Rape victims will no longer face cross examination in court!

[Destinysdaughter]

I can't quite believe this but according to this article, their testimony will instead be pre recorded and then shown during the trial.

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/rape-victims-cross-examination-in-court-videoed-a7637521.http

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/rape-victims-cross-examination-in-court-videoed-a7637521.html

Also great news that sexual communication with a child now carries a reasonable sentence. I think grooming has always been difficult to prove/brushed aside if it was presented as "harmess" chat.

That's good, I think.

That is good news. It will apply only to England and Wales. I hope Sturgeon can spend some time doing her day job and introduce it in Scotland too.

Excellent news

It'll be interesting to see how this works. At the moment, the defence cross-examines the complainant after hearing the examination-in-chief by the prosecution. so, is that examination to be carried out prior to the trial too. And presumably any re-examination by the prosecution too.

If the judiciary have given their support, I suppose that's going to be the case.

Delighted.

Brilliant news. I wonder if there are plans for the same in NI? Silly question. We don't even have a fucking government right now

But great news for England and Wales.

That sounds like a positive move. The article was a bit hazy on the detail, but I expect there's still a fair bit to be ironed out about how it will work in practice. Still, a move in a good direction, I think.

I looked at this news in the DM as well and typically, there's howls of outrage from men saying how much easier it will be to make a false accusation yada yada...

...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.

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.

Xenophile that comment is spot on.

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

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.

Eh? The cross examination is still happening, oyster.

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?

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.

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.

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.

sonyaya is that an established fact about video evidence?

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

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.

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.

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