Prosecutors pay compensation to victim of sexual assault

[edam]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11367311 and they wonder why many women don't come forward? And they DARED to blame the poor victim for the trial collapsing?

It's clear hostility to victims exists among the professionals who should know better, not just juries and the public.

Does it say anywhere how long ago this all took place?

Rather than 'hostility' I think the legal profession is often guilty of the same thing as some surgeons. Which is that they get so engrossed in the minutiae and technical aspects of an interesting case that they completely forget there is a human being with feelings in the middle of it all.

That may be part of it, but it doesn't excuse blaming a victim of sexual assault for the trial collapsing. That's not about getting engrossed in the technical aspects, that's about fundamental attitudes and prejudices that trained professionals should understand are plain wrong.

And failing to provide a screen is a pretty basic and huge error.

Don't know how long ago the trial was but they have only just announced the award of compensation, so it's not a historic case.

You misunderstand me. In this instance - if you treat this purely academically - the case genuinely did collapse because the witness apparently referred to the accused's past criminal record. Being told that as a bald statement of fact is not the same as being blamed but, in her distressed state, that is clearly how it came across.

"And failing to provide a screen is a pretty basic and huge error. "

Depends on the jurisdiction. I'm not as familiar with English procedure but in Ireland it's pretty difficult to get court approval to have a witness testify from behind a screen as it breaches on of the accuseds rights of due process which in Ireland is constitutionally protected.

I'd echo this also:
"Being told that as a bald statement of fact is not the same as being blamed but, in her distressed state, that is clearly how it came across."
Without a transcript to see how it was worded it's impossible to tell how out of line they were. Clearly they were to a certain degree otherwse there'd be no compensation or apology, but their failure to realise they could have secured a re-trial is probably at the heart of the compensation order and apology rather than their explanation as to why the trial in process could not proceed.

Chil, given the DPP's apology I don't think it was merely a neutral statement, I think the prosecutor was actively hostile. The victim should have been properly briefed beforehand about not mentioning the criminal's history.

And mayor, the situation in England is different to Ireland. Screens are routinely provided in some types of cases. And if you are a witness and you are promised a screen, you shouldn't turn up to court to be told 'tough' and have to face your attacker.

They also fucked up by not asking for a re-trial. CPS incompetence meant he was found not guilty and can't be tried again.

There are bad apples in any profession and this unfortunate woman clearly was very badly served by an incompetent prosecution team. Mistakes made, distress caused, probable guilty person still walking the streets. Wrong on a lot of levels. But that's a long way from saying that 'hostility towards victims exists from professionals'... which is a very generalised statement.

Most professional prosecutors are - above all - anxious that their case succeds. They want to win. And that's regardless of the type of case it happens to be.

I believe a witness may be eligible for special measures (like screen), but the measures are not automatically or routinely available. The prosecutor needs to make an application and the court will decide which, if any, of the special measures will be available to the witness.

Agree with Chil - above all prosecutors want to win their cases.