Proposed Fund for Victims of Violent Crime Bill

1. Proposed Fund for Victims of Violent Crime Bill Presentation to the Standing Committee on Private Member’s Legislative Proposals and Special Petitions 24 August 2007

2. Outline of the Presentation • Purpose • What the Bill proposes • Treasury’s Comments • Financial Implications • Policy Considerations • Concluding Remarks

3. Purpose of the Presentation • To share with the committee Treasury’s views on the proposed Fund for the Victims of Violent Crime Bill

4. What the Bill proposes • Establishment of a dedicated fund to assist the victims of violent crime • Violent crime is defined as murder, rape, indecent assault, public violence, terrorism, kidnapping, assault or any other crime committed in RSA • A victim is any person who has been killed or has suffered injury as a result of a violent crime committed against him/her or his / her spouse & minor children

5. What the Bill proposes (Cont.) • Into the fund will be paid: • All fines imposed by the courts • All bail monies forfeited to the state • Monies appropriated by Parliament • Any donations • MoJ may in consultation with MoF prescribe the details of the management of the fund, among other things • “No double-dipping” (i.e can’t be compensated if already compensated from other sources or initiatives e.g TRC)

6. Treasury’s Comments • Number of victims is the cost driver – number of victims is currently not known • Further research must be done • Financial impact assessment to be undertaken • Fund will divert funds from crime prevention and non-financial support post victimisation – is this appropriate? • There are methodological challenges regarding the determination of the value of damages especially taking into account that compensation will be in monetary terms

7. Treasury’s Comments (Cont.) • The bill does not provide for criteria or factors that must inform decisions to pay compensation or the amount of compensation that should be paid • Compensation further complicated by the distribution of compensation amongst beneficiaries in cases where actual beneficiaries not able to take the compensation or all beneficiaries not known • Existing remedies: Section 300 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 51 of 1977 and the Victims Charter makes provision for victim to claim compensation – • To what extent are victims aware of this right? • To what extent has this provision been implemented/enforced by our courts order issued to those found guilty?

8. Treasury’s Comments (Cont.) • Should all available remedies not be exhausted? • Not PFMA, but Constitution requiring all monies received to be paid into the NRF (unless excluded) • Trust – • As an institutional form undesirable because of lack of adequate governance and oversight mechanisms inherent in this institutional form • Accountability problematic • Public entity?

9. Treasury’s Comments (Cont.) • The bill is conceptualised within the context of restorative justice - the person who committed the crime should literally pay for the economic harm caused to the victim • In other countries (e.g USA), victims have both constitutional and statutory rights to restitution California constitution reads: “it is the unequivocal intention of the people of the state of California that all persons who suffer losses as a result of criminal activity shall have the right to restitution from the person convicted of the crimes for losses they suffer” • South Africa should perhaps consider making a constitutional amendment similar to Californian constitution to make it mandatory for the judiciary to consider ordering compensation

10. Selected Crime stats – A Comparison The risk of being a victim of crime in the USA is low and emphasis is put on the principle that the offender should compensate the victim, not State

11. Financial implications R’000 Figure 1: Fines, Penalties and Bail Monies Collected: 2003/04 – 2006/07

12. Financial implications (affordability) • Further demonstration of financial implications using Texas Compensation Fund as an example • Claims may be approved for benefits up to a total of $50 000 or $75 000 and may be paid to the victims or service provider on behalf of the victim • $50 000 for expenses such as counseling, medical, nursing care etc and $75 000 for catastrophic injuries resulting in a total and permanent disability • Using 2005 prices, the maximum benefit of $50 000 and $75 000 translate into R320 000 and R480 000 respectively

13. Financial Implications (affordability) • 209 451 and 417 122 robberies in South Africa and USA in 2005, assuming that all victims from each robbery where eligible for a maximum benefit $50 000 • The total claims (in Rands) as a percentage of GDP would have been 4.24% and 0.16% for SA and USA respectively • It appears that Countries that have introduced Compensation Fund could afford and have relatively lower crime rate per capita than South Africa

14. Policy considerations • Most appropriate response given developmental objectives? • 1st world country response to the challenges of a developing state • Prevention rather than cure • Likelyhood that Bill will benefit the rich over the poor as rich people will incur more expensive medical treatment, loss of income etc.

15. Concluding comments • NT strongly feels that focus must be on – • reducing crime • Reducing repeat victimisation • bringing offenders to justice • recovery of and “in kind” support for the victim • Research & assessments to be done to assess real impact of proposed Bill – • Further research must be done on potential number of victims • Financial impact assessment to be undertaken • Assessment of current services and support available • Public funds better utilised in strengthening the criminal justice system and supporting the victims.

16. Thank you