Video recorded Leeds, Liverpool and was enacted into section this is still currently 54 of the Criminal Justice Act taking place. However, strong 1991 but the Government debate exists as to whether or rejected pre-recorded not section 28 should be on the basis that activated. recalling a child would impose There are no updates about of further upset. It is also plausible the pilot available yet. However, to suggest that the possibility of the length of the trial period has undergoing multiple been extended due to the lack would fail to of cases required to gain a overcome the reluctance to credible insight into its potential report offences and ensure success. successful prosecutions. This Some contend that rejection faced considerable evidence so soon scrutiny because children are after the child’s initial police still required to attend the trial, interview would elicit fresh an evidentially traumatic evidence and thus would ordeal. In 1997, the Labour remove the risk of deterioration Government sought to provide of memory. In R v Powell [2006] greater protection for EWCA Crim 3 a conviction of vulnerable and intimidated indecent assault against the witnesses through the Special three and a half year old Measures Provisions ; albeit, complainant was quashed on cross-examination by the basis that the seven month way of section 28 of the Youth interval between initial interview Justice and Criminal Evidence and trial rendered her Act 1999 remains inactive. incompetent under section 53 On 2nd December 2013, the YJCEA 1999. Subsequently, the Ministry of Justice announced its Court of Appeal followed this decision to pilot the measure in decision in R v Malicki [2009]
Video recorded was enacted into section 54 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 but the Government rejected pre-recorded on the basis that recalling a child would impose further upset. It is also plausible to suggest that the possibility of undergoing multiple would fail to overcome the reluctance to report offences and ensure successful prosecutions. This rejection faced considerable scrutiny because children are still required to attend the trial, an evidentially traumatic ordeal. In 1997, the Labour Government sought to provide greater protection for vulnerable and intimidated witnesses through the Special Measures Provisions ; albeit, cross-examination by way of section 28 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 remains inactive. On 2nd December 2013, the Ministry of Justice announced its decision to pilot the measure in Leeds, Liverpool and this is still currently taking place. However, strong debate exists as to whether or not section 28 should be activated. There are no updates about of the pilot available yet. However, the length of the trial period has been extended due to the lack of cases required to gain a credible insight into its potential success. Some contend that evidence so soon after the child’s initial police interview would elicit fresh evidence and thus would remove the risk of deterioration of memory. In R v Powell [2006] EWCA Crim 3 a conviction of indecent assault against the three and a half year old complainant was quashed on the basis that the seven month interval between initial interview and trial rendered her incompetent under section 53 YJCEA 1999. Subsequently, the Court of Appeal followed this decision in R v Malicki [2009]
Devon_Chambers_February_Newsletter.docx