Rape victims will no longer face cross examination in court!

Oops....Bit of a red face for Truss then?

Thanks Assasinated I have read the article and the letter the judge has written included in it.

It is good to see from the last paragraph of the letter that there are plans to pilot a similar scheme for adults even if it will take a long time.

Yes, I think the judge said it had only been intended for children.
The judge said:
"Judges had fought for the reforms for the pre-recording od children's evidence brought into effect over some six years. Through the very, very hard work of three judges.....we had actually made the pilot work, and we want to roll it out, carefully. It's quite difficult changing the culture."

He added: "It was a complete failure to understand the practicalities of any of this. And that is the kind of thing that is very troubling."

Here's an article from the Telegraph:

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/22/liz-trusss-announcement-rape-victims-could-give-evidence-video/

It seems like Liz Truss has made a bit of a mess of this. The judge quoted seems really un-keen to use video evidence for sexual assault victims. It looks like it's a long way off, if it ever gets off the ground at all.

You're not wrong - however I think it is being tried as a pilot scheme. Just in a few courts initially rather than everywhere. I guess it will be reviewed after that.

There are potential logistical problems with it which I think they want to see how it goes first. At least they're trying something to see if it works for rape complainants. Hopefully it will.

Am I wrong in thinking the idea being discussed in this thread turns out to be a mistake?

(The Times today)
"Liz Truss, the justice secretary and lord chancellor, was subjected to an unprecedented attack by England's most senior judge yesterday for "wrongly" pledging to roll out reforms to spare alleged rape victims cross-examination at trial"

That's a positive, stones. Stops a post hoc intervention if a barrister oversteps the mark.

Truss reported in the Telegraph as saying the recorded evidence the jury sees can be edited allowing Judges to cut out cross examination footage that they consider inappropriate questioning of previous sex history.

It could also be true that the defendant did not commit the crime. But no special arrangements are made for him to ease the stress and misery of having to be cross examined.

I don't agree that it assumes it's true. It assumes it could be true.

It doesn't, if the reason for deeming them vulnerable has nothing to do with the question the court has to decide: e.g. they are a child, have learning disabilities, severe mental health problems, dementia, etc. But 'I was raped' is the claim the court is testing, so it shouldn't be treated as a ground for vulnerable witness status, because that amounts to presuming it to be true.

assassinated

I don't know. I am a barrister and it's what we all think but whether it's objectively verifiable I can't say - it's just my opinion and a fear I have for these brave women.

Why does deeming them vulnerable equal assuming guilt before the start of the trial?

sonyaya is that an established fact about video evidence?

Children are vulnerable because of their age. That is a self-evident fact and acknowledging it will not influence the outcome of a trial. But - unless I am mistaken - the witnesses we are discussing here are deemed vulnerable because they have suffered a sexual assault/rape. But that is exactly the matter in question, which the jury must determine. The trial should not begin with a presumption of guilt on the part of a defendant.

Thanks for the kind words, Helen.

I have mixed feelings. Great to reduce the trauma for genuine victims (who are, in my opinion, the majority of complainants). But I suspect this will lead to a decrease in convictions. Video evidence just isn't as persuasive.

Eh?

Video testimony happens in other cases e.g. With children as witnesses. It is about vulnerability of the witness (which is what the victim is).

You were raped if you were penetrated by a penis without consent. A jury is required for a criminal conviction, a jury not being involved doesn't alter the facts. Sorry that happened to you.

Yes, but the complainant is being positioned as a 'victim', which implies the defendant's guilt before the evidence has been examined. The court is signalling to the jury that her account of herself as a victim is correct before it has actually been tried. That can't be good for justice.

Sorry if that sounds harsh. I really sympathise with rape victims. I've been raped, and chosen not to report as I couldn't face the stress of an investigation/trial. (Although maybe I should say I believe I've been raped as, strictly speaking only a jury can decide that, and my case was never tried).

Eh? The cross examination is still happening, oyster.

Terrible news. The presumption of innocence seems to be disappearing, which worries me greatly. Let's not forget that the most vulnerable person in a courtroom is often the defendent.

Thankfully, DM readers don't make the laws in this country.

Xenophile that comment is spot on.

Well, there will be, because according to DM readers we should never hold men to account for their violence to women, unless it's men with brown skin and then we need to be allowed to burn them.

...and its not restricted to rape or sexual assault cases. Seemingly not only to the complainant either but also to any 'vulnerable witness' - depending on the facts of the case this category might include the defendant.