header-logo header-logo

13 August 2013
Issue: 7573 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Protection for vulnerable

Lord Chief Justice confirms plans for specialist judges

A “core group” of specially trained judges will be used for cases involving “significantly vulnerable” witnesses or serious sex cases likely to last more than 10 days, the Lord Chief Justice has confirmed.

In a letter to the House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee, Lord Judge said such cases would be tried by a judge selected, on a case-by-case basis, by the resident judge and approved by a presiding judge. A list of judges likely to be selected is to be drawn up at each Crown Court. The Judicial College will then provide bespoke training on how best to conduct trials involving vulnerable witnesses and how to manage multi-defendant trials.

Judge Rook QC, who sits at the Old Bailey, has agreed to mentor the selected judges, while an ongoing initiative by Judge Arbuthnot, the deputy chief magistrate, aims to ensure cases involving very young witnesses come to trial within 12 weeks.

In June, the Home Affairs Committee called for specific guidance and training for judges in child sexual exploitation cases, and highlighted the risk of multiple defendants cross-examining vulnerable witnesses.

Earlier this month, a CPS barrister sparked public outrage by referring to a 13 year-old girl as “predatory” and “sexually experienced” during the sentencing of her 41 year-old abuser. A recent child prostitution case where a witness was cross-examined by seven barristers over 12 days has also caused alarm.

Lord Judge rejected the call for specialist courts to be used where children are required to give evidence, as this would lead to longer waiting times and would be expensive to set up and run. 

Baroness Deech, chair of the Bar Standards Board (BSB), welcomed the announcement, adding that the new Quality Assurance Scheme for Advocates, being introduced next month, would assess advocate’s ability to deal with vulnerable witnesses.

Issue: 7573 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll