Article 18 of the Victims’ Rights Directive requires Member States to ensure a wide range of measures to protect victims and their family members. These include protection from secondary victimisation (by the justice system) and repeat victimisation (by the offender/s). Article 22 requires Member States’ authorities to assess protection needs. If protection is required, they must also determine the measures to adopt. Article 25 obliges Member States to provide officials likely to come into contact with victims, such as police officers, with general and specialist training appropriate to their contact with victims to increase their awareness of victims’ needs.
Victims have the right to be protected from so-called ‘secondary victimisation’, which can occur when those who come into contact with the victim reinforce the victim’s experience of victimisation; for example, through inappropriate and repetitive questioning of the victim. Being confronted with the presence of the offender during judicial procedures can also cause secondary victimisation.
The risk of secondary victimisation is exacerbated depending on how closely, if at all, police and judicial authorities and support services cooperate and coordinate when dealing with a victim during various stages of the criminal justice process.
FRA’s findings show that Member States generally lack comprehensive and effective mechanisms to protect victims who are often exposed to secondary victimisation in practice (Underpinning victims’ rights, 2023). For example, FRA qualitative research (2019) examining the experience of victims of violent crime during criminal proceedings found that none of the seven EU Member States covered by the research had a reliable mechanism in place to assess risks and to protect victims from secondary victimisation caused by the presence of the offender (Justice for victims of violent crime, Part II, 2019).
Other challenges relate to how the police and criminal justice practitioners treat victims during proceedings. Over four in 10 adult victims of violent crime – who were interviewed by FRA across seven EU Member States (81 interviewees in total) – who had experienced criminal proceedings, stated that their experience during investigations and court proceedings added to the harm done by the offender (see Figure 3). In other words, they felt that criminal proceedings made things worse rather than better and did not perceive the proceedings as supporting them in coming to terms with their victimisation. In comparison, one third of the interviewees answered that they could not tell or did not know, while only 23% said that their experience during criminal justice proceedings mitigated the harm (Justice for victims of violent crime, Part II, 2019).
Figure 3 – Victims’ assessment of the impact of criminal proceedings: ‘Overall, what I experienced during the investigation and the court proceedings…’ (%)
Pie chart displaying three possible responses from victims on the impact of criminal proceedings to the question ‘Overall, what I experienced during the investigation and the court proceedings…’. 44 % of respondents replied ‘Rather added to the harm done by the offender’. 23 % responded ‘Mitigated the harm done by the offender’, while 33 % replied ‘I couldn’t tell/don’t know’.
Notes: N=81.
Source: FRA (2019), ‘Proceedings that do justice: Justice for victims of violent crime, Part II’, fig. 31, p. 90.
FRA’s data reveal some specific challenges that lie behind such experiences of victims with regard to secondary victimisation, as well as solutions to mitigate them.
Efficient cooperation between the various actors with whom victims come into contact during criminal justice proceedings – such as the police, judicial practitioners and victim support services – and training of these actors is needed to mitigate the risk of secondary victimisation. This includes reviewing and adjusting necessary protection measures for victims at the different stages of the procedure. However, FRA data show that Member States often lack official procedures and practical guidance or protocols for the various actors involved to coordinate the provision of services and information to victims, resulting in unclear roles and obligations. The extent to which support and information provision is coordinated and such actors cooperate greatly impacts victims’ experiences and their role in proceedings (Justice for victims of violent crime, Part IV, 2019).
Whether or not the risk of secondary victimisation is assessed often depends on individual police officers (Justice for victims of violent crime, Part II, 2019). Assessments are not systematically or routinely conducted, often resulting in inadequate protection measures that leave victims at risk of further victimisation or harm. Often, the police are not aware of the relevant risks or of their duty to assess them. They may lack the resources to carry out time-consuming assessments and do not have the power to monitor risks during different stages of the proceedings, such as during the trial. As a result, protection often remains largely in the hands of victim support services and lawyers, and if victims know about and act on their rights to protection against secondary victimisation, it is often thanks to the advice that they provide. However, victim support services and lawyers are ultimately not in a position to adopt protective measures, as this should be effectively done by and remains the responsibility of the state (Justice for victims of violent crime, Part II, 2019). This should include ensuring a safe environment that facilitates victims’ meaningful participation in judicial proceedings - as underlined by FRA’s research exploring children’s experiences of the justice system from the perspectives of both children and professionals [Child-friendly justice (children’s perspectives) 2017 and Child-friendly justice (professionals’ perspectives) 2015], which shows that establishing a child-friendly environment when dealing with child victims (for example during questioning or hearings) is particularly important for preventing secondary victimisation.
Adding to the lack of guidelines and protocols to systematically counter secondary victimisation, FRA’s research consistently points to the necessity of stepping up training for the police about victims’ rights, especially regarding victims in particularly vulnerable situations. For victims at particularly high risk of secondary victimisation, such as child victims, women victims of sexual or gender-based violence, victims of abuse in care homes for older people, victims with disabilities, or prisoners who are victims of prison officers’ violence, appropriate and targeted responses are even more pressing to guarantee them effective protection from secondary victimisation.
The need for improving the response to victims by the police (as one element of protection against secondary victimisation) is directly linked to the challenge of underreporting and is reflected by FRA’s data on this. For example, Chapter 1 on ‘Facilitating reporting’ outlined a number of reasons frequently given by victims as to why they do not report crime to the police. Another reason many victims across all FRA’s surveys give for not reporting is “I don’t trust the police”. For example:
- About one in 10 respondents to the Fundamental Rights Survey, 2021 (general population) gave this reason for not reporting the most recent incident of violence. The survey also found that people who are older, have lower education levels, or struggle to ‘make ends meet’ are generally less willing to engage law enforcement.
-
Victims across different minority groups consistently mention lack of trust in the police as a prominent reason for not reporting. For example:
- 16 % of victims of racist violence cited this reason for not reporting violent incidents as ‘lack of trust in the police or being afraid of the police’ (Being Black in the EU, 2023).
- 34 % of respondents to FRA’s survey LGBTIQ at a crossroads: progress and challenges, 2024 did not report the most recent hate-motivated physical or sexual attack because they did not trust the police.
Fear of not being believed or that the incident would not be taken seriously is another reason respondents to FRA surveys frequently give for not reporting. This is linked to victims’ lack of trust in the police to react to crime reporting in a way that they consider appropriate. That is, victims are broadly concerned that instead of taking the incident seriously, the police will be dismissive or react inappropriately.
Data from FRA surveys confirm that victims are indeed often subjected to or fear inappropriate reactions or inadequate responses by those they contact concerning their victimisation; including disinterest, victim-blaming, or homophobic or xenophobic reactions. For example:
- FRA’s latest survey LGBTIQ at a crossroads: progress and challenges, 2024 reveals that 33% of victims did not report the most recent hate-motivated physical or sexual attack due to fear of homophobic/transphobic reactions from the police, and some survey respondents reported experiencing such reactions.
- According to FRA’s in-depth interviews with victims of violent crime, several women who were victims of partner violence found that the police were unsympathetic, did not take them seriously, or showed a lack of understanding about the situation of a victim caught in a cycle of partner violence. Some police were reported as viewing interviewees’ victimisation as a ‘family affair’ and were reluctant to intervene, and instead advised victims on how to organise their private lives. In some cases, victims also encountered similar attitudes from other professionals (Justice for victims of violent crime, Part IV, 2019).
FRA’s data also highlight that many respondents to FRA’s surveys have expressed dissatisfaction with how the police handled their complaint. For example:
-
Among Muslims who reported an incident of racist violence to the police, 48 % were satisfied with how the police handled the complaint, and 52 %, over a half, were dissatisfied (Being Muslim in the EU – Experiences of Muslims, 2024).
- 79 % of respondents who reported antisemitic violence to the police and 68 % of those who reported antisemitic harassment were ‘somewhat’ or ‘very’ dissatisfied with how the police handled their complaint (Jewish People’s Experiences and Perceptions of Antisemitism, 2024.
- 69 % of respondents to FRA’s survey LGBTIQ at a crossroads: progress and challenges, 2024 were dissatisfied with how the police handled complaints related to hate-motivated physical violence, and 65 % complaints related to harassment.
Complaints that are not handled properly erode people’s trust in the authorities’ ability to address crime effectively, and can affect the decision of victims – as well as victims’ families or friends – to report future crimes. Again, this shows a clear link between the need for efficient training of the police and other actors in contact with victims, and increasing reporting rates in practice.
FRA research (Underpinning victims’ rights, 2023) has highlighted various actions that can address some of the key challenges for avoiding secondary victimisation of victims.For example:
- Ensure that authorities carry out a targeted individual assessment of the victim’s needs and vulnerability (Article 22 of the Victims’ Rights Directive) and establish the resulting necessary protection measures needed (Article 23 of the Victims’ Rights Directive).
- Introduce a coordinated/multiagency approach to dealing with victims; e.g. the Barnahus model, as outlined below, which was developed to protect child victims from secondary victimisation and has become a recommended practice in recent years (see FRA, ‘Mapping Child Protection Systems in the EU – Update 2023’, as well as earlier FRA research on children’s experiences of the justice system that reveals child victims’ positive evaluations of a multiagency approach to involving them in justice proceedings: Child-friendly justice, 2017).
- Improve responses to victims by the police and all actors likely to come into contact with victims – e.g. through training.
The following section focuses on the last two of these examples.
A promising practice based on coordinated action to protect victims from secondary victimisation is the Barnahus model, developed in Iceland. This model was originally developed to address cases of physical or sexual violence against children and, through a multiagency approach, it provides comprehensive services (legal, social/support, medical) to children from one facility and is specially designed to be child-friendly.
Importantly, for the Barnahus model to be effective, criminal justice systems need to formally recognise it. In some Member States it is part of social services or child protection authorities, while in others it is coordinated by law enforcement or the health system. In some Barnahus models, a police officer interviews the child, while in others a psychologist or a social worker does. All people involved have special training, follow evidence-based protocols, and the interviews are observed by multidisciplinary team representatives (Underpinning victims’ rights, 2023).
FRA’s data on victims’ experiences strongly suggest that such a model could also be beneficial to victims other than children – particularly those in vulnerable situations (such as experiencing dependency on perpetrators) or who are at risk of repeat or secondary victimisation. It could have a real impact in addressing some of the barriers described in this paper that prevent victims from reporting and accessing justice. Cases of severe physical and psychological violence – characteristic of cases of intimate partner violence, abuse of state authority (e.g. police violence or abuse of inmates in prisons), and sexual abuse and hate crime – often reflect comparable dynamics among adult victims. The Barnahus approach would bring significant advantages in such cases, including more effective protection from secondary victimisation, as the experiences of some Member States show.
To ensure efficient approaches to responding to victims, clear operational guidelines would be needed for systematic action at different stages from the different actors involved. Additionally, at the national level, protocols are essential to effectively organise cooperation between the network of actors involved in addressing the rights and needs of victims and to ensure protection and mitigation against the risk of secondary victimisation. To work effectively, such protocols should involve cooperation between law enforcement, prosecution authorities, judges, detention authorities, restorative justice services, victim support services and other relevant organisations, and be established by appropriate legislative measures. They must be reviewed periodically and ensure that the collection and sharing of information between the relevant actors is in line with data protection regulations and, in many cases, strictly anonymised.
Consistent and comprehensive training is needed to ensure the presence of more qualified police officers and practitioners who are able to acknowledge and specifically respond to victims and protect them effectively from secondary victimisation. As mentioned, this is also one of the key actions/solutions to addressing the challenge of underreporting, and is heavily linked to this aspect.
Training programmes should be designed to address all actors likely to come into contact with victims according to the services they provide, including the police, judges, prosecutors, lawyers, health care professionals, victim support personnel, translators and interpreters, etc. Based on victims’ and practitioners’ experiences, FRA findings point to the following aspects that should be covered by training:
- Comprehensive communication to raise awareness of victims’ rights as fundamental rights, to set uniform standards for police officers and practitioners on victims’ rights, and to help counter myths and preconceived views that stand in the way of victims’ recognition (Justice for victims of violent crime, Part II, 2019).
- Building skills and knowledge necessary for working with victims in general, as well as specialised skill sets to ensure targeted and appropriate responses for specific groups of victims. This involves the systematic application of the individual assessment of victims’ needs, both of support and protection from secondary and repeat victimisation, which is aligned with their legal rights.
- Specific sessions on, for example, anti-racism, anti-discrimination, and on gender-appropriate questioning, etc., to be integral parts of mandatory training, to improve skillsets and to ensure that secondary victimisation is prevented (FRA, Addressing Racism in Policing, 2024).
- Multiagency training to promote awareness and knowledge about other actors involved in responding to and protecting victims (to develop and strengthen relationships, referral mechanisms and protocols of cooperation and prevent secondary victimisation).
Both at national and international level, institutions involved in the training of law enforcement agencies or the judiciary are encouraged to develop training to promote and ensure appropriate, efficient and effective responses to crime victims (Justice for victims of violent crime, Part II, 2019). The European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Training (CEPOL) and the European Judicial Training Network (EJTN) are particularly relevant at the EU level. At the Member State level, professional and responsible training bodies and organisations, both governmental and non-governmental, including victims’ associations and civil society organisations, also play a key role. Adequate support and funding by Member States is crucial in this regard.
Together with training, accountability is important for countering secondary victimisation. As highlighted in the recent FRA report Addressing Racism in Policing (2024), a strong, independent oversight mechanism and effective whistle-blowing protection are essential parts of a police accountability system. The oversight framework should reflect the powers of the police, be independent and have appropriate legal mandates and competences. This includes ensuring the collection of quality data on complaints against the police (number, type, etc.) to be able to systematically monitor, seek accountability and improve responses to victims.
Strong and shared awareness of victims’ rights, multidisciplinary skills, solid training and reliable mechanisms to coordinate and oversee responses can greatly decrease the risk of secondary victimisation and encourage victims’ active participation in criminal proceedings. It would also contribute to increasing society’s trust in the police and to addressing some of the reasons for victims not reporting crime that relate to lack of trust in the police or fear that the police will not be able to do anything or take the victim seriously (see ‘Reasons why victims do not report to the police’ in Chapter 1 on ‘Facilitating reporting’).