MOJO
  • Home
  • About
  • News
  • Contact
  • Comment
  • Testimonials
  • Donate
GlasgowSheriffCt
December 5 2018

Vulnerable Witnesses Consultation

Euan News

 

The Herald has today reported on our evidence, yesterday, to the Justice Committee of the Scottish Parliament.   Their report is reproduced below, and can be read on the Herald website HERE.

The Justice Committee was considering the Vulnerable Witnesses (Criminal Evidence) (Scotland) Bill, currently progressing through the legislative process at the Scottish Parliament.   Our principal concerns are twofold:  The parliamentary draughtsmen have recognised that protections proposed for vulnerable complainers and witnesses should properly be made available, in some as yet undefined form, to vulnerable accused, but the Bill as presented makes no such provision.   Our position is that this is inherently unfair, and that the enactment of the legislation should be proceeded with only when the appropriate safeguards for vulnerable accused have been identified and incorporated.   We are similarly concerned at the proposal to “deem” complainers vulnerable on the basis simply of the nature of the offence charged.   We think it more appropriate that there be some objective and evidence-based test of actual vulnerability.   As we made clear to the committee, we have no problem with the provision of appropriate, protective, measures for child witnesses and for adult complainers and witnesses who are, indeed, vulnerable.

PLANS to introduce extra measures to protect vulnerable witnesses in criminal trials are unfair and a “threat” to justice, campaigners have warned.

Euan McIlvride, of the Glasgow-based Miscarriages of Justice Organisation Scotland, said putting in place special measures for certain witnesses or complainers risked creating a “heightened sense of sympathy” among jurors.

It comes as MSPs consider new legislation which aims to reform how vulnerable witnesses are treated during trials. The move would see a greater reliance on pre-recorded evidence.

However Mr McIlvride insisted there was no objective test to decide what made someone vulnerable, and argued the proposals had not been “properly examined”.

He told a Holyrood committee: “We see an imbalance in the separate treatment of vulnerable witnesses and complainers, as against vulnerable accused.

“It seems to us surprising that we would be proposing to proceed with legislation which is, by definition, unbalanced in that way.”

He added: “We take that to constitute a threat to the trial process in that a witness or a complainer who is deemed to be vulnerable will derive some advantage in terms of credibility in the eyes of a jury.”

Mr McIlvride said the plans risked encouraging sympathy for witnesses and complainers at the expense of the accused.

He said: “I think if you are looking at deeming witnesses to be vulnerable on a blanket basis, just by virtue of the nature of the offence charged, there is a danger there.

“As we see it, the deeming of a witness or a complainer – particularly, we’re concerned about complainers – as being vulnerable, and the provision of special measures for them, will give them a status in the eyes of jurors which is an advantage, I would think, in an adversarial situation.

“There will be some support offered to their credibility, I think, in that situation.”

He said there should be a test to establish whether or not a complainer really is vulnerable. However, he argued children should be covered automatically.

Mr McIlvride was giving evidence to Holyrood’s justice committee, which is considering the Vulnerable Witnesses (Criminal Evidence) (Scotland) Bill.

This would introduce a new rule which would generally require children to give evidence in written or pre-recorded form in the most serious cases. Scottish ministers could then extend this to adults deemed to be vulnerable witnesses.

Grazia Robertson, of the Law Society of Scotland’s criminal law committee, insisted it was “difficult without formal assessment” to know what impact such rules have on jurors.

She said: “Certainly, with remote links – where the witness is not in court but jurors view the evidence on a screen – there has been concern that because the witness is at some distance, the jurors might not get the same feel for the evidence as they would if the witness was in court.

“Again, there are different views on that; the matter is not really settled.”

Why Barry George is still haunted by his conviction Drug-driving convictions quashed over alleged manipulation of forensic evidence

Related Posts

11

Comment, News

Crimes Without Consequence

Those of you who follow this site, or our social media, will be aware of our friend Jimmy Boyle. Some will know something of his story. Convicted and imprisoned as the result of false and malicious allegations, Jimmy was eventually to secure what passes for justice. But not until the system had extracted from him […]

Guildford 4

News

Birmingham bombings inquest whitewash repeated at Guildford

The decision by the coroner at the Birmingham bombings inquest to exclude from scrutiny the very matters that might have allowed the victims’ families some degree of closure – a decision that also denied justice to Paddy Hill and the other unwitting victims of the atrocity – rendered that exercise effectively pointless and, depending on […]

3990

News

Prisoners denied access to forensic evidence in bid to prove their innocence

For miscarriage of justice victims looking to overturn their wrongful convictions, one of the most significant challenges they encounter is the refusal of police and Crown to allow access to crucial evidence that could fatally undermine the case against them. From The Guardian online yesterday (10 July), we reproduce an interesting article that highlights this […]

Latest Tweets

  • We reproduce this article by Samuel Osbourne from the Independant 30 May 2019. mojoscotland.org/carbon-credits…
    4 years ago
  • We reproduce here a worrying piece from the Guardian from 29 May 2019 by Sian Cain about austerity and it’s potenti… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…
    4 years ago
  • There is a debate on going regarding the not proven verdict in Scotland. In an article from the Times, Gordon Jacks… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…
    4 years ago
→ Follow us

Archives

Search

  • Home
  • About
  • News
  • Contact
  • Comment
  • Testimonials
  • Privacy Notice
© Miscarriages of Justice Organisation (Scotland) 2023 - Company No SC239555 - Registered Charity No SC033820 The work of MOJO is financially supported by the Scottish Government