ISVA FAQ's: Victims’ Right to Review

If the police or Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) decide to close your case and you do not agree with this decision, you are entitled to request a Victims Right to Review (VRR). This means you are asking someone else, independent from the initial investigation, to look at the case again to see if they agree with the decision that has been made. 

The potential outcomes of a police VRR are: 

• They decide that the decision to close the case was incorrect and there is enough evidence to send it to the CPS for a charging decision. 

• They will reopen the investigation if they think there are any outstanding lines of enquiry the original investigation didn’t cover. 

• They uphold the original decision, which means the case will stay closed. 

The potential outcomes for a CPS VRR are: 

• They decide that the decision to close the case was incorrect and there is enough evidence to charge the suspect. 

• They decide to send it back to the police to gather additional evidence. 

• They decide to uphold the original decision, and the case will stay closed. 

As the survivor in the case, you have the right to request a VRR. However, some exceptions do apply where your case may not be eligible for this. These exceptions include: 

• If the perpetrator has died. 

• If the perpetrator could not be located and was not interviewed. 

• If the perpetrator was not interviewed for another reason. 

• If the police/CPS decide to progress some charges against the perpetrator but not all. 

If you are not eligible to request a VRR, the police or CPS should make you aware of this and explain why. 

No, you do not have to request a VRR. The option is available for people who do not agree with the decision to close the case and would like this decision to be reviewed by someone separate from the original investigation and decision. You may feel that you understand the reasons why the police or CPS are not able to continue with your case and, even if it is disappointing, you accept this decision and therefore do not want to do a VRR. Equally, you may have had a bad experience with the investigation and not want to revisit this, so even if you disagree with the decision, you may feel it is not in your best interest to prolong the process by requesting the VRR. It is completely your choice, and we are here to support you, whatever your decision. If you do not want to request a VRR after your case is closed, there is nothing further you need to do. 

The information on how to request a VRR should be in the No Further Action letter you receive from the police or CPS, depending on who has made the decision to close the case. There are a few different ways to ask for a police VRR, including writing a letter and posting it to the police, emailing it to them or completing an online form on the Sussex Police website. The link to the online form is below. 

https://www.sussex.police.uk/advice/advice-and-information/victim-support/vrr2/victim-right-to-review/victim-right-to-review/ 

We recommend writing a full letter and either posting or emailing it to the police. We suggest this option as it gives you the opportunity to write out in full your reasons for disagreeing with the decision to close the case and address any additional lines of enquiry you feel the police have missed, for example any witnesses you feel should have been contacted. This document will act as a guide for the information to include in your letter. If you have an ISVA, they will be able to help you with this too. If you are on the waiting list for an ISVA, we cannot guarantee one will be allocated to you prior to the three-month deadline for the VRR, so would recommend you complete and submit the VRR yourself to avoid running out of time. 

If your case is with Sussex Police, you can email your VRR letter to public.confidence@sussex.police.uk, or send it in the post to: 

Public Confidence Team
Sussex Police HQ
Malling House
Church Lane
Lewes BN7 2DZ 

To submit a CPS VRR, you can email your letter to southeastvrrandcomplaints@cps.gov.uk. 

If you decide to go ahead with a VRR, you will need to submit this within three months of the day you were told of the decision to close the case. This applies to both police and CPS VRRs. 

After you have submitted your VRR to the police, the police will aim to contact you to acknowledge your request within 10 working days. Once an officer has been allocated to your VRR, they will aim to complete the review within 30 working days. If there are any complexities with the case, it may take longer, but they should keep you updated. 

For CPS VRRs, your case will be allocated to a lawyer who was not involved in the original decision. In most cases the lawyer will tell you about their decision within 30 working days. If the review is likely to take longer than this, for example if there is a lot of evidence to consider, then they will let you know how long the review is likely to take and keep you updated with their progress. 

Information about you and the case: 

1. Your name, address, date of birth, and contact information for how you want them to contact you. 
2. The name of the officer in charge of the case (OIC). 
3. The crime reference number (CRN). 
4. Brief details of the case: i.e. the date(s) of the offence, how the perpetrator(s) will be referred to (e.g. Mr X), when the crime was reported and when you were informed of the decision to NFA the case. If you do not have all of this, that’s okay as they can find the report with the crime reference number, but it can be helpful context for whoever is reading the letter. 
5.  A brief summary of your experience of the case. 

Reasons given for the NFA decision: 

1. Quote the reasons given in the NFA letter as to why they have stopped investigating. 
2. Whether additional information was provided by the police in another way that was not in the letter (e.g. verbally or in an email). 

Reasons you disagree with the decision to NFA the case. Not all the below points will be relevant, but some of the reasons could include:  

1. Explanations for reasons given in the NFA letter that you do not think have been considered. 
2. Points on the evidence, including whether there is any information you have that you are not sure the police know about (if the case is reopened, you may be asked to provide an additional statement or ABE to cover the new information and why it wasn’t previously mentioned). 
3. Aspects of the case (such as evidence, explanations, or wider context) that you do not think the police have adequately considered or weighed. 
4. Evidence that has not previously been obtained or looked at which you think should be (if you are not sure whether they have been looked at or not, you can still include them but state that you don’t know if they were obtained). 
5. Police or CPS policies that support your argument, or contradict the NFA reasons, for example any victim blaming and explain why the decision is not consistent with these policies. 

A VRR seeks to change the outcome of the police decision, i.e. to reopen the investigation or to get the police to send the case to CPS for a charging decision. A complaint does not seek to change the outcome of the decision, but to raise issue with something that happened in the process and seek an apology or recognition of wrongdoing. 

The response to your VRR should address each point you raise individually as well as inform you of the outcome of your VRR so whether they are upholding the original decision meaning the case will stay closed, if they are reopening the investigation or if they are sending the case to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to review for a charging decision. A full explanation should be provided as to why they have come to the decision they have. The police have a legal duty to properly consider each point you raise and provide an explanation. 

­­Date: XX/XX/XXXX 

To whom it may concern 

Re. [your name] – Victim’s Right to Review (VRR) 

I write regarding the following incident/s: 

Date/s: 

Accused: [name of perpetrator] 

Crime Reference Number: 

I was informed on [date] that the Sussex Police [or other police force] have decided to take no further action against [perpetrator] following my report to the police. I write to request a VRR on the basis that the assessment of the evidence was wrong. 

The reasoning provided to me in the No Further Action (NFA) letter by the police is as follows. 

Include reasons for the NFA decision as explained in the letter; this can be directly copied in. 

I will address each of these points below to explain why I think the decision to take no further action in my case was wrong. 

Use each point included in the NFA letter as a heading for each section to challenge why you disagree with each specific reason provided. Under each heading you can: 

 a. Consider the reasons given by police for why the evidence was not strong enough to provide a realistic prospect of conviction and try to address them as much as possible.

 b. Consider whether there are points in the CPS guidance on rape and sexual offences or domestic abuse that may support your case. A list of resources is provided at the end of this document.

[The below section can be helpful to add in if one of the reasons given was that there wasn’t any supportive evidence, and it was your word against the suspects, but it may not be relevant to all cases]. 

Law on corroboration – incorrect application of the law 

I am concerned that the main reason the police came to the NFA decision was because it found that without corroboration of my account, a prosecution could not be brought. Independent corroborative evidence can indeed be helpful; however, it is not necessary and is a fundamental error in law. Chapter two of the CPS Legal Guidance on RASSO states: 

“Prosecutors must not introduce a requirement for corroboration in the review process – one person’s word can be enough (and often is) but the quality of the evidence must be assessed in the manner described above” 

I am aware that Parliament abolished the need for corroboration in s.32 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. I am also aware that many prosecutions are brought which are based purely on an account by a victim, both in sexual offence cases and in other types of crime. As you will know, many sexual offence incidents take place when there are no other witnesses or evidence. 

If this approach was correct to require corroborative evidence, then it would mean that a great many victims would be outside the protection of the law. There are many offences that are prosecuted on the victim’s word alone and there is no reason why this situation should be any different.  

Chapter two of the CPS Legal Guidance on RASSO states:  

“One word against another 

Corroboration is not required as a matter of law. Many RASSO cases will feature limited or no corroborative evidence. It is important to try and identify supporting evidence in such cases. It is essential that prosecutors do not introduce a requirement for corroboration in their review process or identify the ‘one versus one’ feature of the case as a negative in their assessment of the evidence. One person’s word can be sufficient to provide a realistic prospect of conviction. A jury can and does convict in such cases. 

The issues may be lack of consent or reasonable belief in consent. Even in these cases, it is not unusual that the evidence consists of more than merely two opposing counts of equal credibility. There may be evidence of the complainant having sustained injuries; the suspect’s account is implausible or is undermined by other evidence; or there are partial admissions which support the complainant’s account. First complaint, manner and demeanor, and consistency may also be important. 

Where it is one person’s word against another’s, then a jury will look to other factors to help decide whether the prosecution has proved its case. The review should disregard factors that are irrelevant or based on myths or stereotypes (see Chapter 4 for further information on tackling myths and stereotypes). We should expect juries to be properly directed about any matters that might give rise to misconceived assumptions (e.g. delayed complaints).” 

The police have fundamentally misunderstood the law on corroboration. In the case of R (B) v DPP [2009] EWHC 106 (Admin) it was made clear that it is an error of law to impose a corroboration requirement. As held by Toulson LJ at para. 50, ‘for a Crown prosecutor effectively to adopt a corroboration requirement in such cases, which Parliament has abolished, would be wrong’. 

Additional evidence not previously considered 

I also would like to address additional evidence that the police did not consider during the investigation. I feel that there cannot be a full investigation without all relevant information being considered and reviewed. [if relevant] 

 c. Consider what additional evidence was sought during the investigation apart from your account and whether there is further evidence that should be obtained. This can include accounts given by you to others such as family members, professionals, witnesses, medical records, previous incidents reported, bad character evidence of the suspect etc. – set out a list of further evidence that the investigation should seek. You can also explain why this wasn’t provided to the police beforehand, if it is new information, or explain why you don’t think it was looked at in the original investigation if you had provided the information to the police. 

d. Consider whether there are other charges that could be brought which were not considered at the first NFA decision.

Request for referral of this matter to the CPS for a charging decision 

In accordance with the CPS Director’s Guidance on Charging paragraph 7.3, where the decision requires the assessment of complex evidence or legal issues it is appropriate for the case to be referred to the CPS for early advice: 

“Investigators must consider seeking early advice in serious, sensitive, or complex cases. Cases involving a death, rape, or other serious sexual offence should always be considered for early referral, particularly once a suspect has been identified and it appears that continuing the investigation will provide evidence upon which a charging decision may be made.”  

I would argue that due to the above reasons, with the legal issues and general complexities with this case, it would be more appropriate for the CPS and ultimately a jury to make the decision on such matters, not the police. Therefore, I would ask again for the case to be reopened, fully investigated covering all lines of enquiry [if relevant], and then submitted to the CPS for a charging decision. 

To be lawful, a VRR outcome must engage with each of the points made in this letter (in accordance with the reasoning of the Administrative Court in R (Torpey) v DPP [2019] EWHC 1804 (Admin) and R(L) v DPP [2020] EWHC 1815 (Admin)). 

I look forward to receiving acknowledgement of receipt of this request for a VRR and to the outcome of the VRR. Please do feel free to contact me if you require any further information. 

Yours sincerely, 

[YOUR NAME] 

[Your contact information]