Thanks, dear. Hugs are very much appreciated at the moment.
And, no, no, I love talking about it, stop me when I get boring.
My research topic is, briefly, what are known as special measures directions - those things that a court can do do to make life easier for vulnerable and intimidated witnesses - and their potential conflict with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights ("Everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing...", etc.).
The standard SMDs come from the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 and are simple things: testifying behind a screen, over a live link, pre-recorded video interviews, barristers and judges taking their wigs and gowns off (I love this!) and the use of intermediaries and communications aids. But section 28 of the Act, which provides for pre-recorded cross-examination of the witness, has never been commenced - and the Home Office says it never will be, as it's potentially in contravention of Article 6 and it hasn't worked in limited trials.
But the little girl in the above case seems to have been cross-examined over video link whilst having given video-recorded evidence in chief - which is interesting, because I was under the impression that video-recorded evidence had to be cross-examined in open court or else not admitted. Which seems counter-intuitive, so maybe I did misread the impact of the legislation, but now I need to find out if the above case actually represents a departure from the status quo or whether someone somewhere has seen sense over the issue of cross-examining witnesses over the live link. And the number of four-year-olds testifying at the Old Bailey is understandably low, so I think this may be the only case I get to look at.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
ninetydegrees
no subject
on 2009-05-01 09:51 pm (UTC)And, no, no, I love talking about it, stop me when I get boring.
My research topic is, briefly, what are known as special measures directions - those things that a court can do do to make life easier for vulnerable and intimidated witnesses - and their potential conflict with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights ("Everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing...", etc.).
The standard SMDs come from the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 and are simple things: testifying behind a screen, over a live link, pre-recorded video interviews, barristers and judges taking their wigs and gowns off (I love this!) and the use of intermediaries and communications aids. But section 28 of the Act, which provides for pre-recorded cross-examination of the witness, has never been commenced - and the Home Office says it never will be, as it's potentially in contravention of Article 6 and it hasn't worked in limited trials.
But the little girl in the above case seems to have been cross-examined over video link whilst having given video-recorded evidence in chief - which is interesting, because I was under the impression that video-recorded evidence had to be cross-examined in open court or else not admitted. Which seems counter-intuitive, so maybe I did misread the impact of the legislation, but now I need to find out if the above case actually represents a departure from the status quo or whether someone somewhere has seen sense over the issue of cross-examining witnesses over the live link. And the number of four-year-olds testifying at the Old Bailey is understandably low, so I think this may be the only case I get to look at.