Crown Prosecution Service

3. Miss C complains about the Crown Prosecution Service. In particular Miss C complains the CPS prosecuting barrister failed to read her Victim Personal Statement (VPS) out to the court prior to sentencing.

4. Miss C says as a result of the failure to read out her VPS she has been unable to obtain closure and this has affected her mental and physical health. She also says she has been left without savings or a job.

5. Miss C would like compensation to cover her costs and assistance to bring further complaints.

6. Miss C was the victim of an arson attack at a business premises she owned and ran. Miss C complained the CPS failed to take action against the suspect for several years stating there was insufficient evidence to secure a conviction.

7. When the CPS took the case to court the defendant pleaded guilty. As part of the sentencing Miss C was invited to make a VPS. She requested this was read out to the court but stated she did not want to read it herself. The prosecuting barrister misread Miss C’s request and passed it to the judge for their consideration.

Victim’s code

8. The gov.uk website explains the Code of Practice for Victims of Crime in England and Wales (the Victim’s Code) focuses on victims’ rights and sets out the minimum standard that organisations must provide to victims of crime in England and Wales.

Reading of VPS

11. Before we decide if we should conduct a detailed investigation of a complaint, we look at whether there are signs the event complained about had a negative effect which the organisation has not put right. Having done so we cannot link some of the events complained about with the negative impact Miss C has claimed and for others we consider the CPS has already done enough to put right the impact of these events.

12. Miss C complains that when she attended the court hearing for the sentencing of the offender who had set fire to her shop the CPS barrister failed to read out her VPS. Miss C says as a result of this failure she has been unable to obtain closure of the events that happened and this has affected her mental and physical health. She also told us she had been left without savings and without a job for eight months due to her shop having to be repaired.

13. The Independent Assessor of Complaints (IAC) acknowledged the CPS barrister should have read out Miss C’s VPS and its failure to do so was a breach of the Victim’s Code. It recommended for this and the delays in prosecuting the offender that the CPS pay Miss C £400 compensation.

14. Our Principles for Remedy say where an organisation identifies a failing it should seek to put it right by: • If possible returning the complainant to the position they would have been in if the maladministration or poor service had not occurred.

• If that is not possible compensating the complainant appropriately.

• Considering seriously all forms of remedy (such as an apology, an explanation, remedial action or financial compensation.

• Providing the appropriate remedy in each case.

15. As the opportunity to read out the VPS in court had passed it is our view the CPS was not in a position to return Miss C to the position she would have been had the failing not occurred. We have therefore considered if the CPS has compensated Miss Reddick appropriately.

16. Our Ombudsman Guidance on Financial remedy sets out the level of compensation we would recommend based on the level of impact on the complainant. The £400 compensation recommended by the IAC puts this towards the top of level two on our scale of injustice which recommends a payment of between £120 and £550.

17. A level two injustice will typically arise when what has gone wrong has had a relatively low impact on the person affected. This will often result in a degree of distress or inconvenience. This could also include instances where an injustice was more serious but only took place once, or was of short duration. In these cases we consider that an apology is not suitable by itself.

18. For the impact of a complaint to be at level three on our scale of injustice we would expect it to have had a moderate impact on the person affected (for example, in terms of distress, worry or inconvenience). For a case to be level three, that impact would usually also have been experienced over a significant period of time.

19. We recognise it was distressing for Miss C when the CPS barrister failed to read out her VPS in court as she had requested. It is our view taking into account all of the information that this was a one off incident of injustice which resulted in a degree of distress to Miss C, which is separate to the significant distress she experienced as a result of the crime itself. We therefore consider a payment within level two of our scale of injustice to be in line with our principles for remedy.

20. We acknowledge Miss Reddick lost out financially whilst her shop was being repaired following the fire and that she was also unable to work during this time. The IAC confirmed the judge did read Miss Reddick’s VPS which included this impact on her before making a sentencing decision and therefore was aware of this. It is our view that as Miss Reddick experienced this impact prior to the hearing where the CPS should have read her VPS out in court we cannot link the financial loss she sadly experienced as a result of the crime to the failure to read out the VPS.

21. Overall taking into account all of the information it is our view the CPS has already done enough to address the impact of not reading out Miss Reddick’s VPS by offering £400 compensation. We cannot link the other impacts of this to the failing by the CPS and therefore we will be taking no further action on this complaint point.

1. We have carefully considered Miss C’s complaint about the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) in relation to the Victim’s Code. We have decided the CPS has already done enough to put right the impact of these events on Miss C.

2. We recognise Miss C had asked for her Victim Personal Statement (VPS) to be read out in court when the judge was considering the sentencing of the offender who had set fire to her shop. We acknowledge it was distressing for Miss C when this did not happen. We consider the compensation the CPS has offered to pay Miss C for this mistake is in line with our principles.