in five respondents said they did not know where to go to have their questions answered.

Table 9: If you have any questions, where is the main place that you can go to at this court to have your questions answered?

 Frequency %
Information desk 125 27
Prosecutor or lawyers 67 15
There is nowhere to go 66 14
Police 50 11
Ask people who are walking around 35 8
Court staff in general 28 6
Other 3 1
Do not know 82 18
Total 456 100

Of people who had actually approached one of the above people to have their question answered, 196 managed to get their question answered while 29 could not find the person in question.

Table 10 gives the response of the 196 people who managed to get their question answered in relation to how the responding person dealt with their question. The overwhelming majority (82%) indicated that their questions had been answered properly and politely, with only 3% indicating that the person had answered neither properly nor politely. Answers to this question therefore differed quite dramatically from the data on complaints (see Table 15), where the majority of respondents (34 out of 64) indicated that that they were not satisfied with how their complaints were responded to.

Table 10: Did the people who you asked, answer your question properly in a polite manner?

 Frequency %
Answered question properly and were polite 161 82
Answered question properly but were not polite 17 9
Were polite but could not answer question properly 12 6
Were not polite and could not answer question properly 6 3
Total 196 100
Information regarding witness fees

As reflected in Table 11 only 24 (5%) of witnesses indicated that they had been informed that they could claim expenses for attending court. Twenty (4%) said they had been given a claim form to claim expenses for attending court.

Table 11: Witnesses informed that they could claim expenses for attending court.

 Frequency %
Yes 24 5
No 430 94
Do not know 2 <1
Total 456 100
Notice to attend court

When asked who had subpoenaed, instructed or requested them to attend court, witnesses confirmed that it had variously been the police, prosecutor or lawyer for the defence or that 'the magistrate ordered me to come at the last hearing'. Responses to a question about when witnesses were given the actual court date are reflected in Table 12. Roughly two-thirds had been informed four or more days prior to the court case, while a third had been informed less than four days previously. Sixty-six respondents (14%) indicated that they had been informed the previous day with 18 of these indicating that this had been after 6 pm the previous evening. In Court C, 60% of respondents were only informed about the date of their court case two to three days before appearing at court. This applied to only 39% of those from Court A, and 23% of those from Court B.

Table 12: When informed of date of court case (by court type)

 Court A
%		 Court B
%		 Court C
%		 Total
%
After 6 pm yesterday 3 1 11 4
Yesterday before 6 pm 11 4 19 10
Two or three days ago 15 18 30 19
Four days to a week ago 17 13 8 13
One week to a month before 35 30 21 30
Over a month before 19 34 12 23
Do not know 1


Total 100 100 100 100

When asked how convenient it had been for them to attend court on that day, roughly two-thirds of witnesses indicated that it had been very inconvenient (35%), or slightly inconvenient (27%). The remainder (37%) said that it had been convenient.

Employment status did not have a major impact on whether they said it was convenient or not for them to attend court on that day (see Figure 5). Unemployed people, and most of the small number of full time house-minder parents, were slightly more likely to say that it had been convenient. Most of the small number of pensioners interviewed, and 45% of students said it had been very inconvenient.

Facilities

Witnesses were asked how they would rate the quality of various facilities (see Table 13). Of the 71% of respondents who expressed opinions on these questions, one in three (32%) rated facilities as poor or very poor, while on average 23% rated facilities as adequate. Only 16% rated facilities as good or very good. Almost 50% (159 out of 325) of those who expressed an opinion about public toilets at the courts, rated these as very poor. A high percentage of witnesses (43%) responded that they had not used facilities providing refreshments.

Table 13: The quality of facilities

 Public Toilets Waiting Areas Availability of Refreshments Average

Frequency % Frequency % Frequency % %
Very good 23 5 15 3 11 2 4
Good 52 11 77 17 41 9 12
Adequate 91 20 131 29 96 21 23
Poor 99 22 89 20 38 8 17
Very Poor 60 13 75 16 75 16 15
Have not used/
don't know		 131 29 69 15 195 43 29
Total 456 100 456 100 456 100*

* Total is actually less than 100 due to rounding.

Provision for the disabled

Twenty one witnesses (5%) indicated that they had a disability or infirmity that affected their mobility. Table 14 indicates that the vast majority of these people (81%) indicated that facilities for mobility disabled people were inadequate.

Table 14: Are there adequate facilities for people who have difficulties with mobility?

 Frequency %
Yes 4 19
No 17 81
Total 21 100
Handling of complaints

Respondents were asked if they had any complaints about any aspect of the court process. Of the 181 witnesses who indicated that they had a complaint, 64 (35%) indicated that they had spoken to someone about their complaint. Only half of those had spoken to a state official, with the other half making these complaints to advocates or lawyers, their own friends or family members, or to other witnesses. Relatively few (11 people) indicated that they had spoken to justice department personnel such as the magistrate, prosecutor or other court official. Persons making complaints to state officials were most likely to make these complaints to police members (Table 15).

The majority of people who complained, were not satisfied with the response which they received to their complaints, though they tended to be more satisfied with the responses given by friends or family members, than with the responses of officials. They were particularly dissatisfied with responses from lawyers and advocates. Of the 31 witnesses who indicated that they made a complaint to a state official, only twelve(39%) were satisfied with the response. Respondents who were satisfied with the response of a family member, or other witnesses would perhaps primarily have been concerned to air their grievances, rather than being concerned with remedial steps.

Respondents were also asked about the content of their complaints or grievances in the interview. Details of their responses to this question are discussed in Section 9.

Table 15: Who did you speak to about this complaint? – Did you feel satisfied with how this person responded?
Who did you speak to about this complaint? Did you feel satisfied with how this person responded? Total
Yes No
Police 7 12 19
Advocate/lawyer 4 11 15
Family/friends 11 4 15
Prosecutor 3 3 6
Other court official 1 2 3
Magistrate 1 1 2
Other witness 2
2
Other 1 1 2
Total 30 34 64
Discussion

One of the principal ways in which witnesses can derive support when attending court is through a person who accompanies them to court. Family member or friends often assist witnesses in this way but almost one third of witnesses, including victim–witnesses indicated that no one had accompanied them to court.

Another important way in which the attendance and participation of witnesses at court can be supported is by providing information related to attendance at court. Other than in relation to what time they needed to arrive at court, the majority of witnesses indicated that they had received no information regarding what would happen at court, how much time would be involved, or what they would need to bring to court. The Public Service Commission survey reached comparable conclusions. Over two thirds of respondents in their survey (68%) indicated that no one had explained to them the steps to be taken in the court process the first time they came to court. Similarly, 61% of users indicated that no one had explained to them what was expected of them during the court process (Public Service Commission, 2005:34-35). However, the 2001 National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) survey reached slightly different conclusions on this point, with 57% of witnesses indicating that the prosecutor had explained to them what was expected of them in court (Institute for Security Studies, 2001:20).

While a quarter of witnesses indicated that they were aware of an information desk where they could be assisted, the majority appeared unaware of such a facility. Some did think they could get assistance from prosecutors, lawyers or police, if they had any questions, though roughly 40% indicated that they did not know how to get their questions answered, that there was nowhere to go, or that they would just ask anyone.

On a positive note though, where respondents had asked for information they were generally pleased with the manner in which the question had been dealt with, with 82% of respondents indicating that the question was answered properly and politely. The Public Service Commission (PSC) survey reached similar conclusions with 84% of respondents saying both that they had been given the correct information and that this had been done in a polite manner (2005:27). In both surveys, 12% of respondents indicated that they had not received polite responses.

In addition to being able to assist witnesses with their queries, courts orientated to meeting the needs of the public should also be receptive to complaints, and where feasible, assist people in resolving their problems. Information on complaints can also serve as a source of information for court managers on problems which witnesses are experiencing. However while 171 (38%) of witnesses indicated that they had complaints, few witnesses indicated that they had spoken to officials about these. Of those who had spoken to officials, a minority indicated that they were satisfied with the responses they had received.

The national Public Service Commission witness survey reached similar conclusions regarding complaints. Of the total of 1133 respondents, 417 (37%) indicated they had at some point felt dissatisfied with the service provided by officials or staff at the court. However of these only 63 (15% of those who had felt dissatisfied) said they had at some point lodged a complaint or reported the problem. Most complaints were lodged with the investigating officer, prosecutor, and to a lesser extent the court manager. Of these, 43% indicated that nothing had happened, and 28% that they were still waiting for an answer (2005: 44).

A further demotivating factor for witnesses may be the costs they incur as a result of attending court. While witness fees were not intended as a payment for witnesses, but merely served to reimburse them for costs incurred, where they are provided they also serve as a small acknowledgement of the contribution made by witnesses. However very few respondents in this survey indicated that they had been informed that they could claim expenses for attending court or been given a claim form for this purpose.

The 5% of witnesses indicating that they had been informed about witness fees is however substantially lower than in the PSC survey. Here, 35% indicated that they had been informed about witness fees. (Public Service Commission, 2005: SPSS data). Similarly, in the NPA survey, , 38% of respondents indicated that the prosecutor had informed them of the right to claim witness fees (Institute for Security Studies, 2001: 26). Nevertheless the bulk of evidence still suggests that most witnesses are not informed about the potential for them to claim such fees. While providing witness fees more consistently would add to the costs faced by the Department of Justice, this should still be seen as an important system for supporting the participation of witnesses in the criminal justice system.

The inconvenience of attending court for many witnesses, with roughly a third of respondents indicating that this was very inconvenient for them, is also a de-motivating factor in relation to participation in the criminal justice system. Being given short notice no doubt adds to this inconvenience. While the majority of respondents indicated that they had been informed about the need to attend court more than a week previously, roughly a third had only been informed within the last week, while a significant minority (14%) indicated that they had only been informed the previous day.

The quality of facilities would also have an important impact on the morale of witnesses particularly if they have to spend extended periods of time at court. However, roughly half of those who had used public toilets rated these as poor or very poor, while respondents' level of satisfaction with the quality of waiting areas was only slightly greater.

In relation to facilities, mobility disabled respondents also appeared particularly dissatisfied, with four out of every five saying that facilities for them were inadequate. The PSC survey made slightly better findings in this regard but nevertheless indicates that there is a significant problem with these types of facilities. For example, 14 out of 23 disabled people said there were no toilets for people with mobility impairments; 10 out of 24 indicated that there were no ramps, and 16 out of 23 indicated that there were no lifts for them (Public Service Commission, 19).

6. Results of the Survey Part 2 — Remands and Time Spent Waiting at Court

Time elapsed since alleged offence

Witnesses were asked about the amount of time which had elapsed since the alleged offence had taken place. The majority of witnesses (55%) said that the offence had taken place within the last three months.11 A substantial number (43%) however indicated that the offence had taken place more than three months ago (Table 16). While this data is merely an indication of the time which had elapsed from the date of the offence to when the interviews were conducted, it suggests that it is often a considerable amount of time before the date of the offence, to the eventual date on which witnesses are called to give evidence.

Table 16: Time elapsed since alleged offence

 Frequency %
This month 64 14
1 to 3 months ago 189 41
4 to 9 months ago 89 20
10 to 15 months ago 75 16
16 to 21 months ago 19 4
More than 21 months ago 12 3
Do not know/refused to answer 7 2
Total 455 100
Opportunity to refresh memory

Witnesses were asked if they had been given a chance to read their statement in order to refresh their memories of the content of the statement. The full question read 'Have you been given a chance to read your statement today or on another day when you came to court? OR was the statement read to you today or on another day when you came to court?' As reflected in Table 17, 51% of witnesses said they had been given such an opportunity. This included 60% of defence witnesses, and 42% and 49% respectively of victims and other prosecution witnesses.

Table 17: Have you been given a chance to read your statement today or on another day when you came to court? OR was the statement read to you today or on another day when you came to court?

 Yes
%		 No
%		 Do not know/Other
%		 Total
%
I'm a victim/injured party 42 58
100
I'm another prosecution witness 49 47 4% 100
I'm a defence witness 60 39 1% 100
All respondents 51 48 1% 100
Waiting period before testimony

The 143 witnesses who indicated that they had given evidence were asked how long they had waited at court before giving evidence on the day they testified. Forty of them (28%) indicated they had waited less than one hour, 50 (35%) indicated that they had waited up to two hours, 33 (23%) indicated that they had waited up to four hours, and 17 (12%) indicated they had waited longer than four hours. The same witnesses were also asked how long they thought was a reasonable time for a witness to wait before giving evidence (see Table 18). Over 90% of respondents said that witnesses should give evidence within two hours.

Table 18: How long do you think it is reasonable to wait from the time a witness/victim arrives at court to the time they give evidence?

 Frequency %
As soon as the witness arrives 53 37
Within 1 hour 68 47
Within 2 hours 10 7
Within 4 hours 2 1
Longer than 4 hours 4 3
Wait as long as it takes 1 1
Do not know 6 4
Total 144 100
Time wasted at court

More than one in two witnesses (53%) indicated that there had been days on which they had come to court to testify but did not actually testify. The number of times on which they claimed this had happened are reflected in Table 19. The greatest proportion (24%) of respondents said they had come to court on two days to testify, but did not give evidence. In 5% of cases, respondents came to court to testify on seven or more days, but were not called to give evidence.

Table 19: How many days were there when you came to court to testify before today, but did not actually testify?

 Frequency %
1 day 57 23
2 days 60 24
3 42 17
4 31 13
5 12 5
6 16 7
7 - 10 8 3
11 or more 4 2
Do not know 13 6
Total 243 100

The same witnesses were also asked what was the longest they had to wait in court before being told they were not needed. Roughly a quarter (28%) of these witnesses indicated that they had not waited more than an hour before being told. However, almost half (49%) indicated that the longest they had to wait was more than two hours, with 36 (15%) indicating that the longest they had to wait was more than four hours (Table 20).

Table 20: What was the longest you had to wait before you were told you were not needed that day?

 Frequency %
Told as soon as arrived 32 13
Up to 1 hour 37 15
More than 1 hour up to 2 hours 55 23
More than 2 hours up to 4 hours 70 29
More than 4 hours 36 15
Do not know 13 5
Total 243 100
Discussion

Over recent years much has been made of the blockages and delays in the criminal justice process. Information in this survey only reflects the point at which witnesses were interviewed rather than the overall duration of each of the cases which they had been involved in. The majority of respondents in this survey indicated that the original alleged offence had occurred less than four months previously, though a minority of witnesses (23%) indicated that the offence concerned had taken place ten or more months previously.

In the light of the often extended duration of cases one issue which is of importance is whether witnesses are given the opportunity to read their statements. While 51% of respondents indicated that they had been provided with such an opportunity, a similar percentage (48%) said that they had not.

It would be most helpful to the witness if they were given their statement to read on the day that they were supposed to give evidence. While suggesting that witnesses are not infrequently provided with their statements, the data here does not actually clarify to what extent this was done on the day the witness actually gave evidence.

It may be noted that the 2001 NPA survey came up with slightly different findings, with 64% of witnesses indicating that the prosecutor specifically had assisted them in going through their statements.

Related to the prolonged nature of many cases are two other problems experienced by witnesses. One of these is the amount of time they spend waiting at court and the other is the number of times they are called to court. Of the 456 witnesses interviewed, 141 (31%) indicated they had given evidence. Of these, roughly a third indicated that they had waited in court on the day on which they gave evidence for more than two hours.

About half (53%) of the witnesses interviewed indicated that there had been days where they had come to court to testify but not actually testified. Almost half (47%) of these witnesses indicated that this had happened on three or more days. A similar percentage (43%) indicated that on some of these days they had waited more than two hours before being told that they were not needed at court.

There are similar findings in the PSC survey. Of those who had testified, 31% said that they had waited in court for more than two hours on the day on which they had testified (2005:40). A third of respondents (36%) indicated that the case had been postponed three or more times. Respondents were also asked how long they had to wait at court from arrival until the case started on the first day on which they had come to court for this case. Here, 38% of respondents indicated that this had been more than two hours (2005:31).

In the NPA survey, 37% of respondents indicated that, on days on which the case had been postponed, they had had to wait an average of more than 2 hours before being informed about the postponement (Institute for Security Studies, 2001: 8)

7. Results of the Survey Part 3 — Intimidation

When asked 'Has there been anything about being a witness/victim that has made you feel frightened or intimidated?' Twenty seven percent (120 out of 451) of respondents answered in the affirmative. Victims were relatively more likely to answer this question in the affirmative than other prosecution, or defence, witnesses (see Table 21). While defence witnesses were less likely to do so, one in five also gave a positive response to this question. A higher proportion of witnesses at court B also answered 'yes' to this question than at other courts. Female witnesses were also more likely to answer this question in the affirmative.

Table 21: Has there been anything about being a witness that has made you feel intimidated?

 Yes
%		 No or don't know
%		 Total
%
Witness type


Victim/injured party 36 64 100
Other prosecution witness 27 73 100
Defence witness 21 79 100
All respondents 27 73 100
Court


Court A 20 80 100
Court B 38 62 100
Court C 23 77 100
All respondents 27 73 100
Sex


Male 22 78 100%
Female 35 65 100%
All respondents 27 73

When asked to classify the source of the intimidation, approximately three-quarters (86 out of 120) of those involved indicated that this originated from other people. A quarter (27 out of 120) indicated that the intimidation was related to the court process or environment. There was a small overlap between these categories with seven witnesses indicating that they were intimidated by both (Table 22).

Table 22: Was this intimidation by an individual OR group OR the whole process OR the court environment?

 Frequency %
Yes by individual 59 50
Yes by group 20 16
Yes by individual and group 7 6
Yes by process/environment only 27 23
Yes by process/environment and group and individual 7 6
Total 120 100*

* Total actually exceeds 100% due to rounding.

The individuals who indicated that they were intimidated by other people were asked which people they mainly felt intimidated by. A majority of respondents (61%) said they were intimidated by parties related to the defence (the defendant, the defendant's friends or family, defence witnesses or the lawyer). Much smaller proportions were intimidated by the victim, victim's friends or family or prosecution witnesses (total of 15%), or by officials such as police or magistrates (total of 12%).

When classified by type of witness (Table 23) it becomes apparent that victims accounted for nearly half (49%) of those who felt intimidated by other people. Looked at in relation to the overall sample this means that 29% of victims (45 out of 158), 20% of other prosecution witnesses (14 out of 71), and 15% of defence witnesses (33 out of 221) felt intimidated by other people.

Of those victims who said they felt intimidated by other people, 80% (36 of the 45) said they felt intimidated by parties related to the defence. Interestingly 36% (12 out of 33) of defence witnesses, who said they were intimidated by other people, said this was by the defendant.

Table 23: What individual or group did you mainly feel intimidated by? (categorised by type of witness).

 Victim/injured party Other prosecution Witness Defence witness Total
Defendant 24 2 12 38
Family/friends of defendant 8 2
10
Police 1 1 5 6
Just general feeling 5 2
7
Victim
1 5 6
Defence witness(es) 4 2
6
Family/friends of victim

4 4
Prosecution witness 1
3 4
Judge/Magistrate 1 2 1 4
Lawyer
2 1 2
Other/Do not know 1
3 4
Total 45 14 33 92

Respondents were asked an open-ended question regarding what in particular made them feel frightened or intimidated. Respondents who indicated that their feeling of fear or intimidation was related to another person or group of people gave a wide variety of responses.

Respondents who implied that their feeling of intimidation was related to the court environment or process said their fear was related either to the process of testifying or to a concern about the outcome of the case.

Table 24 provides a rough estimate of the incidence of these concerns amongst those witnesses who indicated that they felt frightened or intimidated.

Table 24: Main thing by which intimidated (Estimate)
Source of intimidation Estimate of relative incidence – as %
Potential danger 25
Threats – killing 14
Threats – violence 14
Other actions 13
Attacks or attempted attacks 5
Encounter with accused person 4
Other people (sub total) (75)
Testifying 11
Outcome and jail 10
Whole experience 4
Process and environment (sub total) (25)
Total 100

When data on persons who said they were intimidated by other people is examined in relation to the type of offence of the case for which the witness was attending court (Table 25), it becomes apparent that there is a positive correlation between offences of violence and intimidation. Overall, 62 of the 92 witnesses (67%) who said that they were intimidated by other people, were giving evidence in cases either of assault GBH, attempted murder, sexual offences, common assault or robbery.

Intimidated witnesses in cases of assault GBH or attempted murder (33%), sexual offences (30%) and common assault (29%) also represented a relatively high proportion of the overall number of witnesses appearing in cases involving these types of offences. By comparison, a smaller percentage (14%) of witnesses appearing in cases of robbery indicated that they felt intimidated by another person. This may be related to the fact that cases of robbery, though violent, are more likely to be 'stranger crimes' committed by a person who is not otherwise known by the victim. By contrast, cases of assault GBH, sexual offences and common assault are more frequently carried out by a person known to the victim.

This is consistent with research carried out elsewhere where witnesses in cases of violent crimes have been found to be more vulnerable to intimidation, particularly where perpetrators are known to them (see for instance Home Office, 1998).

Table 25: Intimidated witnesses – type of case (offence) in which appearing

 Total intimidated by other people Total number of witnesses in cases involving this type of offence % intimidated by person/group
Assault GBH or attempted murder 22 66 33
Sexual offence 12 40 31
Assault common 16 56 29
Theft or handling stolen goods 13 66 20
Robbery 12 88 14
Housebreaking 4 33 12
Malicious damage to property or arson 1 5 20
Traffic offence 1 5 20
Unlawful gathering 1 5 20
Drugs related offence 1 19 5
Fraud or forgery 1 19 5
Other/ Don't know/Refused to answer 8 52 15
Total 86 422 20

Witnesses who said they were intimidated by other people were asked how serious this intimidation was. Almost four out of every five described their fear or intimidation as extremely serious or very serious (Table 26).

Witnesses tended to describe the intimidation as extremely or very serious irrespective of whether they were victims, defence or prosecution witnesses, whether they were male or female, or whether they had testified or not. There was a slightly higher variation between different courts with witnesses at Court B (where higher levels of intimidation were also reported – see Table 21) being more likely than the other two courts to say that this was extremely serious or very serious.

Table 26: How serious was intimidation by an individual or group?
Levels of intimidation (by demographic type) Extremely or very serious % Fairly serious or not very serious %
Witness type

Victim/injured party 75 25
Other prosecution witness 79 21
Defence witness 82 18
Total 78 22
Sex

Male 75 25
Female 82 18
Total 78 22
Court

Court A 69 31
Court B 84 16
Court C 73 27
Total 78 22
Testified or given evidence in this court case?

Yes, I have testified 73 27
No, have not testified 80 20
Total 78 22

All of the witnesses who indicated that they felt frightened or intimidated were asked if they had told any official about this. One third of these witnesses (41 out of 120) said they had told an official with most of these indicating that they told the police or prosecutors. When asked whether they felt that the official had dealt with the issue effectively, the number who said yes, and who said no, was roughly the same (Table 27).

Table 27: Did you feel that intimidation was dealt with effectively?

 Frequency %
Yes 18 44
No 19 46
Do not know 4 10
Total 41 100
Discussion

It is interesting to compare the findings on intimidation with those of other witness surveys. In the CSVR survey, 27% of witnesses indicated that they had felt intimidated. However the figure of 27% masks quite significant discrepancies between the three different courts with 38% of respondents at Court B complaining of feelings of intimidation, while at courts A and C this was 20% and 23% respectively.

These latter two figures resemble the overall findings of the PSC survey, where 22% of respondents felt intimidated at court at some stage during the case.

In the NPA survey, 12% of witnesses said they felt 'unsafe waiting inside or outside the court for their case' (Institute for Security Studies, 2001: 31). However the question asked in the NPA survey is narrower than the broad questions asked in the CSVR and PSC surveys, and the results in the NPA survey should probably not be seen as directly comparable to the results in the other two surveys.

Despite the fact that the results of the CSVR and PSC survey are in some ways comparable with regard to overall levels of intimidation, the two surveys provide quite different findings with regard to sources of intimidation. In the PSC survey these were identified as primarily the magistrate (33% of those who indicated that they had felt intimidated), and prosecutors (20%). Of parties related to the defence it was primarily the defence lawyers (18%) rather than the defendant (12%) and his or her family or friends (14%). The general court environment (22%) and language of the court (10%) also accounted for a significant proportion of respondents' feelings of intimidation.12

The CSVR survey reached similar conclusions regarding the proportion of respondents who referred to the court environment as a source of intimidation. However, different findings were made in relation to the relative importance of other sources of intimidation. Unlike the PSC survey the CSVR survey indicates that parties related to the defence are the source for most peoples' feelings of intimidation. According to the CSVR survey, victims are disproportionately represented amongst those feeling intimidated, and are likely to indicate that they feel intimidated by parties related to the defence. Unlike the PSC survey, relatively few respondents to the CSVR survey said they felt intimidated by officials.

The handful of surveys conducted thus far reflects a mixture of findings, particularly about the source of witnesses' feelings of intimidation. There is a need for further research to bring greater clarity to our understanding of this problem.

At the same time there is a clear indication that intimidation is a significant problem which, in addition to being related to threats to the safety of witnesses,13 would invariably impact on the motivation of witnesses and their willingness and ability to assist the criminal justice process.

8. Results of the Survey Part 4 — Overall Satisfaction, Sense of Being Appreciated and Willingness to be a Witness in Future

When asked about their overall experience as witnesses the number of witnesses who described themselves as 'very' or 'fairly' satisfied' (218) was roughly the same as the number who described themselves as 'fairly' or 'very' dissatisfied (217). More than a quarter of witnesses (126) said they were very dissatisfied (Table 28).

Table 28: In terms of your satisfaction/dissatisfaction, how would you rate your experience overall?

 Frequency %
Very satisfied 59 13
Fairly satisfied 159 35
Fairly dissatisfied 91 20
Very dissatisfied 126 28
Do not know 20 4
Total 455 100

There was little to distinguish between the three different groups of witnesses in terms of satisfaction levels (see Table 29). For instance the percentage of victims/injured parties who were fairly or very dissatisfied (50%) was only a few points higher than defence witnesses (48%) and other prosecution witnesses (45%) (Table 28).

Table 29: Level of satisfaction with overall court experience (by witness type)

 Very satisfied Fairly satisfied Fairly dissatisfied Very dissatisfied Do not know Total
Victim/injured party 15% 30% 25% 25% 5% 100%
Other prosecution witness 11% 41% 19% 26% 3% 100%
Defence witness 12% 35% 17% 31% 5% 10%
Total 13% 35% 20% 28% 5% 100%

While witnesses did not demonstrate high levels of satisfaction with their court experience, a significant proportion said they felt that their contribution as a witness was appreciated by court officials, with the greatest proportion (38%) saying they felt 'appreciated to some extent', while one in four said they felt fully appreciated. Only 20% felt unappreciated, though a relatively high proportion of witnesses also indicated that they 'Do not know' in relation to this question (Table 30).

Table 30: Do you feel that your contribution as a witness is appreciated by the officials you have met as a witness, or do you feel it is not appreciated?

 Frequency %
Fully appreciated 113 25
Appreciated to some extent 171 38
Unappreciated 91 20
Do not know 78 17
Total 453 100

Similar to the 63% of witnesses who said they felt appreciated, 60% indicated that they would be 'very' or 'fairly' willing to be a witness again in a criminal trial. However, nearly 50% of witnesses at Court C, and nearly 60% of 'other prosecution witnesses' said they would unwilling to be witnesses again in a criminal trial.

Table 31: If you were asked to be a witness again in a criminal trial, how willing would you be to take part?

 Very willing or fairly willing
%		 Not very willing or not at all willing
%		 Do not Know
%		 Total
%
Witness type



Victim/injured party 67 31 2 100
Other prosecution witness 38 58 4 100
Defence witness 63 33 4 100
All respondents 60 36 4 100
Court



Court A 55 42 3 100
Court B 78 21 1 100
Court C 43 49 8 100
All respondents 60 36 4 100
Sex



Male 61 36 3 100
Female 60 36 4 100
All respondents 60 36 4 100
Involved in previous court case?



Yes, been involved in court case before 68 29 3 100
No, not been involved in court case before 53 43 4 100
All respondents 60 36 4 100
Discussion

Overall then, while respondents in this survey were evenly split between those who were very or fairly satisfied (48%) and those who were very or fairly dissatisfied (48%) with their experience at court, a relatively high percentage (63%) said that they either felt fully appreciated, or appreciated to some extent. Furthermore 60% of respondents indicated that they would be willing to be a witness again in a criminal trial in future.

Respondents in the Public Service Commission survey were also asked to describe their satisfaction with their overall court experience. Similarly, in the CSVR study 44% indicated that they were very satisfied or satisfied, although 25% indicated that they were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied, while 31% indicated that they were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied (2005:51).

However the PSC study also contained somewhat different findings. Using a scale incorporating responses to questions on satisfaction wit