Moves to receive witness evidence through technology — either through cloud video or pre-recorded testimony — are exacerbating the stress caused to vulnerable witnesses, researchers have found.
A team from the University of Nottingham and Nottingham Trent University has highlighted that the combination of poor technology, lengthy delays and a general lack of capacity and resources were compounding the distress that vulnerable witnesses experience while giving evidence in criminal courts.
In the researchers’ observation of trials in England, it was noted that trials were routinely disrupted or delayed because of the poor audio and/or visual quality of recordings. Proceedings were often paused while transcripts of videos were produced and handed out to juries because the sound quality was so poor.
On one occasion, the system required a software update and reboot, while on another the jury was sent home for the day after a technician was required to repair the equipment.
With the introduction of a scheme for the pre-recording of cross-examination of adult sexual offence complainants, judges and counsel warned that insufficient thought had been afforded to the potential logistical problems regarding listing cases, the impact of additional workloads, and the level of additional training required. This was in addition to a more fundamental problem, that the investment in the technology needed to produce high quality recordings for a potentially large number of complainants was simply not in place.
Advertisement
The findings are perhaps unsurprising given the cumulative effect of cuts to legal aid, to court service budgets, and a Crown Court backlog exceeding 65,000 cases.
In the past 20 years, there has been a clear drive from both government and the courts to improve the experience of vulnerable witnesses. The proliferation of special measures, the introduction of ground rules hearings and robust guidance from the appellate courts should have heralded an era of best evidence and some signs of a reduction in the levels of secondary victimisation experienced by complainants.
The judges, advocates and other criminal justice professionals interviewed by the researchers were generally positive about the direction of travel and most had observed a perceptible and positive shift in the manner and tone of cross-examination of vulnerable witnesses.
However, the changes have yet to produce a coherent and consistent set of practices. Ultimately only renewed investment in the criminal justice system — particularly aimed at improving technology, reducing backlogs, and improved training for practitioners and court staff — will lead to a better experience for vulnerable witnesses, and a higher quality of evidence being received by our courts.
Professor Jonathan Doak, Nottingham Law School, and Professor John Jackson, University of Nottingham, oversaw the report, Mapping the Changing Face of Cross-Examination in Criminal Trials
