Acting Justice Charles-Etta Simmons is right to welcome victim impact statements into sentencing procedures in the Supreme Court.

Mrs. Justice Simmons presided over the first trial in which an impact statement was entered into the hearing on sentencing and admitted that it influenced her decision on the length of the sentence the accused man received. This is right and proper and long overdue.

For decades, the person convicted of a crime has had the right to express remorse and to explain what may have led to the crime being committed and prosecutors have had the right to recommended how the offence ought to be treated based on its severity and the convicted person's prior record.

But it has been rare that the effect of the crime on the victim has been heard. It is correct that a jury should not hear details of the crime's effects because the jury's function is to determine the facts of the case and how the offence was committed. For a jury to hear "mitigation" from the defendant or the effect of the incident on the victim could unfairly sway them and distract them from the facts.

But if a jury convicts, then it is absolutely correct that the victim or - in cases where the victim cannot speak - his or her family should have the right to describe the impact of the crime so that the judge can weigh all sides of the case in deciding on the sentence.