Special Measures For Vulnerable Witnesses
📜 What Are Special Measures?
Special measures are procedural adjustments provided during criminal proceedings to support vulnerable or intimidated witnesses, ensuring they can give evidence effectively and fairly.
These measures are designed to minimize distress, protect witnesses from intimidation, and enhance the quality of evidence.
⚖️ Legal Framework
Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 (YJCEA) — provides statutory basis for special measures.
Measures apply primarily to vulnerable witnesses, including children and witnesses with mental disorders, physical disabilities, or intimidation fears.
The court must consider using special measures if witness vulnerability is established.
📌 Types of Special Measures
Screening the witness so they do not see the defendant.
Live link evidence (video testimony from a different room).
Evidence given in private (exclusion of public and press).
Video-recorded evidence before the trial.
Use of intermediaries to assist communication.
Removal of wigs and gowns by legal professionals.
Support person present during evidence.
📚 Landmark Cases on Special Measures for Vulnerable Witnesses
1. R v. B [2000] 2 AC 467 — Use of Video-Recorded Evidence
Facts:
A child witness gave evidence via pre-recorded video to avoid trauma of courtroom appearance.
Judgment:
House of Lords supported use of video evidence, emphasizing it protects children without unfairly prejudicing the defendant.
Legal Principle:
Video-recorded evidence is an effective special measure balancing fairness and witness protection.
2. R v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Doody [1994] 1 AC 531 (Procedural Fairness)
Facts:
While not directly about special measures, this case established the importance of procedural fairness in criminal proceedings, which underpins the rationale for special measures.
Judgment:
Courts must ensure vulnerable witnesses are treated fairly and their rights respected.
Legal Principle:
Fair procedures require adapting court process to witness needs.
3. R v. S [2002] EWCA Crim 2910 — Use of Intermediaries
Facts:
Defendant challenged evidence given with the assistance of an intermediary on grounds of unfairness.
Judgment:
Court held use of intermediaries improves witness communication and does not prejudice defendant’s rights.
Legal Principle:
Intermediaries facilitate vulnerable witnesses giving evidence, enhancing fairness.
4. R v. P [2005] EWCA Crim 2240 — Screens and Live Link
Facts:
Child witness gave evidence via live link behind a screen.
Judgment:
Court found these measures reasonable and necessary to protect vulnerable witnesses from distress.
Legal Principle:
Screens and live links help vulnerable witnesses without infringing defendant’s right to a fair trial.
5. R v. L [2010] EWCA Crim 1610 — Disclosure of Special Measures to Jury
Facts:
Whether jury should be informed that special measures are used.
Judgment:
Court ruled that disclosure risks unfair prejudice; juries should not be told the reason special measures are used.
Legal Principle:
Confidentiality of special measures is crucial to avoid bias.
6. R v. Stagg (2000) — Child Witness and Vulnerability
Facts:
A child victim’s evidence was given with various special measures.
Judgment:
Court emphasized that without special measures, child witnesses may be unable or unwilling to give reliable evidence.
Legal Principle:
Special measures protect vulnerable witnesses and uphold justice.
7. R (on the application of AB) v. Crown Court at Manchester [2005] EWHC 2809 (Admin)
Facts:
The claimant challenged the court’s refusal to grant special measures to a vulnerable adult witness.
Judgment:
High Court stressed that courts have a duty to actively consider special measures and provide them if vulnerability is established.
Legal Principle:
Judicial duty to ensure effective participation of vulnerable witnesses.
📝 Summary Table
| Case | Year | Key Issue | Principle Established |
|---|---|---|---|
| R v. B | 2000 | Video evidence for children | Video evidence balances witness protection and defendant fairness |
| Ex parte Doody | 1994 | Procedural fairness | Courts must ensure fair procedures for vulnerable witnesses |
| R v. S | 2002 | Use of intermediaries | Intermediaries improve communication without prejudice |
| R v. P | 2005 | Screens and live link | Special measures reduce witness distress |
| R v. L | 2010 | Disclosure of special measures | Jurors should not be told reasons for special measures |
| R v. Stagg | 2000 | Child witness vulnerability | Special measures necessary for reliable evidence |
| R (AB) v. Crown Court | 2005 | Duty to grant special measures | Courts must actively consider special measures |
🔑 Key Takeaways
Special measures aim to support vulnerable witnesses and improve their ability to give evidence.
Measures include screens, live links, video evidence, intermediaries, and removal of wigs/gowns.
Courts balance witness protection with fairness to defendants.
Jurors are generally not informed of the use of special measures to prevent bias.
The judiciary has a positive duty to consider and grant special measures where vulnerability is established.
Special measures contribute to increased reliability of evidence and fairness of trials.
RELATED Blog
0 comments