Advertisement

Victim Participation Post Trial: Appeals and Early Release

  • Kerstin BraunEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Palgrave Studies in Victims and Victimology book series (PSVV)

Abstract

While the right to be heard during the trial and sentencing stage may be particularly important to victims, their interests can continue to be affected once verdict and sentence have been finalised. For example, where victims feel their rights during pretrial or trial have not been complied with or errors have been made during proceedings they may have an interest in being able to appeal or participate in appeals of these decisions. In addition, in all jurisdictions analysed, mechanisms exist allowing perpetrators who are sentenced to a term of imprisonment to seek early release under certain circumstances in order to serve the remainder of their sentence in the community. Early release into the community may affect victims’ safety interests given that encounters between victims and offenders become more likely. Victims may therefore have an interest in early-release decisions including the terms of such release. This chapter examines victims’ participatory rights in the context of the post-trial stage in relation to appeals and early-release proceedings. It forms the last of the three chapters in this volume providing in-depth analysis of victim participation at specific trial stages in selected jurisdictions with different legal traditions.

Keywords

Appeal rights Interlocutory appeals Early-release proceedings Writ of mandamus Post-trial rights 

References

  1. Bacik, I., Maunsell, C., & Gogan, S. (1998). The Legal Process and Victims of Rape. Dublin: Dublin Rape Crisis Centre.Google Scholar
  2. Bassett, R. (2016). Parole in Sweden and Canada: A Cross-Cultural Review of Risk and Electronic Monitoring Parole Practices. Thesis in Criminology, Malmoe University, Sweden. Retrieved from https://muep.mau.se/bitstream/handle/2043/21598/Parole%20in%20Sweden%20and%20Canada%2C%20Bassett%202016.pdf?sequence=2&isAllowed=y.
  3. Black, M. (2003). Victim Submission to Parole Boards: The Agenda for Research. Australian Institute of Criminology. Trends & Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice 251. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology.Google Scholar
  4. Boijsen, G., & Tallving, G. (2017). Probation in Europe-Sweden. In A. M. van Kalmthout & I. Durnescu (Eds.), Probation in Europe. Nijmegen: Wolf Legal Publishers. 2008; Updated Chapter (pp. 1–30). Utrecht: Confederation of European Probation.Google Scholar
  5. Booth, R. (2018, January 10). Victims of John Worboys Not Consulted Over Terms of His Release. The Guardian (online). Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jan/10/victims-of-john-worboys-not-consulted-over-terms-of-his-release.
  6. Bowcott, O. (2018, March 29). High Court Overturns Decision to Release John Worboys. The Guardian (online). Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/mar/28/parole-board-must-reconsider-decision-to-release-john-worboys.
  7. Brienen, M. E. I., & Hoegen, E. H. (2000). Victims of Crime in 22 European Criminal Justice Systems: The Implementation of Recommendation (85) 11 of the Council of Europe on the Position of the Victim in the Framework of Criminal Law and Procedure. Nijmegen: Wolf Legal Publishers.Google Scholar
  8. Bundesregierung der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. (1986, April 10). Gesetzentwurf der Bundesregierung Entwurf eines Ersten Gesetzes zur Verbesserung der Stellung des Verletzten im Strafverfahren, Bundestag, BT Drucksache 10/5305.Google Scholar
  9. Carlsson, J. (2010). Right to Counsel for the Injured Party—A Comparative Study of Sexual Assault Victims’ Rights in Sweden, Arizona & Massachusetts (Master thesis). Lund University Libraries, Faculty of Law. Retrieved from http://lup.lub.lu.se/luur/download?func=downloadFile&recordOId=1628195&fileOId=16281.
  10. Dervieux, V. (2002). The French System. In M. Delmas-Marty & J. Spencer (Eds.), European Criminal Procedures (pp. 218–292). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  11. European Justice. (2013, September 10). Denmark—My Rights After the (First) Trial. Retrieved from https://e-justice.europa.eu/content_rights_of_victims_of_crime_in_criminal_proceedings-171-dk-en.do?member=1.
  12. European Justice. (2017, September 21). England and Wales—My Rights After Trial. Retrieved from https://e-justice.europa.eu/content_rights_of_victims_of_crime_in_criminal_proceedings-171-EW-maximizeMS-en.do?clang=en&idSubpage=7&member=1.
  13. Gogorza, A. (2017). Life Imprisonment and Terrorism: The Consolidation of a Repressive Subsystem. Montesquieu Law Review, 5, 46–61.Google Scholar
  14. Hall, S., & Canton, R. (2015). England and Wales. In A. M. van Kalmthout & I. Durnescu (Eds.), Probation in Europe. Nijmegen: Wolf Legal Publishers. 2008; Updated Chapter (pp. 1–48). Utrecht: Confederation of European Probation.Google Scholar
  15. Heine, L. (2008). Denmark. In A. M. van Kalmthout & I. Durnescu (Eds.), Probation in Europe (pp. 231–254). Nijmegen: Wolf Legal Publishers.Google Scholar
  16. Holmberg, S., Kindgren, J., & Bogestam, N. (2012). Non-custodial Care in Sweden: A Summary of Three Evaluations. Stockholm: Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention.Google Scholar
  17. Kirchengast, T. (2016). Victimology and Victim Rights: International Comparative Perspectives. Oxon, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  18. Lindholm, M. & Bishop, N. (2008). Sweden. In A. M. van Kalmthout & I. Durnescu (Eds.), Probation in Europe (pp. 1025–1044). Nijmegen: Wolf Legal Publishers.Google Scholar
  19. McCarva, R. (2008). England and Wales. In A. M. van Kalmthout & I. Durnescu (Eds.), Probation in Europe (pp. 255–288). Nijmegen: Wolf Legal Publishers.Google Scholar
  20. Mutz, J. (2008). Germany. In A. M. van Kalmthout & I. Durnescu (Eds.), Probation in Europe (pp. 281–416). Nijmegen: Wolf Legal Publishers.Google Scholar
  21. Oxford Pro Bono Publico. (2015). Victim Participation in Criminal Procedures: A Report to Assist Redress. University of Oxford, April 2015. Appendix: Country Report Denmark. Retrieved from http://ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk/opbp-makes-submissions-to-redress-on-victim-participation-in-criminal-procedures/.
  22. Pelissier, B., & Perrier, Y. (2008) France. In A. M. van Kalmthout & I. Durnescu (Eds.), Probation in Europe (pp. 349–380). Nijmegen: Wolf Legal Publishers.Google Scholar
  23. Reuflet, K. (2013). France. In N. Padfield, D. Van Zyl Smit, & F. Dünkel (Eds.), Release from Prison: European Policy and Practice (pp. 169–184). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  24. Ross, S. (2015). Victims in Australian Criminal Justice Systems: Principles, Policy and (Distr)action. In D. Wilson & S. Ross (Eds.), Crime, Victims, and Policy International Contexts, Local Experiences (pp. 214–239). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  25. Schroth, K. (2012). Die Rechte des Opfers im Straprozess (2nd ed.). Munich: C.F. Mueller.Google Scholar
  26. Storgaard, A., & Skov, L. (2017). Denmark. In A. M. van Kalmthout & I. Durnescu (Eds.), Probation in Europe. Nijmegen: Wolf Legal Publishers. 2008; Updated Chapter (pp. 1–33). Utrecht: Confederation of European Probation.Google Scholar
  27. Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention. (2007). Extended Use of Electronic Tagging in Sweden: The Offenders’ and the Victims’ View, Report 2007: 3. Stockholm: Brå. Retrieved from https://www.bra.se/download/18.cba82f7130f475a2f1800024290/1371914733858/20.
  28. Tobolowsky, P. M. (2015). Mandamus Muddle: The Mandamus Review Standard for the Federal Crime Victims’ Rights Act. University of Denver Criminal Law Review, 5, 108–171.Google Scholar
  29. Tolmein, O. (2012). Nebenklage-Eine Erweiterung, keine Demontage des liberalen Strafverfahrens. In S. Barton & R. Koebel (Eds.), Ambivalenzen der Opferzuwendung des Strafrechts: Zwischenbilanz nach einem Vierteljahrhundert opferorientierter Strafrechtspolitik in Deutschland (pp. 233–251). Baden-Baden: Nomos.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ullrich, C. (1998). Schutz des verletzten Zeugen durch Entfernung des Angeklagten gemäß § 247 StPO im Bereich der Sexualdelinquenz. Hamburg: LIT Verlag.Google Scholar
  31. van der Aa, S. (2015). Post-trial Victims’ Rights in the EU: Do Law Enforcement Motives Still Reign Supreme? European Law Journal, 21(2), 239–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wenske, M. (2008). Weiterer Ausbau der Verletztenrechte? Über zweifelhafte verfassungsgerichtliche Begehrlichkeiten. Neue Zeitschrift fuer Strafrecht, 28(8), 434–437.Google Scholar
  33. Young, K. M. (2016). Parole Hearings and Victims’ Rights: Implementation, Ambiguity, and Reform. Connecticut Law Review, 49(2), 431–498.Google Scholar
  34. Zander, S. (2011). Das Adhaesiosnverfahren im neuen Gewand. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cases

  1. Bundesverfassungsgericht, BverfG 9 October 2007 – 2 BvR 1671/07.Google Scholar
  2. Doe v. United States, 666 F. 2d. 43 (4th Cir. 1981) (US).Google Scholar
  3. Kenna v. United States District Court, 435 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 2006) (US).Google Scholar
  4. Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt, OLG Frankfurt, 25 July 1995 – 1 Ws 120, StV 1995, 594.Google Scholar
  5. United States v. Laraneta, 700 F.3d 983 (7th Cir. 2012).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Southern QueenslandToowoombaAustralia

Personalised recommendations