header-logo header-logo

Vulnerable victims

06 March 2013 / Hle Blog
Issue: 7551 / Categories: Blogs
printer mail-detail

HLE blogger Elaine Freer defends the criminal justice system

The recent suicide of Frances Andrade has sparked debate once again on the treatment of victims by the court system. Mrs Andrade had, days earlier, testified at the trial of her former music teacher, accused of rape and sexual abuse of her over a period of years. She took her own life while the trial was still continuing.

Mrs Andrades had chosen to give her evidence in full view of the court. As she was a vulnerable witness, due to the nature of the crimes allegedly committed against her, she would have had the option of benefitting from a variety of different measures that are enshrined in the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999.

However, although not in the discretion of the court as for some other classes of witnesses, these measures are still only provided on a requested basis, not an automatic one. Furthermore, such measures cannot usually be forced upon a witness—the statute states that the views of the witness should be taken into consideration when making decisions on special measures.

The family of Frances Andrade have made it clear that the accusations levelled at her in cross examination were “more than she could bear”. It is, however, indisputable that the questions to which they specifically refer were necessary from the defence’s point of view—they were putting forward the defendant’s case and testing the veracity of the claims.

The barrister remained within the Code of Conduct, and it is hard to see how her approach can be criticised. Indeed, not to test the evidence properly would itself be a breach of the Code of Conduct, which requires that barristers, “must at all times promote and protect fearlessly and by all proper and lawful means his lay client’s best interests”.

It is impossible to view Mrs Andrade’s suicide as anything other than a tragedy. However, to accuse the criminal justice system of causing it by abject failure is to misunderstand the system, and the elements that are crucial to retain the notion of a defendant being innocent until they are proven to be guilty on the strength of evidence before the court alone.”

To read in full go to: www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk

 

Issue: 7551 / Categories: Blogs
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll