Child Witnesses and Video-Technology: Thoughts for the Home Office
| Published date | 01 November 1987 |
| DOI | 10.1177/002201838705100407 |
| Author | J. R. Spencer |
| Date | 01 November 1987 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Journal
of
Criminal
Law
CHILD
WITNESSES
AND
VIDEO-TECHNOLOGY:
THOUGHTS
FOR
THE
HOME
OFFICE
J. R. Spencer*
The
Criminal Justice Bill which was introduced in November 1986
contained a clause permitting child witnesses to give evidence by
closed-circuit television, alias "live video link".1In Parliament,
attempts were made to amend the Bill to change the law more
radically, making videotapes of earlier interviews with child
witnesses admissible in evidence too. Whilst at first opposed, the
Government eventually agreed to consider this proposal, and in
May 1987the HomeOffice issued a Consultative Paper covering the
whole issue of video-technology and child witnesses.f At this
point the general election intervened. The public response to this
paper
will probably determine the attitude of the Government
when the relevant parts of the resurrected Criminal Justice Bill are
before Parliament from October 1987 onwards.
Closed-circuit television: the idea in principle
When a child gives evidence in a criminal case it is usually about
having suffered a sexual or a violent attack. Experience shows that
what an assaulted child fears most about giving evidence is being
confronted with the person who attacked or abused him. The worse
the incident the greater the reluctance of the child to face the
attacker, and the worse he is likely to perform in court.3Closed-
• Selwyn College, Cambridge.
Note: This article in response was written in consultation with Professor Glanville
Williams.
1The name "video link" seems to confuse many people who think it refers to
pre-recorded videotapes of earlier interviews, and for this reason the term "closed-
circuit television" is used in this article.
2The Use
of
Video Technology at Trials
of
Alleged Child Abusers, May 8, 1987.
Copies are obtainable from C4 Division, Horne Office, Queen Anne's Gate, London
SWIH9AT.
3In her recent book Rape on Trial(1987) Zsuzsanna Adler describes
how"
A little
girl of 11 experienced a total breakdown when she was asked to point out the man
who attacked
her-the
following day, the court was informed that psychiatric
treatment had to be arranged for
her."
(pp. 51-52).
444
Child witnessesand video-technology
circuit television is welcome, because it could reduce the
trauma
for
those children who at present give evidence in open court,
and
enable
the
court
to
hear
the
evidence of some children who at
present
cannot be persuaded to give evidence at all.
Several objections have
been
made to the idea,
but
they are not
particularly strong ones.
The
first is
that
by indicating to
the
jury
that
the
child cannot face
the
accused in
open
court
the
use of
closed-circuit television reverses the presumption of innocence by
creating the psychological presumption that the accused has
done
something so dreadful
that
the
child must be protected from him."
But
if this is a valid objection, it isalso an objectionto remanding the
defendant in custody if he is thought likely to injure awitness,
putting him in
the
dock, placing aprison officer
there
to guard him,
providing police protection for the jury, and taking any
other
unpleasant step which may be unavoidable to enable the case to be
tried.
The
second is
that
it is essential to confront every child witness
with
the
very person he accuses in
order
to test
that
he is telling the
truth. Thus, on a television programme a
Q.C.
said "
...
It
is
important
the
jury
be able to observe the
demeanour
of the child.
It
is
important
the
defendant is able to give immediate instructions to
his counsel as
and
when the child is giving evidence.
And
it is
equally important
that
he, himself, is confrontedwith
the
child and,
unhappily, the child is confronted with
him,'?
The
idea behind
this seems to be that by subjecting a witness to fear
and
stress we
make
it
more
likely
that
he willtell
the
truth: abarbarous
and
stupid
notion, contrary to all psychological opinion, and
the
logical
conclusion of which is
the
rule in various ancient legal systems
whereby
one
litigant could insist
upon
having his
opponent's
witness
tortured
to see if this made him tell a different tale.
Thirdly,
there".
. . are many who are worried
about
the
loss of
the
sense of 'immediacy' if an important witness is riot present in
court.
After
making acomparison between asporting occasion
being watched on television and
one
being watched at a sports
ground some people of great experience of criminal trials have
written
that
'what
is missing is often described as atmosphere'.
4Barbara Amiel, writing in the Times, January 7, 1987.
5George Carman
Q.C.,
B.B.C. Panorama, September 8,1986.
445
To continue reading
Request your trial