The police officer must also provide the prosecutor with copies of all of the victim`s personal statements. Victims have the right to say whether they want their VPS to be read aloud in court or whether they want it read to them or (if recorded) played. The VPS and information on the victim`s preference must be transmitted to the court at the first hearing by the SCC`s lawyer. The VPS should be treated as a live document and updated throughout the course of a case as the full psychological, emotional and physical impact on the victim develops and becomes clearer. Jane initially supported John`s report, but when she heard about his arrest, she informed the police that John had lost his temper because Tom was crying and physically assaulting Tom. Jane also documented a history of violence against Tom and that John had also been violent towards her and her other children in the past. “The discussion of the basic rules is good practice, even if no intermediary is used, in all cases of young witnesses and in the case whereas C v. Sevenoaks [2009] EWHC 3088 (Admin) gives the court the power to appoint an intermediary to support a defendant throughout the trial, R v. Biddle [2019] EWCA Crim 86, that it is ultimately for the trial judge to decide, taking into account all the elements, whether and to what extent an intermediary is necessary.
Only in a very rare case is an intermediary needed for the duration of the process. 5.4 The court shall consider the best course of testifying, including whether the person`s oral testimony should be given at a time prior to the hearing, recorded and, if ordered by the court, transcribed or given at the hearing, with instructions to attend, if any. For hearings under the basic rules and intermediaries for vulnerable defendants, see CrimPD (Amendment No. 1) [2016] EWCA Crim 97, in particular 3F. “Judges learn, in accordance with the Guidelines of Criminal Practice, that it is preferable to hold hearings before the recorded cross-examination and reconsideration about a week later. However, in June 2014, I met Felicity Gerry QC for the first time, another speaker at the APIL conference on child abuse. She shares my view that civil courts need to be revamped to accommodate vulnerable witnesses, just as the criminal justice system recently introduced “ground rules” in a 2013 update of the Code of Criminal Procedure: a long time ago, the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act of 1999 had already introduced the concept of introducing “special measures” for witnesses. Vulnerable. such as allowing witnesses to testify behind a screen or privately or via live video connection, or even having their testimony recorded in advance. Unrepresented accused were also prohibited from cross-examining prosecution witnesses in cases of alleged sexual offences, and a rule allowing the use of intermediaries to facilitate understanding and evidence. The ground rules hearings allowed the court to assess whether a witness at trial was likely to be in danger and had to take special steps to present his best evidence.
(The Family Procedure Rules followed this example when they were updated in 2017.) This toolkit is complemented by The Advocate`s Gateway`s Audience Checklist (Cooper, 2015, 2016, 2019). The reforms thus align the civil courts with the approach of crime and family services. As practitioners, we must seriously consider the vulnerability of our clients or their witnesses, ensure that we have brought the matter to the attention of the court as soon as possible, and (politely) insist that the court use its powers to ensure that the best evidence is heard. In my opinion, this means that our justice system will become a little fairer as of April 6. 5.5 In all cases where it is proposed to cross-examine a vulnerable party, vulnerable witness or protected party (whether before or during a hearing), the court shall consider whether to issue instructions to participate, including determining how the person should be cross-examined. The court must consider whether to order the trial to ensure the proper conduct of the trial, give instructions for special measures and establish the basic rules If a witness who is to make a live hearing statement does not want to be seen by the defendant, a request may be made for screens to be used to protect the defendant`s live link screen. However, each judicial centre depends on whether or not the application can be granted. 1.2 This practice instruction sets out the procedure and practice for achieving a fair trial by providing for appropriate measures to ensure that the participation of the parties and the quality of the evidence of the parties and other witnesses are not compromised by their vulnerability. Felicity and I were so excited that we wrote an article about it, which was published in the Times later this year (I think). This was followed by an introduction to Professor Penny Cooper, who asked us to assemble a team to write a best practice toolkit for civilian practitioners when collecting testimony from vulnerable witnesses.
Advocate`s Gateway Toolkit 17 (“Witnesses and Vulnerable Parties in Civil Courts”) was duly published in July 2015. The Civil Justice Council later called this “an extremely valuable aid for judges and practitioners. who should be consulted prior to any hearing involving a vulnerable or potentially vulnerable party or witness. (1) Praise indeed! The reforms, which took place on the 6th. The month of April in our Code of Civil Procedure is the culmination of years of campaigns by APIL and others to make the courtroom a safe place for vulnerable parties and witnesses. The idea is to give anyone who needs to testify in court the opportunity to provide their best evidence. However, I had no idea that what APIL and others were asking for would require such a comprehensive reform: a recast of the overall objective and an extension of the definition of proportionality. The court and the parties should work together to identify the vulnerability as early as possible. Where appropriate, the court should hold a hearing under the “ground rules” before considering the specific measures to be taken to ensure that the vulnerable witness can present his or her best evidence. Lawyers and judges should consider specific measures and other appropriate adjustments throughout the proceedings. It may therefore be necessary to review the basic rules established at the beginning of the procedure by means of a new HRM. When a deaf intermediary is used, the communication dynamics may be different, as the intermediary may work with a personal sign language interpreter (SLI) and the court may appoint its own SLI. In addition, the mediator may need to address questions from the court or defence counsel directly to the witness, rather than intervening only if the witness does not understand the issue.
Those arrangements should be laid down during the consultation on the basic rules. “The discussion of the basic rules is necessary in all intermediate proceedings in which they are to be discussed between unregistered intermediaries who can be used either for prosecution witnesses, accused or defence witnesses. They are not bound by the agreed fee structures for IR and can charge the rates and expenses they choose. In addition, the basic rules may contain instructions on how to exempt a party from the assertion of its cause, the nature of the interview, the duration of the interview, the topics that may or may not be covered, the distribution of issues among the co-defendants and the use of communication aids (in force from 6. April 2015) contain: (a) questions that may be asked by one lawyer must not be repeated by another without the authorization of the court; (b) Questions or subjects to be cross-examined should be agreed upon prior to the hearing. (c) Questions to be cross-examined should be asked by a legal representative or lawyer alone or, where appropriate, by the judge. and (d) evidence should be obtained by other means. The hearing on the basic rules must be followed by the mediator (if ordered to do so), the CPS prosecutor, the judge/judge and the trial lawyers. 5.1 This section of the practical direction applies where a court has concluded that a vulnerable party, witness or protected party should testify. In order to reach its conclusion as to whether a child should testify in court, the court must apply the guidelines of the relevant case law and the guidelines of the Council of Family Judges with respect to children who testify in family proceedings. Hearings due to the basic rules In cases where an intermediary has been entrusted with the basic rules, the hearings should also cover the following points: if instructions are necessary for proper treatment and interrogation, the court must establish basic rules (Code of Criminal Procedure (CrimPR), 3.9 (7) (b)).
. . . .
