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

Hugh James—Phil Edwards

Hugh James—Phil Edwards

Serious injury teambolstered by high-profile partner hire

Freeths—Melanie Stancliffe

Freeths—Melanie Stancliffe

Firm strengthens employment team with partner hire

DAC Beachcroft—Tim Barr

DAC Beachcroft—Tim Barr

Lawyers’ liability practice strengthened with partner appointment in London

NEWS
Commercial leasehold, the defence of insanity and ‘consent’ in the criminal law are among the next tranche of projects for the Law Commission
Tech companies will be legally required to prevent material that encourages or assists serious self-harm appearing on their platforms, under Online Safety Act 2023 regulations due to come into force in the autumn
County court cases are speeding up, with the median time from claim to hearing 62 weeks for fast, intermediate and multi-track claims—5.4 weeks faster than last year

The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has secured £1.1m in its first use of an Unexplained Wealth Order (UWO)

The Bar has a culture of ‘impunity’ and ‘collusive bystanding’ in which making a complaint is deemed career-ending due to a ‘cohort of untouchables’ at the top, Baroness Harriet Harman KC has found
back-to-top-scroll