What they're doing basically is calling it a notice of appearance, whereby they'll file a notice of appearance and ask for an assertion of rights. This helps to preserve victims' rights from the beginning, as opposed to waiting until these have been contravened. They also file proactive pre-emptive motions. It helps to preserve the record of proceedings. Most of this occurs pre-trial to ensure that rights can be assessed during trial.
So when we talk about this, again, it's specific to victims' rights. We already set the precedent in 1988 when we allowed victims to make victim impact statements. Now a judge must consider restitution. So, really, what we're left with is that this bill says that a victim has a right to convey their views and have them considered. What we're saying is that one example would be a bail hearing where you have a right to have your safety and security concerns taken into account, but there's no mechanism for me to address the court and do that. So if in fact I had legal representation, which we allow—there already are hearings, as you are well aware.... For a sexual assault victim, there will be a hearing in regard to production of records and they have a right to have legal representation at that.
I asked Oregon specifically if this had happened in that state because they have a right to be notified about a bail hearing on that. What happened in that situation, which they say is a rare one, where the victim was not notified about the bail hearing and didn't have that opportunity, is that the accused remained in the community and a second hearing was called, with the accused again remaining in the community during this, when in fact then there was a determination. In many cases the offender remains in the community, but it's an opportunity for them to have their voice heard, but that this is more of a rare occurrence.
The second issue where we see that the victim's voice needs to be heard is in the plea bargain. Again, the way the bill is written, it says that a victim for serious injury or murder.... I've talked to crown attorneys across this country as well—and again, I'm reflecting some of the unique circumstances—and many crowns will tell you that they already do that, that as a matter of fact they already meet with the victim. So what we're saying is that let's talk about consistency. If you have a right to be heard, and most crowns are doing it as practice, then they should make sure that's a consistent practice. The right is to be heard. We're not suggesting a veto power for victims in relation to that.
Why is this so important? It's because we know about procedural fairness and how people are treated within the criminal justice system. If a victim feels they've been treated fairly, they are more satisfied with the criminal justice system. If they're treated with respect and dignity and are given an opportunity to participate, they have a higher level of confidence in the criminal justice system.
So we're talking about two extra situations where they can have that advice, and what we're hearing from people who exercise this is that it could actually expedite the system, because it just makes sense. We often look at it through the lens of it's just going to cause delays. If you know ahead of time what your rights are and you have assistance in doing a victim impact statement, and you can make sure that your lawyer is talking to the crown attorney to tell them what your safety and security concerns are, at the end of the day at a bail hearing the judge has the final say, but they'll have the information upon which to make that decision.
