Study Bay Coursework Assignment Writing Help
The usage of pre-recorded video evidence in sexual assault and rape trials. Has the regulation of prison evidence managed to strike an acceptable steadiness between defending the victims of sexual assault, who’re often the prime witnesses in prosecution proceedings, and defending the due course of rights of defendants charged with these crimes, in specific the fitting to correctly take a look at the evidence which has been admitted towards them?
Introduction:
i. Background to the conflicting problems with this analysis
Within the title of this paper, it’s conjectured that victims of sexual assault are often the prime witnesses in prosecution proceedings for all these crime. The explanation for that is that the majority sexual assaults are perpetrated in personal by somebody already recognized to the sufferer. What’s extra, usually there isn’t a forensic evidence accessible and so victims of sexual assault should not solely the prime witnesses in prosecution proceedings for all these crime however, usually, the one evidence that a crime has taken place in any respect . This may place actual burden on sexual assault victims in the course of the trial stage of the prosecution. For one factor, the sufferer should relive the traumatic occasions in Question Assignment, by explaining them to the courtroom, jury and defence barrister. Secondly, a typical defence technique is to undermine the credibility of the sufferer and to persuade the Court docket both that no sexual contact occurred or that it was consensual. Within the absence of forensic evidence, usually it boils right down to the sufferer’s phrase over that of the defendant and it is extremely tough to resolve two conflicting accounts to the satisfaction of the prison customary of proof required for a profitable conviction. Because the Workplace for Prison Justice Reform writes, “These victims whose instances do make it to courtroom are confronted with the intimidating prospect of getting to recount traumatic and sometimes intimate particulars, endure cross-examination and in some instances have details about their previous sexual behaviour introduced to the courtroom as evidence towards them. ”
In mild of this, it isn’t stunning that (i) the charges of conviction for rape and sexual assault are so low (approx. 6% of all instances introduced outcome in a profitable prosecution ); and, (ii) a considerable variety of victims of sexual assault or rape don’t report their crimes to the police, both in a well timed method* or in any respect**, or select to drop their claims when it transpires that they must testify as a first-rate witness in the prosecution towards their attacker . Analysis means that the drop-out charge is at the moment 33%. Because the Workplace for Prison Justice Reform writes, “Analysis has discovered that victims who declined to finish the preliminary investigative course of and sufferer withdrawals accounted for over one-third of instances misplaced on the police stage. Key contributory elements weren’t being believed and worry of going by the prison justice course of. ”
*The possibilities of securing a profitable prosecution towards a rapist or sexual attacker lower considerably as time passes and subsequently something that leads victims to delay reporting their crime to the Police has the consequential impact of decreasing the speed of profitable conviction.
**This writer doesn’t purport to counsel that these are the one the reason why victims of sexual assault select to not report their crimes to the Police; it’s properly documented that victims of sexual assault usually really feel disgrace and guilt for what has occurred to them, as if they’re someway in charge, and that is one other main motive why such victims usually want to maintain their ordeals secret . Different elements embrace worry of retaliation and the mistrust of the reactions of household and associates .
Whereas these obstacles to well timed reporting and profitable prosecution can’t all be redressed by prison justice reform, however, in mild of the truth that a few of these obstacles emanate from worry of or insecurity in the courtroom course of itself, the regulation of prison evidence can play an vital function in mitigating a few of these obstacles; for instance, by defending these susceptible witnesses and making the ordeal of trial much less traumatic, the regulation of prison evidence might, ultimately, change victims’ perceptions of the trial course of and make them much less prone to enable their fears of that course of to intervene with their choices to report their sexual assaults.
One reform proposal which is usually mentioned in this context is the usage of pre-recorded video testimony for victims of sexual assaults. The thought behind this proposal is that victims of such crimes are much less prone to be afraid of the trial course of in the event that they know that they’ll file their testimony in advance and that they can’t be cross-examined by their attacker’s barristers (even when they’re requested to reply to sure questions inside their testimony). Such reforms have been carried out in the sphere of youth justice for a while—for instance, there are numerous provisions beneath the Youth Justice and Prison Evidence Act 1999 which permit for the usage of video hyperlinks to protect youngster victims of sexual or bodily abuse from their attackers—however are comparatively new in the context of grownup rape and sexual assault instances.
Whereas the usage of video testimony is clearly useful to victims, prima facie it poses an actual threat to the integrity of the due course of rights of defendants charged with these crimes. Beneath the prison justice system of England and Wales there’s a presumption that every one individuals charged with a prison offence are harmless of that offence till confirmed responsible . That is offered, inter alia, by Article 6(2) of the Human Rights Act 1998 which states that, “Everybody charged with a prison offence shall be presumed harmless till proved responsible in response to regulation. ” What’s extra, it’s a human proper of all individuals charged with a prison offence to have the ability to problem successfully the accuracy of any evidence which is admitted towards them. That is offered inter alia by Article 6(three) of the 1998 Act which states that, “Everybody charged with a prison offence has the next minimal rights: (…) (b) to have ample time and services for the preparation of his defence; (…) (d)to look at or have examined witnesses towards him and to acquire the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf beneath the identical situations as witnesses towards him… ”
On this current analysis paper, we’re involved particularly with the Question Assignment of whether or not or not the usage of video testimony in sexual assault instances (involving each grownup and youngster victims) unduly prejudices the fitting of prison defendants to correctly problem the accuracy and reliability of evidence adduced towards them.
ii. The goals and goals of this analysis:
The first goal of this analysis is to judge the extent to which the regulation of prison evidence has managed to strike an acceptable steadiness between defending the victims of sexual assault, who’re often the prime witnesses in prosecution proceedings, on the one hand, and defending the due course of rights of defendants charged with these crimes, in specific the fitting to correctly take a look at the evidence which has been admitted towards them, on the opposite?
The secondary goal of this analysis is to derive suggestions for reform to the regulation of prison evidence to impact a extra acceptable steadiness between defending the victims of sexual assault on the one hand, and defending the due course of rights of defendants charged with these crimes on the opposite.
The goals of this analysis paper are as follows: To determine the authorized provisions which purport to permit the usage of video evidence in sexual assault and rape trials; to determine the procedures which should be adhered to when using this type of evidence; to judge the probably influence of the usage of video testimony on charges of reporting and profitable prosecution; to look at the fitting of prison defendants to check the evidence relied upon towards them by the Crown Prosecution Service and to determine the extent to which it may be argued that this proper is a certified proper beneath the regulation of England and Wales; to judge the extent to which the usage of video evidence would possibly prejudice the fitting of prison defendants to check the evidence relied upon towards them by the Crown Prosecution Service; to determine and critically consider the safeguards which exist at the moment to make sure that the usage of video evidence shouldn’t be permitted the place its use would prejudice the flexibility of the defendant(s) in Question Assignment to obtain a good trial; to judge whether or not or not an acceptable steadiness has been struck in observe between defending the pursuits of victims by the usage of video testimony on the one hand and preserving the pursuits of justice and the fitting of prison defendants to check the evidence relied upon towards them by the Crown Prosecution Service, on the opposite; to derive excessive stage suggestions for reform to the way in which that the regulation at the moment permits the usage of video evidence in sexual assault and rape trials.
iii. The construction of this analysis paper.
The construction of this paper takes the next kind: In chapter one, this writer traces the event of the usage of video evidence in sexual assault and rape trials, identifies the authorized provisions which regulate the usage of such evidence and the procedures which should be adopted when this kind of evidence is relied upon by the Crown Prosecution Service and critically evaluates whether or not or not the usage of video evidence is absolutely prone to have any influence on charges of reporting and charges of profitable prosecution of rapists and sexual offenders.
In chapter two, this writer traces the event of the fitting of prison defendants to a good trial, usually, and, particularly, their proper to check the evidence adduced towards them, identifies the authorized provisions which give rise to those rights and evaluates the character of these rights (i.e. whether or not they’re absolute rights or certified rights) and evaluates the extent to which the usage of video evidence would possibly prejudice the fitting of prison defendants to check the evidence relied upon towards them by the Crown Prosecution Service, and the circumstances beneath which that prejudice is prone to be the best.
In chapter three, this writer identifies and critically evaluates the safeguards which exist at the moment to make sure that the usage of video evidence shouldn’t be permitted the place its use would prejudice the flexibility of the defendants to obtain a good trial and evaluates whether or not or not, in observe, the regulation has managed to strike an acceptable steadiness between defending the pursuits of victims by the usage of video testimony on the one hand and preserving the pursuits of justice and the fitting of prison defendants to check the evidence relied upon towards them by the Crown Prosecution Service, on the opposite. Additionally, in this chapter, this writer derives excessive stage suggestions for reform to the way in which that the regulation at the moment permits the usage of video evidence in sexual assault and rape trials.
Lastly, this writer presents his conclusions to this analysis.
1. Utilizing video evidence in sexual assault and rape trials; is it prone to have a optimistic influence on charges of reporting and charges of profitable prosecution of rapists and sexual offenders?
As famous in the introduction of this paper, it has been argued in the educational literature that a important barrier to the well timed reporting of sexual offences (and likewise one of many the reason why the drop-out charge—i.e. the variety of victims selecting to withdraw their claims earlier than the conclusion of the trial—is so excessive ) are widespread sufferer perceptions that in the event that they report their assault they are going to be subjected to a traumatic trial course of in which their account of occasions will probably be cross-examined by their perpetrator’s authorized representatives and their character will probably be known as into Question Assignment .
The usage of pre-recorded video testimony is designed to mitigate these obstacles (in the end) to prosecution by defending these susceptible witnesses and making the ordeal of trial much less traumatic for them. Over time, it has been conjectured, victims’ perceptions of the trial course of will change and they are going to be much less afraid of the trial course of and extra prepared to report their sexual assaults after they happen.
At the moment, there are two video-based particular measures for susceptible victims . These are offered by the Youth Justice and Prison Evidence Act 1999. The primary is the place the sufferer is permitted to current his or her evidence-in-chief in the type of a video assertion fairly than in individual. That is offered by part 27(1) of the Youth Justice and Prison Evidence Act 1999 which states that, “A particular measures course might present for a video recording of an interview of the witness to be admitted as evidence in chief of the witness. ”
Part 27(four) of the 1999 Act nonetheless makes it clear that dispensation to make use of this particular measure will solely be granted the place the courtroom is happy that the witness in Question Assignment will probably be made accessible for cross-examination (whether or not that be cross-examination in individual or by way of a ‘particular measure’ various equal): “The place a particular measures course gives for a recording to be admitted beneath this part, the courtroom might however subsequently direct that it isn’t to be so admitted if— (a) it seems to the courtroom that— (i) the witness is not going to be accessible for cross-examination (whether or not carried out in the strange approach or in accordance with any such course), and (ii) the events to the proceedings haven’t agreed that there isn’t a want for the witness to be so accessible; or (b) any guidelines of courtroom requiring disclosure of the circumstances in which the recording was made haven’t been complied with to the satisfaction of the courtroom. ” The intention behind this provision was to make sure that prison defendants accused of crimes towards susceptible victims weren’t unduly prejudiced by the existence of this particular measure; if the courtroom and jury watched a video assertion from a sufferer explaining how they witnessed the defendant commit a prison offence, that defendant could be grossly prejudiced if he didn’t have a possibility to problem any points of the video assertion in Question Assignment.
The second kind of video-based particular measure offered beneath the Youth Justice and Prison Evidence Act 1999 is the place the cross-examination and re-examination of a witness’s testimony by the defence’s authorized group is pre-recorded fairly than carried out dwell in the courtroom, in entrance of the defendant. That is offered by part 28(1)(b) of the Youth Justice and Prison Evidence Act 1999: “The place a particular measures course gives for a video recording to be admitted… as evidence in chief of the witness, the course might also present— (a) for any cross-examination of the witness, and any re-examination, to be recorded by the use of a video recording; and (b) for such a recording to be admitted, as far as it pertains to any such cross-examination or re-examination, as evidence of the witness beneath cross-examination or on re-examination, because the case could also be. ”
To make sure that this particular measure doesn’t dilute the defence’s capacity to cross-examine or re-examine a witness, the 1999 Act gives that the courtroom and the defence’s authorized representatives should have the ability to see and listen to the dwell recording session and have the ability to talk instantly with the individuals in the room. The Act additionally gives that the defendant ought to have the ability to see and listen to the examination and that she or he ought to have the ability to talk together with his or her authorized representatives all through the method: “Such a recording should be made in the presence of such individuals as guidelines of courtroom or the course might present and in the absence of the accused, however in circumstances in which— (a) the choose or justices (or each) and authorized representatives appearing in the proceedings are capable of see and listen to the examination of the witness and to speak with the individuals in whose presence the recording is being made, and (b) the accused is ready to see and listen to any such examination and to speak with any authorized consultant appearing for him. ”
If a courtroom has granted the usage of this particular measure then it’s crucial that the defence’s authorized representatives ask the kid witness the entire questions, the solutions of which they plan to later depend on in courtroom as they won’t be entitled to place any new inquiries to the witness on completion of this recording session until any new issues come to mild which the defendant or his authorized group couldn’t have been anticipated to have found beforehand with cheap diligence .
These particular measures can be found to grownup victims of sexual assault or rape by default. Nevertheless, it’s as much as every witness to resolve whether or not or not they want to benefit from one or each of those measures. This presumption of vulnerability is offered by part 17(four) of the 1999 Act which states that, “The place the complainant in respect of a sexual offence is a witness in proceedings referring to that offence (or to that offence and another offences), the witness is eligible for help in relation to these proceedings by advantage of this subsection until the witness has knowledgeable the courtroom of the witness’ want to not be so eligible by advantage of this subsection. ”
By advantage of part 16(1) of the 1999 Act, these measures are additionally accessible to youngster witnesses aged sixteen or much less: “For the needs of this Chapter a witness in prison proceedings (aside from the accused) is eligible for help by advantage of this part (…) if beneath the age of 17 on the time of the listening to… ” For youngster witnesses, not solely is there a presumption that their testimony will probably be given by way of video however that is practically necessary. As Burton, Evans and Sanders clarify, “For youngster witnesses in want of particular safety (outlined by part 21 of the YJCE Act) the availability of video evidence-in-chief or dwell tv hyperlinks is close to necessary, and it isn’t essential to exhibit that they’d enhance the standard of the witness’s evidence. ”
Leaving apart any dialogue of the potential prejudicial influence that these particular measures can have on defendants’ capacity to defence a declare of sexual assault or rape of a minor or grownup—a dialogue which will probably be reserved for the next chapter of this paper—the primary Question Assignment which, in the opinion of this writer, should be requested, is whether or not or not these particular measures really mitigate the obstacles to efficient testimony recognized beforehand in this paper.
It is going to be recalled that one such barrier was the sufferer’s worry of cross-examination and being made to really feel just like the one in charge for the ordeal . And but, whereas the second of the 2 particular measures mentioned above does enable the cross-examination to happen in a venue aside from a courtroom of regulation, in all different respects a video cross-examination is equal to a dwell court-based cross-examination. Because the Crown Prosecution Service explains, in its ‘CPS Coverage for Prosecuting Circumstances of Rape’, “Giving evidence in courtroom generally is a notably traumatic expertise for victims of rape. Specifically, some victims might discover it tough to present evidence in the sight of the defendant. If that is so, we are able to apply to the courtroom for the sufferer to present evidence in one other approach in order that she or he may give their greatest evidence. These other ways of giving evidence are often called ‘particular measures’… [While] the sufferer or witness is not going to have to present ‘dwell’ evidence about what occurred to them… they are going to nonetheless should reply questions put to them by the defendant’s lawyer in crossexamination. ” (emphasis added)
Subsequently, whereas this particular measure would possibly make it extra comfy for a susceptible or intimidated witness, it isn’t solely clear, no less than in principle, the way it purports to mitigate the sufferer’s worry of cross-examination itself. This can be a level raised by Childs and Ellison, who argue that the efficacy of those particular measures are undermined by the truth that the method stays an adversarial one, although it’s pre-recorded and carried out in a venue aside from a courtroom of regulation: “There may be additionally a threat… that a dedication to conventional adversarial values and strategies might but restrict the influence of reforms. ”
One other barrier that was recognized beforehand was the sufferer’s worry of being in contact with the defendant. Whereas pre-recorded video evidence definitely permits a susceptible witness to present their testimony and responses (to cross- or re-examination) with out having to be in the identical room because the defendant, as famous beforehand the defendant is allowed to pay attention into the recording session and subsequently it isn’t solely clear how the sufferer receives any advantages from these particular measures in anyway, aside from these which they’d have the ability to get pleasure from anyway by the usage of screens or dwell hyperlinks pursuant to sections 23, 24 or 25 of the Youth Justice and Prison Evidence Act 1999 .
One other criticism which has been raised, particularly in respect of the usage of pre-recorded video cross-examination, is that, traditionally, these measures haven’t usually been made accessible to victims of sexual offences, the Courts preferring to depend upon dwell testimony, whether or not given orally in courtroom or by way of a dwell video hyperlink (by way of the particular measures offered by sections 23 and 24 of the Youth Justice and Prison Evidence Act 1999. As Childs and Ellison argue, writing in 2000, “Whereas the particular measures contained in the YJCEA 1999 are to be welcomed, the safety they afford rape complainants has, disappointingly, been constrained by a seamless attachment to the primacy of oral evidence… Grownup rape complainants are to learn from the supply of screens and CCTV however they’re to be denied the safety inherent in the usage of video-recorded evidence. Typically, grownup rape complainants will nonetheless be required to present dwell oral evidence in prison proceedings, albeit by way of a TV hyperlink. ”
One other criticism which has been levied towards the usage of these video-based particular measures is that someway a sufferer’s testimony is diluted by the truth that the jury is unable to see the witness in a dwell surroundings. As Burton et al word, “Some practitioners had reservations about televised evidence as a result of they thought it was much less convincing than ‘dwell’ evidence. ”
Whereas this argument has actual intuitive enchantment, in actuality there’s little or no evidence to Help this view. As Burton et al conclude, “There isn’t any analysis evidence to point that acquittals are extra probably utilizing these strategies, nonetheless. ” That is one thing that will probably be mentioned in extra element in the next part of this paper.
In conclusion to this chapter, whereas this writer can’t remark upon the final benefits or disadvantages of video-based particular measures in instances of rape or sexual assault*, he’s not wholly satisfied that they handle to discharge the obstacles that are confronted by rape and sexual assault victims and subsequently shouldn’t be satisfied that their use is having the impact of accelerating charges or reporting and conviction for all these offence. Victims nonetheless should bear a adversarial fashion cross-examination, which has been reported to be essentially the most daunting prospect of a rape trial for rape victims, and although this may be carried out in a venue exterior of the courtroom, the rape sufferer however has to reply on to questions from the defendant’s authorized representatives whereas realizing that the defendant is listening into the recording session and capable of talk with their legal professionals all through.
In mild of this, the pre-recorded video measures offered by the Youth Justice and Prison Evidence Act 1999 is unlikely to alleviate sufferer perceptions that in the event that they report their assault they are going to be subjected to a traumatic trial course of in which their account of occasions will probably be cross-examined by their perpetrator’s authorized representatives and their character will probably be known as into Question Assignment.
In any occasion, it seems that these measures, notably pre-recorded video cross-examinations, are hardly ever used with grownup victims, the Courts preferring to grant different particular measures to those susceptible witnesses corresponding to screening or dwell CCTV hyperlinks.
* On this chapter this writer has been involved solely with the extent to which video-based particular measures are capable of Help susceptible victims overcome the obstacles that are reported to be accountable for under-reporting and low total conviction charges. These measures might properly have advantages aside from overcoming these obstacles, however these should not of relevance to this current analysis paper. Subsequently, one ought to be cautious to not use the conclusions of this paper to Help an argument that video-based particular measures shouldn’t be used; all that may be stated is that they aren’t apparently very efficient at assembly their direct meant goals.
2. The best of prison defendants to a good trial and to check the evidence adduced towards them; are these rights prejudiced by way of video evidence and beneath what circumstances, in specific?
As famous in the introduction to this paper, Article 6(three) of the 1998 Act gives that any individual charged with a prison defence has the fitting to look at or have examined witnesses towards him and to acquire the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf beneath the identical situations as witnesses towards him . The Question Assignment which falls for willpower in this chapter is whether or not or not this proper is unduly prejudiced by way of the 2 video-based particular measures recognized and analysed in the earlier part of this paper.
Whereas it’s the case that these particular measures should not used in each case of grownup rape or sexual assault, in this chapter we’re involved with the potential for prejudice when both or each of those measures are employed. In different phrases, the truth that these particular measures, notably pre-recorded video cross-examination, are hardly ever used in grownup instances is not going to (and mustn’t ever) be cited as a defence to any claims of prejudice that are levied in direction of them.
The very first thing to do is to judge what sort of proper is created by Article 6(three)(d) of the Human Rights Act 1998; if this proper is an absolute proper then it will by no means be acceptable to derogate from it in the pursuits of defending susceptible witnesses . Nevertheless, if the fitting is a certified proper, then it may be professional, the place the circumstances dictate, to derogate wholly or partially from that proper to serve a competing however professional curiosity .
If one relied upon the wording of Article 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 then one could be pressured to conclude that Article 6(three)(d) is an absolute proper because it states unequivocally that every one individuals charged with a prison offence are entitled to get pleasure from this proper, which grants upon them an ‘equality of arms’ and the software required to have the ability to clear themselves of the costs introduced; particularly, the fitting to cross-examination . This interpretation appears to be in line with the Strasbourg jurisprudence .
Nevertheless, there’s good widespread regulation authority for the proposition that this proper is a certified proper and likewise for the proposition that, beneath sure circumstances, it’s acceptable to derogate from this proper in the pursuits of defending susceptible witnesses. For instance, in the latest case of Bonhoeffer, R (on the applying of) v Common Medical Council [2011] EWHC 1585 the Court docket allowed a key witness to confess his evidence in written kind solely, which precluded cross-examination, on the idea that the witness would face persecution again in Kenya, the place he lived, if he appeared as a witness and admitted to being a gay. On this case, the Court docket accepted that the defendant’s proper to cross-examination beneath Article 6(three) of the Human Rights Act 1998 had been derogated from; nonetheless, the Court docket justified this derogation utilizing a utilitarian (least dangerous path) justification. An analogous justification was employed in the case of R v Xhabri [2005] *.
*Some authors have argued that this interpretation of Article 6 is at odds with the wording of the 1998 Act and whereas this current writer agreed with that thesis, this isn’t the time or the place to have interaction with this subsidiary debate. For our current functions, all that issues is that it’s settled regulation that Article 6(three)(d) is a certified proper and never an absolute customary.
Subsequently, we should conclude that the fitting to cross-examine is a certified proper and, consequently, that the potential for video-based particular measures to trigger an infringement of a defendant’s proper to cross-examine is proscribed; in any case, it can’t be stated to be an infringement of a proper if that derogation will be legitimized by authorized authority.
In any occasion, it isn’t solely clear that the usage of video-based evidence is at all times prone to be prejudicial to defendants. For one factor, as argued in the earlier chapter of this paper, these particular measures don’t considerably have an effect on the cross-examination course of, and subsequently it isn’t simple to contend that a defendant’s proper to cross-examine is affected, not to mention restricted, by the employment of pre-recorded video cross examination.
What’s extra, there isn’t a evidence to counsel that a conviction is extra prone to outcome from the usage of video-based particular measures. Of their experimental research entitled, ‘The influence of pre-recorded video and closed circuit tv testimony by grownup sexual assault complainants on jury decision-making’, Taylor and Joudo discovered that juries weren’t extra prone to convict defendants charged with rape or sexual assault when the sufferer’s testimony was introduced as a pre-recorded video, than they have been when it was introduced face-to-face or by way of a dwell hyperlink CCTV . This research had a robust methodology: the researchers carried out 18 mock trials utilizing a complete of 210 jurors. In a single third of the trials, the jurors heard the sufferer’s evidence dwell, face-to face; in one third of the trials, the jurors heard the sufferer’s evidence dwell, by way of a dwell hyperlink CCTV system; and, in the remaining third of the trials, the jurors heard the sufferer’s evidence from a pre-recorded video. After the trials, the researchers undertook notion and angle surveys by way of a questionnaire. This sought to measure a variety of attitudes and perceptions together with the diploma to which the jurors felt they have been capable of empathize with the sufferer and whether or not or not they thought the accused was responsible of the crime. The conclusion of this research was that the mode of transmission of sufferer testimony had no statistically important influence upon juror perceptions: “The research finds, total, that instantly following the trial however earlier than jury deliberation, mode of presentation of testimony (face-to-face, CCTV or pre-recorded videotape) didn’t influence differentially on juror perceptions of the complainant or the accused, or guilt of the accused. ”
Whereas the methodology of this analysis research was usually sound, there’s anecdotal evidence to Help the view that actual victims come throughout higher on pre-recorded video than they do dwell. Because the Workplace of Prison Justice Reform experiences, “In a single case the video was not used because it required substantial modifying to take away inadmissible evidence. Nevertheless, prosecution counsel later commented that they wished in hindsight that the video had been used, because the sufferer was not pretty much as good dwell as on the recording. ” Whereas one would possibly argue that such evidence is of restricted use, in the opinion of this writer if Taylor and Joudo’s research was repeated utilizing actual rape victims in actual rape trials then it’s extremely probably that the mode of presentation of testimony would influence differentially on juror perceptions of the complainant; in any case, they’re prone to really feel extra comfy giving testimony about their horrific ordeal in a video recording studio than they’d be giving that very same testimony dwell, in a courtroom of regulation, with twelve jurors, a choose and a number of other legal professionals all taking a look at them. Additional analysis must be carried out to check these claims empirically.
If nothing else, the pre-recorded testimony would probably have bee
