Video Evidence in UK Law

If, in such a case, there is sufficient credible evidence, apart from the missing evidence, which, if believed, would justify a safe conviction, then a trial should proceed, leaving the defendant to seek to persuade the jury or magistrates not to convict because evidence which might otherwise have been available was not before the court through no fault of his. Often the absence of a video film or fingerprints or DNA material is likely to hamper the prosecution as much as the defence.

In principle, as it seems to me, the starting point on any application of this kind must be that, where video evidence is available which, according to the defendant, undermines the case of the claimant to an extent that would substantially reduce the award of damages to which she is entitled, it will usually be in the overall interests of justice to require that the defendant should be permitted to cross-examine the plaintiff and her medical advisors upon it, so long as this does not amount to trial by ambush.

I see no reason in principle why use of modern video facilities should not provide an effective means of providing oral evidence and participation from abroad, so long as the necessary facilities and resources are available. That put the burden on the applicant to make all the necessary arrangements at his own cost, as was arguably appropriate for a party seeking an indulgence to depart from the norm.

It is the factor that leaves me in no doubt that the general rule should be that the fugitive's unwillingness to come to this country is not in itself a reason for refusing to allow his evidence to be given through a video conference link. So long as the claimant remains where he is, and irrespective of whether or not the order is made, those processes will be incapable of reaching him if he is a member of that class of fugitives that cannot be extradited.

But it would be a strong thing indeed to use such case management powers to exclude the admissible evidence of one of the parties on the central facts of the case. It might be grossly unjust to the other party, even contrary to his right to a fair trial under article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, to decide a claim principally on the untested evidence of a party who had not been subject to cross-examination of any sort.

In our judgment it is a matter for the judge's discretion as to whether the jury's request for the video to be replayed should be granted or refused. He must have in mind the need to guard against unfairness deriving from the replay of only the evidence in chief of the complainant. Usually, if the jury simply wish to be reminded of what the witness said, it would be sufficient and most expeditious to remind them from his own note.

Again the court is required to strike a balance, on this occasion between the right of the defendant to have a hearing in accordance with the norm and the need to provide protection in accordance with the legislative purpose, in the interests not only of the child witness but also of justice, to ensure that the witness will be able to give evidence and give evidence unaffected by the stress of appearing in court itself.