*/
Criminal
The Ministry of Justice announced on 11 June that there will be a pilot of s 28 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 which allows for recorded, pre-trial cross examination of vulnerable and intimidated witnesses “in cases where there may be a delay in the holding of the trial or where the nature of the case is such that the witness could be cross-examined in advance of trial”. The pilot, which will start by the end of the year, will last six months and will take place at the Crown courts at Liverpool, Leeds and Kingston-on-Thames.
Section 28 aims to bring forward cross-examination to a time much closer to the date of the complaint. The average time between first appearance and Crown court trials where children need to give evidence is still eight months, longer than for other criminal cases, and children often wait for hours to give their evidence. Under s 28, the judge would direct how the examination takes place; under the statute the defendant must be able to see and hear the questioning and to communicate with his lawyers. Western Australia adopted the pre-recorded system in 2008; by 2012 there had only been two applications to call the child at the trial. During that time the Court of Appeal in this country has made it clear that it is more appropriate to point out important inconsistencies in the vulnerable witness’s account after he has given evidence, rather than to make comment during cross-examination.
Bar Chairman Maura McGowan QC said there is a “difficult balance” between ensuring a defendant receives a fair trial and protecting witnesses, particularly vulnerable ones and “in the overwhelming majority of cases, this balance is struck”. “[W]e support any attempts to reduce the stress of the experience for witnesses,” but “proper measures need to be put in place to ensure that all the information is available at the earliest possible instance to avoid recalling witnesses”.
The Government’s announcement came days after the Home Affairs Select Committee issued its report on child sexual exploitation and the response to localised grooming, prompted by the recent Rochdale and Oxford trials. Concluding that “the balance is skewed too strongly in favour of protecting the defendant’s rights as opposed to the very vulnerable witnesses in cases of child sexual exploitation” it called for the immediate implementation of s 28 by January 2014. The report was also concerned about “the failure of special measures to be implemented correctly”and recommended that if the issue recurs, each court should have a named individual with “responsibility for ensuring that special measures are being implemented appropriately”.
The Committee was also deeply concerned by some of the examples of language used in court that stereotype child sexual exploitation victims. (One counsel in the Oxford case reportedly asked: “Were these girls victims from the start or were they naughty girls doing grown up things they bitterly regret?”)
It calls for further training for the judiciary and queried the necessity for every defendant’s counsel to cross examine the complainants. “We invite the Bar Standards Board and Solicitors Regulation Authority to work with the Judicial College and the Ministry of Justice to develop and provide similar training for barristers and solicitor advocates.” For each region a team of specialist child sexual exploitation judges, prosecutors, police witness support and ushers should be identified and trained and a specialist court room established.
Section 28 aims to bring forward cross-examination to a time much closer to the date of the complaint. The average time between first appearance and Crown court trials where children need to give evidence is still eight months, longer than for other criminal cases, and children often wait for hours to give their evidence. Under s 28, the judge would direct how the examination takes place; under the statute the defendant must be able to see and hear the questioning and to communicate with his lawyers. Western Australia adopted the pre-recorded system in 2008; by 2012 there had only been two applications to call the child at the trial. During that time the Court of Appeal in this country has made it clear that it is more appropriate to point out important inconsistencies in the vulnerable witness’s account after he has given evidence, rather than to make comment during cross-examination.
Bar Chairman Maura McGowan QC said there is a “difficult balance” between ensuring a defendant receives a fair trial and protecting witnesses, particularly vulnerable ones and “in the overwhelming majority of cases, this balance is struck”. “[W]e support any attempts to reduce the stress of the experience for witnesses,” but “proper measures need to be put in place to ensure that all the information is available at the earliest possible instance to avoid recalling witnesses”.
The Government’s announcement came days after the Home Affairs Select Committee issued its report on child sexual exploitation and the response to localised grooming, prompted by the recent Rochdale and Oxford trials. Concluding that “the balance is skewed too strongly in favour of protecting the defendant’s rights as opposed to the very vulnerable witnesses in cases of child sexual exploitation” it called for the immediate implementation of s 28 by January 2014. The report was also concerned about “the failure of special measures to be implemented correctly”and recommended that if the issue recurs, each court should have a named individual with “responsibility for ensuring that special measures are being implemented appropriately”.
The Committee was also deeply concerned by some of the examples of language used in court that stereotype child sexual exploitation victims. (One counsel in the Oxford case reportedly asked: “Were these girls victims from the start or were they naughty girls doing grown up things they bitterly regret?”)
It calls for further training for the judiciary and queried the necessity for every defendant’s counsel to cross examine the complainants. “We invite the Bar Standards Board and Solicitors Regulation Authority to work with the Judicial College and the Ministry of Justice to develop and provide similar training for barristers and solicitor advocates.” For each region a team of specialist child sexual exploitation judges, prosecutors, police witness support and ushers should be identified and trained and a specialist court room established.
Criminal
The Ministry of Justice announced on 11 June that there will be a pilot of s 28 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 which allows for recorded, pre-trial cross examination of vulnerable and intimidated witnesses “in cases where there may be a delay in the holding of the trial or where the nature of the case is such that the witness could be cross-examined in advance of trial”. The pilot, which will start by the end of the year, will last six months and will take place at the Crown courts at Liverpool, Leeds and Kingston-on-Thames.
The Chair of the Bar reports back
Clement Cowley, Partner at The Penny Group, explains how global events can influence the performance of pensions and ISAs, and why taking a long-term approach to investing is often the most effective strategy
Mário Barroso, Head of R&D and Method Development at AlphaBiolabs, discusses what family law professionals need to know about hallucinogens, from the main hallucinogenic drugs encountered in family proceedings, to their effects and the testing options available
Harmony Christian Ministries is the latest charity to benefit from a £500 donation from AlphaBiolabs via the company’s Giving Back initiative
By David Green
Mário Barroso, Head of R&D and Method Development at AlphaBiolabs, examines the forensic science underpinning hair drug testing, its evidential scope and limitations, and why it remains the gold standard for evidencing patterns of drug use in family proceedings
At the start of her term, Chair of the Bar 2026 Kirsty Brimelow KC set out a series of priorities for the year ahead. One of those priorities was children in the justice system
As the world becomes more digital, Barbara Vinagre Mota examines international research into the mental health consequences of judges’ exposure to graphic and immersive evidence, highlighting the importance of support systems
In an era of patient-centred care and growing concern over misconduct in medical settings, why do women still lack the right to choose women consultants for examination and treatment? Charles Davey investigates
Reviewed by Daniel Barnett
James McNeill Whistler at Tate Britain until 27 September Rothko in Florence at Palazzo Strozzi until 23 August Reviewed by Stephen Cragg KC
