witness in sex abuse trial commits suicide after grilling by female QC

[BobbiFleckmann]

the violin teacher who was the unwilling prosecution witness against the two Chethams Music School teachers killed herself in the middle of the trial. She told her friend she felt like she'd been raped again after the female defence QC accused her of lying in her evidence. Very, very sad.
My cynical view is that defendants in sex cases go for female barristers because they think it'll give them a veneer of innocence /respectability. I know the woman was "just doing her job" but I'd sure like to hear her views on methods of cross examination in sex abuse trials.

bunch the witness is not allowed to speak to the prosecuting team

well not about the case

So define 'thin air'. Ae they allowed to accuse someone of lying, or do they have to find other witnesses to testify that yes, witness had previously lied to them?

Sorry, I don't want to sound unsympathetic to your argument. I have a daughter and am not thrilled that there are clearly thousands of very dangerous men walking the streets but I worry the consequences of relaxing burden of proof or fettering defence could be very dangerous.

You absolutely cannot 'prepare' a witnesses evidence but you can certainly explain the trial process, take them to see the court room etc etc. I thought that was the purpose of witness support at courts - but haven't done crime for ages.

Have a look at this.

So the suggestion that this witness did not get the right support she needed because that isn't allowed is correct then? I guess the alternative is that some sort of disclosure in advance would help i.e. what the defence is likely to be challenging. But can that be done without prejudice to the trial?

I was trying to avoid specifics - so our example - a bad school report.

That didn't exist, no-one had seen, wasnt in evidence.

But that a child victim was hounded for having.
.The prosecution would have had to actual had the report - reference it, enter it into evidence.

I could cite numerous examples of things made up by a barrister on the say so of his defendant just in one trial - and I mean made up.

bunch

entirely based on the trial I sat through - the defence changed their entire defence halfway through the trial when the first defence wasn't working.

And why not I guess the prosecution has to disclose.

The prosecution works on proof. The defence works on insinuation and rumour. Juries start from a position of not wanting to convict.

If I was on a jury and the defence wanted to rely on documents they didn't produce I would be very suspicious of that defence. I don't understand why his is seen as such a problem. Surely a jury can be trusted to notice a desparate defence. But that doesn't mean you stop them trying. Because who makes that decision? Only the jury surely. So they've got to hear it.

As opposed to the defendant - whose school records showed a pattern of violence against younger children and whose police logs showed a pattern of DV by the defendant in the family home - which despite being documented.

Neither of which were allowable because of Some legal ruling.

So a child defendant has to try to defend themselves against rumour but the defendant gets to avoid any reference at all to their violent behaviour

Spero - the jury was subjected to 4 days of this.

This is awful, especially as it appears she was pulled into the trial rather than reporting it herself!

I was abused and it really took me years to decide to go to the police, I had an amazing solo worker and CID were fab, but it was still so difficult. I was also asked if I'd ever had councilling, when I said No, they did suggest that was better due to not being influenced in anyway.

I was dreading the court case and I'm quite a tough person, particularly once I had made the decision to go ahead with it, I had been warned it would be really tough, as it happened my uncle bottled it, did some plea bargaining and pleaded guilty. I could have gone through with it, but if I'd have had to do it at any other point, especially if I hadn't decided for myself, then I think it would have destroyed me. I had to build up to a certain mindset to know what I was doing.

Really really sorry for the family

why have they Got to hear it - if it isn't substantiated?

They don't have to hear it about the defendant.

Plus they have a short attention span - and they get lost - in our case - they even
fall asleep.

And they don't want to convict

I'm sorry CNC.

thanks you narked

the CPS did their best - but there was so much they weren't allowed to introduce it was never going to be a fair trial from a victims point of view - whereas because the defendant was also a relative they were allowed to use everything they could tginl of and a lot they made up

if a victims schooling is fair game (without any obligation to back it up) - why isn't a defendants? especially if it is backed ultimate by school records.

Constant - that sounds appalling. I think judges should definitely try to stop lines of cross examination that are not going anywhere, but it is a very difficult call. Stop questioning and you run the risk of appeal due to unfair process. So maybe judge was operating on basis that defendant would have no prospect of appeal of allowed to run on in this way. I agree it is often an appalling and abusive experience for victims.

I just can't see any other way of testing cases. I know if I was accused of anything I would want a proper robust and very thorough defence.

anyway that's all about us.

I'm nor surprised she killed herself - I am surprised not more victims do.

If she was subjected post trial to even half of the rumours we as a family have her life will have felt unbearable.

I thought being accused of this sort of crime ruined a defendants life in fact the opposite is true

Any way you all still havent answered the alertitive is what allow people to jpsimply assuce people of a sex crime the police then haul the person to court the judges passes sentence on the victims say so

Perosnally i think the law is not perfect in this area of law the chances of conviction is stacked agaisnt tye victim more to do with people [jurys]attatuids about this sort of crime but in others like child protection the odds are stacked in favour of the prosecution

Eg good luck being the defence of some one accused of terror charges by the govermnt all the while the prosecution telling you evidence cant be handed over or heard by the jury due to The secrets act or security
One sided much

Constant - it looks like the court case pushed her over the edge but she had quite a long previous history of self harm and suicide attempts.

I think maybe the prosecution needs to review why it pressed ahead with a reluctant and vulnerable witness.

thanks Spero but it's not uunique - its the same pattern in different scenarios over and over again.

Either the rules 're evidence for prosecution need to be lightened or tightened for defence.

Too many people walk free. I'm not a legal eagle - its not my job to fix it

I feel deeply for her family any loss is hard to bare but i afraid its the best one we have and no other system round the workd has managed to convinve me of that

But i really feel its not the system its the midset of the jury

Spero - she was a rape victim - many of them have that history.

Replace rape with the assault and make both defendant and victim male and this sort of questioning would never be tolerated. The reason it continues to be de rigueur for rape cases is because society still starts from the assumption that 'many women lie about rape' - despite the fact that false accustations are no more common than for any other type of violent crime.

I don't think the assumption is that they lie - it is just that very often that is the only defence that can be run due to the problems already highlighted re evidence.

You don't have to be a legal eagle to have a view on alternatives. These are issue that go to the very heart of our society. A lot of the problems people say arise on rape trials is due to reluctance of jury to convict - these are supposed to be the representatives of society as a whole.

Should we have a more inquisitorial system, abandon jury and let judge lead investigation?