VICTIM impact statements (VIS) were introduced to Irish courts in 1993 to give survivors of crime, particularly sexual crime, a voice in the judicial process.

The move was felt to be a long overdue humanisation of the prosecution procedure, which had largely ignored victims in the past. Courts were told to “take into account, and where necessary, receive evidence or submissions concerning, any effect of the offence on the person in respect of whom the offence was committed”.

Similar rules were introduced in Britain last year and a two-year pilot study of the impact of such statements is due next month in Scotland.

In 2003, Justice Paul Carney, who allowed Majella Holohan to make a statement in last week’s sentencing hearing of her son’s killer, noted that a victim impact statement may only be used to ensure that a judge has all the relevant details to arrive at the right sentence. He was criticising a VIS he had received from the Dublin Rape Crisis Centre that, he said, had been made for lobbying purposes.

Majella Holohan’s controversial use of the statement last week to introduce evidence that she was aware of, but that had not been heard by the jury, is one way in which a VIS can jeopardise the outcome of a trial.

No new evidence should be introduced to the court as part of a VIS, and if it is, the judge is required to disregard it in sentencing.

Last Tuesday in Ennis, Justice Carney berated Wayne O’Donoghue’s lawyers for assuming that he would be swayed by the testimony. Nevertheless, he allowed a recess forthe defence to gather themselves before continuing.

Only in recent years has the practice begun of allowing families of victims to make statements. The Criminal Justice Act 1993 makes no mention of their right to speak about the impact of the loss of a relative.

Advocates for Victims Of Homicide (Advic), a lobby group, says that the option of a applying for a VIS does not go far enough in addressing the rights of victims and are calling for legislation making it mandatory to allow such evidence to be heard. “Families very often are not kept informed, or not well enough informed, of the investigation, particularly when the DPP takes charge,” said Annie Mulvaney, the secretary of Advic.

“We want a liaison person assigned to the family when the DPP takes on the case, to stay with the family throughout the process. At the moment the family will get bits of information from the gardai, but we are saying this is not good enough. If, at some stage, the family, after having gone through so much, can’t have just one way of expressing what they are feeling after such a traumatic ordeal, then there is something deeply wrong.

“The DPP doesn’t tell you what he is doing and what decisions are being taken. Families get very frustrated and angry, and despair at the situation.”

In another controversial VIS in 2004, Mary Murphy,whose son, Brian, 18, was beaten to death outside a nightclub, said she felt “brutalised” by the trial and that “the way the justice system works makes me think that we live in a very unsafe society”.

But how much weight should be attached to victims’ accounts? Experts say that the 1993 act is flawed because it does not address this issue.

Some argue that victims simply want to make statements to get revenge, and that this should be taken into account.

As in the case of Majella Holohan, families of victims may feel betrayed by the justice system when abstract legal principles get in the way of what they see as common-sense exposure of evidence related to the crime. The Holohans’ outburst in the courtroom was based on what they perceived as the failure of the trial to address their unanswered questions about O’Donoghue’s possible motives for killing their son. It was not just, as Justice Carney said in his sentencing, related to “the cover-up which caused grief and distress” to them.

In a Cork Law Society discussion paper of the issues around VIS Roberta Guiry, a lawyer, writes: “The victim is usually present because of a personal need to be involved. They need to be reassured that the criminal justice system is doing its job correctly so they can actually ensure that justice is being done.

“While it is questionable as to the courts’ obligation to help with this healing, it is certainly an obligation of the law to ensure that justice is done and seen to be done.” A common theme in the debate is that rights and protections for those accused of crimes are enshrined in law, unlike rights for victims, which largely are not.

Guiry writes: “The criminal justice process should not seek to prefer victims over others. The offender, no matter how heinous the crime, still has rights which are often given a back seat in the rush to accommodate victims.

Last week’s sentencing hearing, and the use of the VIS by Majella Holohan to vent her feelings about what she perceived as the inadequacy of the prosecution case, shows both the risks in allowing emotional testimony to be given, and how little weight a judge may put on them in deciding the length of sentence.

Times Recommends

• Tehran cannot live up to its rhetoric
• The new unicycle that will ‘change the world’
• We cannot wish away Iran’s bomb