Victim Impact Statements at Sentencing: The Relevance of Ancillary Harm

Marie Manikis (with Julian V. Roberts), “Victim Impact Statements at Sentencing: The Relevance of Ancillary Harm” (2010) 15:1 Canadian Criminal Law Review, 1-29

25 Pages Posted: 16 Nov 2016 Last revised: 19 Nov 2016

See all articles by Julian V. Roberts

Julian V. Roberts

University of Oxford - Centre for Criminology

Marie Manikis

McGill University - Faculty of Law

Date Written: November 14, 2010

Abstract

This article discusses the Quebec Court of Appeal decision in Cook that provides an unambiguous affirmation of the importance of victim impact evidence as a source of aggravation at sentencing. If followed in other jurisdictions, the decision will have a significant impact on the evolution of victim impact statements. To date, the victim impact statement has remained in a legal no man’s land, somewhere between an unsworn statement made by the victim, which may (or may not) be entered into the record and a form of evidence that can affect the quantum of punishment and hence the liberty interests of the defendant. This state of affairs is unsatisfactory for all concerned. In our view a victim impact statement serves a number of purposes, some expressive in nature. We discuss the concept of ancillary harm — inflicted on secondary crime victims — to demonstrate the utility of impact statements as a source of legally-relevant information at sentencing. We conclude that an impact statement is evidence that enables the court to reach a more accurate determination of the harm created by the offence. In this sense the use of victim impact evidence promotes the principle of proportionality at sentencing. This evidence is properly adduced at a separate penalty phase of the criminal process, namely the sentencing hearing.

Suggested Citation

Roberts, Julian V. and Manikis, Marie, Victim Impact Statements at Sentencing: The Relevance of Ancillary Harm (November 14, 2010). Marie Manikis (with Julian V. Roberts), “Victim Impact Statements at Sentencing: The Relevance of Ancillary Harm” (2010) 15:1 Canadian Criminal Law Review, 1-29, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2869326 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2869326

Julian V. Roberts

University of Oxford - Centre for Criminology ( email )

Manor Road Building
Manor Road
Oxford, OX1 3UQ
United Kingdom

Marie Manikis (Contact Author)

McGill University - Faculty of Law ( email )

3644 Peel Street
Montreal H3A 1W9, Quebec
Canada

Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?

Paper statistics

Downloads
124
Abstract Views
642
rank
267,982
PlumX Metrics