header-logo header-logo

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

Vulnerable victims

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

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll