header-logo header-logo

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

Vulnerable victims

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

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
The winners of the LexisNexis Legal Awards 2026 have now been announced, marking another outstanding celebration of excellence, innovation, and impact across the legal profession
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
back-to-top-scroll