“in rape and sexual offence cases that involve one party’s word against the other, when a complainant gives prerecorded evidence “juries are tending to acquit more frequently”.
“The barristers say that justice ministers rolled out the scheme across crown courts in England and Wales “before there was any empirical data on the impact” of prerecorded evidence. They claim that there are still uncertainties over juries’ perceptions of prerecorded evidence in examination in chief and in cross-examination.”
Recorded rape case evidence ‘is resulting in acquittals increase’
Tana Adkin KC, the association’s head, has told MPs on the justice committee that prerecorded evidence “should not be used routinely, and should not be assumed for those above the age of 13”. thetimes.co.uk/article/pre-re
The criticism came after concerns were raised last year that the scheme that allows adult witnesses in rape cases to prerecord evidence was being used in only a fraction of cases. Edward Argar, a former justice minister, and his officials told the justice committee last summer that prerecording cross-examination, which was launched across England and Wales in 2022 after a regional pilot, was used by witnesses in about 0.5 per cent of cases.
A landmark bid to increase rape convictions by allowing witnesses to prerecord evidence is failing and will never work, criminal law barristers are warning. Senior lawyers argue that far from increasing conviction rates, government moves to allow prerecorded evidence have resulted in acquittals rising, a phenomenon that they predict will be borne out by research scheduled for publication this month.
One source at the Criminal Bar Association told The Times that “nothing beats a live trial” and that remote evidence is inferior. The prerecording process, referred to as section 28 hearings, should not be seen as a “cure all” to poor conviction rates, the barristers now say. Members of the association argue that anecdotal experience of trials where prerecorded evidence is allowed “has limited impact on cases” where there is a significant amount of additional evidence given “live” in court.
They add that in rape and sexual offence cases that involve one party’s word against the other, when a complainant gives prerecorded evidence “juries are tending to acquit more frequently”. The barristers say that justice ministers rolled out the scheme across crown courts in England and Wales “before there was any empirical data on the impact” of prerecorded evidence.
They claim that there are still uncertainties over juries’ perceptions of prerecorded evidence in examination in chief and in cross-examination. And the association casts doubts over whether criminal law advocates would be happy to act in rape and sexual offence cases if they were required to do extra work for prerecorded evidence at potentially poor legal aid rates of pay.
According to the association’s report, “there is a real need for very close revision” of the process of giving evidence in court, adding that prerecording of evidence had “been pasted onto it, with good intention, but without the infrastructure to make it workable in practice”.
Discover more from Justice News247
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.