By Sasha Murray,  Sarah Welland, Madeleine Storry

For victims who have experienced a serious criminal offence in England and Wales, the Crown Court is a vital part of their journey to receive justice. This is where jury trials are conducted to reach a verdict on whether the defendant is guilty of the crime or not. This report comes following a record number of outstanding cases at the Crown Courts in England and Wales. 2 At the end of September 2024, 73,105 cases were outstanding and almost a quarter (23%) of these had been outstanding at the Crown Court for over a year and 8% had been outstanding for over two years. This is a considerable increase since the end of March 2020, when just 7% of cases were outstanding for over a year and 2% of cases were outstanding for over two years. 3 This means an increasing number of victims are waiting extended lengths of time for justice. This report explores how these unprecedented delays in the Crown Court system impact on victims of crime, victims’ services, and the wider criminal justice system. The findings are based on primary research conducted by the Office of the Victims’ Commissioner in 2024, including a survey and interviews with victims and a survey with victim services staff. Based on these findings, the Victims’ Commissioner makes key, actionable recommendations for justice agencies and policy makers to consider. About the research This report aims to: • Understand the experiences of victims of all crime types who are navigating the Crown Court system in England and Wales amidst a record backlog. • Identify the impact of the Crown Court backlog on victims, the criminal justice system and victim services. • Understand victims’ experiences of support and communication whilst navigating the Crown Court backlog. Findings from the research The Crown Court system is experiencing an unprecedented backlog meaning victims commonly face delays and adjournments. • In the latest official statistics, a quarter of trials listed at the Crown Court had to be rearranged on the day of trial. • Further data, provided by HMCTS, showed that the number of completed Crown Court cases that had been rearranged more than three times on the day of trial, was four times higher in 2023/24 than it was in 2019/20. 4 • In our research, we found that of those victims who had been given a trial date, nearly half (48%) had this date changed at some point in their criminal justice journey and 26% of these victims had the date changed four or more times. For  victims often navigating the criminal justice system for the first time, this worsened an already stressful and traumatic process. The delays in the Crown Court cause debilitating stress and trauma for victims. • Our research highlighted how the Crown Court backlog caused immense stress for victims, prompting a deterioration in physical and mental health. Some victims resorted to drug and alcohol use or self-harm to cope, while other victims reported attempting suicide as it was too difficult to continue. • We found that while victims were still involved in the criminal justice process, they were unable to move on and prevented from recovering from the crime. • Additionally, when victims experienced repeated adjournments, the emotional distress and the necessity to re-live the trauma for each additional listing further exacerbated their trauma. The Crown Court backlog damages victims’ lives and futures. • We found that whilst enduring the prolonged waits for Crown Court trials, many victims were unable to maintain their daily functioning. Their lives were subsequently further disrupted by repeated adjournments. • Our findings also highlighted the impact of the Crown Court delays on victims’ employment. Victims often had to take periods of time off work for each trial listing, and some were unable to work or were signed off sick due to the stress of the delays. This had significant financial implications for some victims, particularly those who were self-employed. • The delays also adversely affected younger victims, as it disrupted their education and put their lives on hold during significant periods of their development. Our findings also highlighted the impact on victims’ interpersonal relationships. The turmoil of the Crown Court delays sometimes led to relationship breakdowns, at a time when a victim’s support network was vital. • We also heard how the delays in the Crown Court system impacted on other legal processes. For example, delays to trials concluding caused issues with Family Court proceedings, applications to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA) and eviction orders. The effectiveness of the criminal justice system and victims’ confidence in its ability to deliver justice is at risk due to the delays in the Crown Court system. • Our findings highlighted how increased waiting time for trials heightened the risk of victims’ memories fading and therefore, the quality of their evidence diminishing. • The increased waits also meant supportive prosecution witnesses became more likely to withdraw. • In addition, victims’ faith and trust in the criminal justice system was damaged, leading to disengagement from with the criminal justice process and in many cases, an entire withdrawal. • Where victims persevered with the criminal justice process, they often felt justice did not prevail. We were informed of cases where the time taken for the trial to take place meant the defendants’ sentence had already been served, either on remand or through bail conditions. We were also told of instances where the Crown Prosecution Service had dropped charges due to cases no longer being in the public interest and where defendants had died before the trial could take place. • For many victims, their experiences of the Crown Court backlog left them unwilling to engage with the criminal justice system in the future. High-quality support helps victims to stay engaged with the criminal justice process amidst the Crown Court delays, however the delays impede support organisations’ ability to provide this support. • Despite support being vital for their engagement, we found that for some victims, the delays prevented them accessing support. Some rape and sexual offence victims were advised not to seek therapy until after trial. However, the delays in cases coming to court resulted in long periods without support, further delaying their recovery. • We also found that the delays led to an increased demand for support services. This was due to an increased number of victims waiting for court and increased victim support needs due to the impact of the Crown Court delays. Many staff reported unsustainable caseloads and many support services had to implement waiting lists. Many services also raised concerns about the quality and consistency of support provision being compromised as a result of the overwhelming demand. • Our research highlighted the negative impact of the Crown Court backlogs on the wellbeing and job satisfaction of support staff, with some at risk of burnout and leaving their roles. This further exacerbated issues with support accessibility, quality, and consistency. Poor communication compounds the impact of the Crown Court backlog on victims. • Our research highlighted that poor initial expectation management of how long a case can take to get to trial and a lack of communication whilst victims waited for trial worsened victims’ experiences. • We also found that many victims experienced trials being adjourned at very short notice and with minimal or no explanation. This added to the emotional distress they experienced navigating an already challenging process. Key recommendations This report contains 19 recommendations that are grouped into three overarching aims. We have identified a key recommendation for change to help achieve each of these aims: 1. Improve the victim experience of the criminal justice system. o The government to explore how victims whose case is going to trial might be given a single point of contact to improve communication and ensure their Victims’ Code entitlements are delivered. 2. Make court processes more transparent and efficient. o The restoration of an Independent Courts’ Inspectorate so that the operation of the Court Service is subject to rigorous independent scrutiny. 3. Ensure victim services can provide support to victims as they wait for the case to get to trial. o Providing emergency funding to victim support services to help them cope with increased caseloads arising from the court backlog crisis.  

London: Victims Commissioner, 2025. 73p.

Edited by Peter Starke, Laust Lund Elbek and Georg Wenzelburger

We live in an age of insecurity. The Global Financial Crisis, the Covid-19 pandemic, the wars in Ukraine and Gaza and the climate crisis are just the most evident examples of shocks that have increased the level of insecurity among elites and citizens in recent years. And yet there is ample evidence that insecurity is not equally distributed across populations. Bringing together disciplines such as political science, criminology, sociology, and anthropology and combining quantitative and qualitative studies from a wide range of rich and middle-income countries, this collection presents a new framework for exploring the two key social challenges of our times – insecurity and inequality – together. The volume analyses the nature, causes and distribution of subjective insecurities and how various actors use or respond to unequal security. The essays cover a host of themes including the unequal spatial distribution of (in)security, unequal access to security provision in relation to crime and welfare, the impact of insecurity on political attitudes as well as policy responses and the political exploitation of insecurity. An important contribution to debates across several social scientific disciplines as well as current public debate on insecurity and politics, the volume will be of great interest to scholars and researchers of criminology, social policy, peace and conflict studies, politics and international relations, sociology, development studies and economics. It will also be of interest to policymakers and government think tanks.

London; New York: Routledge, 2025. 248p.

By: Suellen Murray and Anastasia Powell

In August 2009, in response to an attack upon a federal member of parliament by her male partner, then Prime Minister Kevin Rudd was reported in the Melbourne Age as saying that ‘acts of violence against women are cowardly acts by men and have no place in modern Australia’. In the same article, the Minister for Women, Tanya Plibersek, said domestic violence ‘remained a serious problem despite changing attitudes’. Nearly 30 years earlier, the 1981 report of the New South Wales Task Force on Domestic Violence – one of the first initiatives taken in Australian public policy in this area – had identified domestic violence as ‘a deep-seated national problem’.3 What then has happened in the past 30 years?

Advertising campaigns in the intervening years have advised us to say ‘no’ to violence and explained where, if we experienced domestic violence, we could get assistance. Such campaigns have assisted in raising awareness and bringing about changes in attitudes. Self-evidently, domestic violence has not been eliminated – the attack on the member of parliament is just one of many examples – but has it been reduced? And what policies and programs have been put in place to tackle the problem of domestic violence?

This book provides some answers to these questions. We are particularly interested in how Australian governments have responded to domestic violence over the past 30 years, that is, the period roughly from 1981 to 2011. The central purpose of this book is to critically review the range of public policy responses to domestic violence (legal, welfare and prevention responses at both federal and state levels).4 We consider how domestic violence has been understood and the approaches that have been taken, as well as the impact on groups targeted by these responses (children, women, men, and Australian Indigenous peoples). The book includes up-to-date policy and legislative case studies from Australia to illustrate these responses, and also places this work within international debates.

In this book we argue that there have been significant changes in understandings of domestic violence over the past 30 years, resulting in – and to some extent produced by – heightened policy activity in this area. These policy shifts built on the campaigns and lobbying of the women’s refuge movement from the 1970s and the subsequent activities of feminist bureaucrats in Australian state, territory, and federal governments. During the 1980s, all Australian states and territories investigated the nature and extent of domestic violence. Out of these investigations came government commitments to address domestic violence in more than the ad hoc ways of previous decades. Since then, regardless of their political persuasion, governments across all states, territories and federally have maintained an interest in domestic violence, although their approaches have varied, with more or less attention paid to gendered or feminist analyses of domestic violence.

Despite the policy shifts and service developments around domestic violence across numerous key agencies, according to 2004 data, over a third of Australian women reported experiencing at least one form of violence from an intimate male partner during their lifetime. These findings reflect those published in the national 1996 Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) Women’s Safety Survey, in which 36 percent of women surveyed reported experiencing some form of physical or sexual violence since the age of 15 years. Over 75 percent of these incidents were at the hands of a current or previous partner or boyfriend. Similarly, a decade later, in the 2006 Australian Personal Safety Survey, 40 percent of women reported experiencing at least one incident of physical or sexual violence since the age of 15 years. While men who experience violence are most likely to be physically assaulted by a male stranger, women remain most likely to be assaulted by a current or former partner or family member.

Australian Scholarly Publishing, 2011

By Marty Langley and VPC Executive Director Josh Sugarmann.  

To educate the public and policymakers about the reality of black homicide victimization, each year the VPC releases Black Homicide Victimization in the United States (follow this link to download the study as a pdf). This annual study examines black homicide victimization at the state level utilizing unpublished Supplementary Homicide Report data from the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The study ranks the states by their rates of black homicide victimization and offers additional information for the 10 states with the highest black homicide victimization rates.

Washington, DC: Violence Policy Center, 2023. 18p.

By Marcial A. G. Suarez, Luís Antônio Francisco de Souza, Carlos Henrique Aguiar Serra

This paper discusses the deadly use of violence as a public security agenda, focusing on police lethality and military interventions. Through a literature review to understanding concepts – such as “war,” for example – used in public security policy agendas, the study seeks to frame the notion of political violence, mainly referring to the policies designed to combat violence in Brazil. The objective is to problematize the public security policy based on the idea of confrontation, which adopts the logic of war and the notion of “enemy”. The paper is divided into three parts. The first is a conceptual approach to violence and war, and the second is the analysis of the dynamic of deadly use of force. Finally, the third part is a contextual analysis of violence in Rio de Janeiro, its characteristics, and central actors, using official statistics on violence in the region.

Brazil: Oñati Socio-Legal Series, 2021. 22p.

By Thomas Hofmarcher, Anne Leppänen, Anna Månsdotter, Joakim Strandberg, Anders Håkansson

Background: Illegal drug use is a public health concern with far-reaching consequences for people who use them and for society. In Sweden, the reported use of illegal drugs has been growing and the number of drug-induced deaths is among the highest in Europe. The aim of this study was to provide a comprehensive and up-to-date estimation of the societal costs of illegal drug use in Sweden, relying as much as possible on registry and administrative data. Methods: A prevalence-based cost-of-illness study of illegal drug use in Sweden in 2020 was conducted. A societal approach was chosen and included direct costs (such as costs of health care, social services, and the criminal justice system), indirect costs (such as lost productivity due to unemployment and drug-induced death), and intangible costs (such as reduced quality of life among people who use drugs and their family members). Costs were estimated by combining registry, administrative, and survey data with unit cost data. Results: The estimated societal costs of illegal drug use were 3.7 billion euros in 2020. This corresponded to 355 euros per capita and 0.78 % of the gross domestic product. The direct and intangible costs were of similar sizes, each contributing to approximately 40 % of total costs, whereas indirect costs contributed to approximately 20 %. The largest individual cost components were reduced quality of life among people who use drugs and costs of the criminal justice system. Conclusion: Illegal drug use has a negative impact on the societal aim to create good and equitable health in Sweden. The findings call for evidence-based prevention of drug use and treatment for those addicted. It is important to address the co-morbidity of mental ill-health and drug dependence, to develop low-threshold services and measures for early prevention among children and young adults, as well as to evaluate laws and regulations connected to illegal drug use.

International Journal of Drug Policy, Volume 123, January 2024, 104259

By Thomas G. Blomberg, Jennifer E. Copp, and Jillian J. Turanovic

The relevance of criminology to matters of public policy has been hotly debated throughout the history of the discipline. Yet time and again, we have borne witness to the consequences of harmful criminal justice practices that do little to reduce crime or improve the lives of our most vulnerable populations. Given the urgent need for evidence-informed responses to the problems that face our society, we argue here that criminologists can and should have a voice in the process. Accordingly, this review describes challenges and prospects for evidence-informed policymaking on matters of crime and justice. In terms of challenges, we review discourse on what constitutes evidence, issues with providing guidance under conditions of causal uncertainty, and practical constraints on evidence-informed policymaking. For prospects, we consider the important roles of institutional support, graduate training, and multiple translational strategies for the evidence-informed movement. Finally, we end with several considerations for advancing translational criminology through expanded promotion and tenure criteria, curricula revision, and prioritizing the organization of knowledge. More broadly, our goals are to stimulate disciplinary thinking regarding the ways in which criminology may play a more meaningful role in effectively confronting the ongoing challenges of crime in society.

Annual Review of Criminology, Volume 7, Page 143 - 162

By Charles Fain Lehman

While most Americans have focused on the Covid-19 pandemic, the nation’s other great epidemic has continued to burn. Drug overdoses now claim the lives of over 100,000 Americans every year, a rate that appears likely to continue or grow for the foreseeable future. While the crisis once was concentrated predominantly in rural, white communities, the introduction of novel synthetic opioids, particularly fentanyl, into the illicit drug supply has spread overdoses across urbanizations. Today, small-town and big-city leaders alike desperately need tools to fight back against the drug crisis. It can often seem as though drug policy is outside the ambit of local leaders, who lack the capacity to go after international traffickers or spend trillions of dollars on care. But local government, as the closest entity to the front lines of the crisis, plays a vital role in addressing it. This paper, therefore, explores options for local policymakers to respond to the drug crisis. In particular, it considers six frequently discussed local-scale policies: • Naloxone access and distribution • Investing in treatment capacity • Drug court programs • Wastewater tracking • Supervised consumption sites • Drug market interventions For each policy, this paper examines the evidence, offers estimates of costs, and provides caution where necessary. The overall goal is to give local policymakers a better understanding of what tools they have to more effectively tackle the other health crisis in their communities.  

New York: The Manhattan Institute, 2022. 19p.

By Marie Claire Van Hout and Tim Bingham

This research aimed to assemble an evidence base around perceived anti-social behaviour associated with the provision of drug treatment in Dublin’s city centre, upon which to build a strategic response incorporating short/medium/long term goals and actions within the area. It will be used to guide discussions on how to reduce visibility of drug related public nuisance, improve public perceptions of safety in the area and provide comprehensive, safe, effective and appropriate treatment services within a series of short, medium and long-term strategies.

Dublin:Strategic Response Group, 2012. 187p.

By The UK Drug Policy Commission

In this report, UKDPC proposes a radical rethink of how we structure our response to drug problems. It analyses the evidence for how policies and interventions could be improved, with recommendations for policymakers and practitioners to address the new and established challenges associated with drug use.

London: The UK Drug Policy Commission, 2012.173p.

By Julie Ayling

This article contributes to the growing literature on organised crime prevention by examining the approaches of two countries, Australia and the Netherlands. In many respects these countries are similar. They also have many organised crime problems in common. But their responses to those problems have been quite distinct. The Dutch administrative approach has been hailed as both unique and successful, while the Australian approach, primarily a reactive criminal law-based response, has encountered a storm of criticism. The article compares the two approaches and addresses the questions of whether and what Australia should learn from the Dutch approach.

Canberra: RegNet School of Regulation and Global Governance, Australian National University; European University Institute Dept of Law, 2013. 54p.