*/
Judicial cross-examination of vulnerable victims and a blend of the adversarial and inquisitorial systems are amongst proposals being considered by a victims’ law taskforce. Sir Keir Starmer QC, the former Director of Public Prosecutions who is chairing the taskforce, said he supported the pilots testing the pre-recording of evidence but argued for changes “further and faster” and in “formerly ‘no-go’ areas”.
Speaking on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme on 7 April, Starmer elaborated on ideas he put forward in an article for the Guardian the previous day. He said: “I think there is a real consensus now that things have to change. The last two or three years have seen a number of cases where there has been unacceptable treatment of vulnerable witnesses and victims in court by barristers... judges are becoming much more uncomfortable with aggressive cross-examining.”
Whilst acknowledging that “there will be examples of judges who may have taken an approach that others wouldn’t approve of”, he said that “by and large what a judge is able to do is to identify the issues and then pursue what actually happened in a different way to the advocate”. He added: “I do not think it is impossible for a judge to probe and test an account of the vulnerable victim in a way that gets to the truth without undermining the rights of the defence.”
Speaking against the proposal on the Today programme, Sally O’Neill QC, a former chair of the Criminal Bar Association, questioned whether “judges would be so much better at cross-examining young witnesses than trained advocates”. She said it had been known “for some time” that the adversarial method of cross-examining young witnesses was not appropriate and was “almost non-existent”. “It’s a question of training,” she added.
Responding to Starmer’s proposals on BBC Radio 4’s World at One, Attorney General Dominic Grieve QC MP said that he welcomed the debate, but it raised profound issues about the right to a fair trial. Penny Cooper, Chair of the Advocate’s Gateway, said: “[Our] guidance on questioning vulnerable witnesses is there for judges as well as advocates. However, in jury trials it is hard to see how this might work without compromising fairness to the defendant, many of whom are also vulnerable. To use the cricketing analogy, can judges be impartial umpires if they are also responsible for bowling at certain times?”
The taskforce, set up by the Labour Party, which also includes Labour Peer, Doreen Lawrence and Peter Neyroud, former Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police and a criminologist.
Whilst acknowledging that “there will be examples of judges who may have taken an approach that others wouldn’t approve of”, he said that “by and large what a judge is able to do is to identify the issues and then pursue what actually happened in a different way to the advocate”. He added: “I do not think it is impossible for a judge to probe and test an account of the vulnerable victim in a way that gets to the truth without undermining the rights of the defence.”
Speaking against the proposal on the Today programme, Sally O’Neill QC, a former chair of the Criminal Bar Association, questioned whether “judges would be so much better at cross-examining young witnesses than trained advocates”. She said it had been known “for some time” that the adversarial method of cross-examining young witnesses was not appropriate and was “almost non-existent”. “It’s a question of training,” she added.
Responding to Starmer’s proposals on BBC Radio 4’s World at One, Attorney General Dominic Grieve QC MP said that he welcomed the debate, but it raised profound issues about the right to a fair trial. Penny Cooper, Chair of the Advocate’s Gateway, said: “[Our] guidance on questioning vulnerable witnesses is there for judges as well as advocates. However, in jury trials it is hard to see how this might work without compromising fairness to the defendant, many of whom are also vulnerable. To use the cricketing analogy, can judges be impartial umpires if they are also responsible for bowling at certain times?”
The taskforce, set up by the Labour Party, which also includes Labour Peer, Doreen Lawrence and Peter Neyroud, former Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police and a criminologist.
Judicial cross-examination of vulnerable victims and a blend of the adversarial and inquisitorial systems are amongst proposals being considered by a victims’ law taskforce. Sir Keir Starmer QC, the former Director of Public Prosecutions who is chairing the taskforce, said he supported the pilots testing the pre-recording of evidence but argued for changes “further and faster” and in “formerly ‘no-go’ areas”.
Speaking on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme on 7 April, Starmer elaborated on ideas he put forward in an article for the Guardian the previous day. He said: “I think there is a real consensus now that things have to change. The last two or three years have seen a number of cases where there has been unacceptable treatment of vulnerable witnesses and victims in court by barristers... judges are becoming much more uncomfortable with aggressive cross-examining.”
The beginning of the legal year offers the opportunity for a renewed commitment to justice and the rule of law both at home and abroad
By Louise Crush of Westgate Wealth Management sets out the key steps to your dream property
A centre of excellence for youth justice, the Youth Justice Legal Centre provides specialist training, an advice line and a membership programme
By Kem Kemal of Henry Dannell
By Ashley Friday of AlphaBiolabs
Providing bespoke mortgage and protection solutions for barristers
Joanna Hardy-Susskind speaks to those walking away from the criminal Bar
From a traumatic formative education to exceptional criminal silk – Laurie-Anne Power KC talks about her path to the Bar, pursuit of equality and speaking out against discrimination (not just during Black History Month)
Yasmin Ilhan explains the Law Commission’s proposals for a quicker, easier and more effective contempt of court regime
Irresponsible use of AI can lead to serious and embarrassing consequences. Sam Thomas briefs barristers on the five key risks and how to avoid them
James Onalaja concludes his two-part opinion series
