The Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland)
Special provisions for vulnerable witnesses in Northern Ireland
The protection of witnesses in these countries was essential in facilitating their well-being during the trial process. Vulnerable witnesses include individuals such as children or people with any form of disability, such as constant memory losses. Other individuals in the same category include people with mental disorders and those suffering from any type of condition that would affect how they testify in court. These people are considered valuable assets in ensuring the outcome of the case is full of integrity. 6hrefore, the government will go to extra lengths to ensure that these people receive the best treatment possible during the trial period. This treatment aims at making the witnesses feel safe from any form of intimidation. The feeling of safety allows them to provide evidence without the fear of having to suffer for their service to the country.
These people face different forms of preferential treatment from the government to help them feel safe during the trial period and testify accordingly. For example, children involved in high profile cases such as those committing sexual crimes have their cross-examination done before the actual date of the hearing. The cross-examination is video recorded and presented to the court as evidence on the day of the trial. The individual will feel much safer speaking in a secure environment rather than speaking in front of an unforgiving crowd that makes them feel restless and uneasy. Other forms of specialized treatment include the removal of wigs during court hearings to eliminate the feeling of intimidation among the witnesses, providing witnesses with communication aids to help them communicate more effectively during the trials, giving evidence through a live television link rather than making a physical appearance in the courtroom, and having them take part in the examination process via an intermediary. An intermediary may be a person that the witness feels comfortable being around and talking to. Therefore, the witness is more likely to be free and give accurate information because of the levels of trust between them.
Possibility of Infringement of Rights
It is no secret that these measures are necessary by the government to increase the integrity levels within the justice delivery system by making the witnesses feel comfortable enough to give evidence that would be instrumental in shaping the outcome of the case. However, the measures employed to protect the well-being of individuals in light of making the case open to receiving a just ruling may infringe on the rights of the defendant.
For example, the accused individual may be a minor. As such, the individual may feel intimidated by the considerable courtroom crowd, and the many eyes fixed on him. This scenario may have sent the accused inti panic rendering him unable to speak clearly and defend himself. Therefore, the court may mistakenly rule that the individual is guilty without any considerations of the underlying factors that may have resulted in the reaction displayed by the individual. These measures appear to have some form of bias because the government does not apply the same standards to the same type of people on the opposite side of the courtroom.
Also, the fact that the cross-examination process takes place away from the watchful eye of the public may give the recorders a chance to tamper with the evidence. Children and other gullible people in society may receive instructions to say certain words in front of the camera. Given their innocent nature, they may decide to go along with what they are told to do. Consequently, the accused may become implicated for a crime they did not commit. This intervention is a form of violation of their right to a fair trial.
Purpose of Gillen Review
The purpose of the Gillen Review was to sensitize the general public on the issues that affect victims of sexual assault in their quest for justice. The review aimed at looking into the way the judicial system handled cases involving sexual assault. The review touched on several vital areas affected in such cases. The major talking points in the review were the impact of social media on trials, measures aimed at concealing the identity of the victim, contention for the anonymity of the defendant (given that the person may be innocent), the restrictions in place concerning the reporting of the cases, the release of unused material, support for victims and witnesses, and whether there should be an audience during the trial of these cases.
Exclusion of the Public
There is the full acknowledgment that the public audience plays an essential role in ensuring the trial is fair by providing scrutiny of the judge and other officials involved in the trial. However, cases involving sexual offenses may require a different approach from the normal. The review proposes the confinement of such claims to a limited audience that includes the court officials, individuals directly affected by the case (namely the complainant, the defendant, and witnesses), legitimate representatives of media channels, and a close family member of the complainant. In cases where the accused is a minor, a close relative may attend the proceedings.
These measures aimed at limiting the presence of an audience in the trial of sexual offenses are already in practice in countries such as New Zealand, Scotland, and New South Wales. These limitations aim at protecting the identity of the complainant. The complainant may be unable to talk in front of the audience, given the trauma associated with sexual abuse. Therefore. The lack of an audience helps build the confidence of the complainant, allowing them to produce the required evidence without fear of stigmatization. In a public gathering, members in attendance can quickly tell the identity of the complainant by looking around for clues, such as the presence of family members in the proceedings. Therefore, the review argues that these measures would be beneficial in curbing incidences such as complainants dropping out of cases, withholding information on the part of the complainant due to fear of stigmatization, and the occurrence of a highly intimidating trial process.
Pre-recorded cross-examination
In many countries, complainants provide evidence-in-chief while being video recorded shortly after the individual has reported the incident. Later, the video appears in the court-room as a form of evidence. The review suggests that similar tactics should apply during the cross-examination phase of the proceedings. This measure would involve asking the complainant questions concerning the case in the confines of a secure room. At the same time, the encounter is recorded. The video would then be presented in court as a form of evidence.
According to the review, this measure is extremely relevant, particularly in children and vulnerable complainants. The study argues that members in these two groups are capable of forgetting the information because of the high probability of their memories fading. Therefore, such people are more likely to resort to imagination to help them answer the court’s question. Also, the video recording session would not involve any crowds for the hearing. Therefore, incidences of traumatization r intimidation of the complainant would not be present. This privacy feature builds the confidence of the complainants, allowing them to give accurate information relating to the case. In the case of children, the judge should counter check the questions before administering them to the child. This move will ensure that the child is not subject to unnecessary questions.
References
Bunting, D.L., Qub, D.D.H., And Clifford, G., 2013. Special Measures for Vulnerable Witnesses in Northern Ireland.
Burton, Mandy, Roger Evans, and Andrew Sanders. Are Special Measures for Vulnerable and Intimidated Witnesses Working?: Evidence from the Criminal Justice Agencies. London: Home Office, 2006.
Ellison, L., and Munro, V.E., 2013. Better the devil you know?‘Real rape’stereotypes and the relevance of a previous relationship in (mock) juror deliberations. The International Journal of Evidence & Proof, 17(4), pp.299-322.
Gillen, John. “The Gillen Report.” Unpublished paper prepared for die Upper Mid-North Secondary Schools. Gladstone (1988).
Hamlyn, Becky, Andrew Phelps, Jenny Turtle, and Ghazala Sattar. Are special measures working?: evidence from surveys of vulnerable and intimidated witnesses. Vol. 283. London: Home Office, 2004.
Henderson, Emily. “Best evidence or best interests? What does the case law say about the function of criminal cross-examination?.” The International Journal of Evidence & Proof 20, no. 3 (2016): 183-199.
Henderson, Emily. “Taking control of cross-examination: Judges, advocates, and intermediaries discuss judicial management of the cross-examination of vulnerable people.” Criminal Law Review 3 (2016): 181-205.
Hoyano, Laura CH. “Striking a balance between the rights of defendants and vulnerable witnesses: will special measures directions contravene guarantees of a fair trial?.” CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW-LONDON- (2001): 948-969.
Ireland, Northern, and Criminal Justice Inspectorate. The Use of Special Measures in the Criminal Justice System in Northern Ireland. Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland, 2012.
Keane, A. “Towards a principled approach to the cross-examination of vulnerable witnesses.” Criminal Law Review 6 (2012): 407-420.
Keane, Adrian. “Cross-examination of vulnerable witnesses—towards a blueprint for re-professionalization.” The International Journal of Evidence & Proof 16, no. 2 (2012): 175-198.
Marshall, Kathleen. “Child Sexual Exploitation in Northern Ireland Report of the Independent Inquiry.” RQIA, Northern Ireland (2014).
McEwan, J. “Vulnerable defendants and the fairness of trials.” Criminal Law Review 2 (2013): 100-113.
Murphy, Therese, and Noel Whitty. “What is a fair trial? Rape prosecutions, disclosure, and the Human Rights Act.” Feminist Legal Studies 8, no. 2 (2000): 143-167.
Roberts, Paul, and Adrian Zuckerman. Criminal evidence. Oxford University Press, 2010.