header-logo header-logo

Vulnerable victims

06 March 2013 / Hle Blog
Issue: 7551 / Categories: Blogs
printer mail-detail

HLE blogger Elaine Freer defends the criminal justice system

The recent suicide of Frances Andrade has sparked debate once again on the treatment of victims by the court system. Mrs Andrade had, days earlier, testified at the trial of her former music teacher, accused of rape and sexual abuse of her over a period of years. She took her own life while the trial was still continuing.

Mrs Andrades had chosen to give her evidence in full view of the court. As she was a vulnerable witness, due to the nature of the crimes allegedly committed against her, she would have had the option of benefitting from a variety of different measures that are enshrined in the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999.

However, although not in the discretion of the court as for some other classes of witnesses, these measures are still only provided on a requested basis, not an automatic one. Furthermore, such measures cannot usually be forced upon a witness—the statute states that the views of the witness should be taken into consideration when making decisions on special measures.

The family of Frances Andrade have made it clear that the accusations levelled at her in cross examination were “more than she could bear”. It is, however, indisputable that the questions to which they specifically refer were necessary from the defence’s point of view—they were putting forward the defendant’s case and testing the veracity of the claims.

The barrister remained within the Code of Conduct, and it is hard to see how her approach can be criticised. Indeed, not to test the evidence properly would itself be a breach of the Code of Conduct, which requires that barristers, “must at all times promote and protect fearlessly and by all proper and lawful means his lay client’s best interests”.

It is impossible to view Mrs Andrade’s suicide as anything other than a tragedy. However, to accuse the criminal justice system of causing it by abject failure is to misunderstand the system, and the elements that are crucial to retain the notion of a defendant being innocent until they are proven to be guilty on the strength of evidence before the court alone.”

To read in full go to: www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk

 

Issue: 7551 / Categories: Blogs
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Gilson Gray—Linda Pope

Gilson Gray—Linda Pope

Partner joins family law team inLondon

Jackson Lees Group—five promotions

Jackson Lees Group—five promotions

Private client division announces five new partners

Taylor Wessing—Max Millington

Taylor Wessing—Max Millington

Banking and finance team welcomes partner in London

NEWS
The landmark Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson v FirstRand Bank Ltd—along with Rukhadze v Recovery Partners—redefine fiduciary duties in commercial fraud. Writing in NLJ this week, Mary Young of Kingsley Napley analyses the implications of the rulings
Barristers Ben Keith of 5 St Andrew’s Hill and Rhys Davies of Temple Garden Chambers use the arrest of Simon Leviev—the so-called Tinder Swindler—to explore the realities of Interpol red notices, in this week's NLJ
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys [2025] has upended assumptions about who may conduct litigation, warn Kevin Latham and Fraser Barnstaple of Kings Chambers in this week's NLJ. But is it as catastrophic as first feared?
Lord Sales has been appointed to become the Deputy President of the Supreme Court after Lord Hodge retires at the end of the year
Limited liability partnerships (LLPs) are reportedly in the firing line in Chancellor Rachel Reeves upcoming Autumn budget
back-to-top-scroll