| Previous Section | Home Page |
Mr. Menzies Campbell : I cannot help making the observation that, if the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) now has power of attorney for the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn), we may have to examine the capacity of the latter. Taking the three new clauses together, I find it difficult to grasp the practicalities of defending an accused person in circumstances in which a television link has been allowed by the court, and the extent to which cross-examination of a child may be possible. If I read new clause 26 correctly, cross-examination of a child on the issue of identification may not be excluded by way of statute. Practical difficulties exist that remain to be explained.
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton : In the case of a child who had been abused in one way or another, dock identification could be very upsetting and distressing for that child. We believe that a video link could provide an effective means of taking evidence. Identification might be made on some former occasion. One Glasgow police station has a one-way mirror that allows women who have been raped, for example, to identify their attackers without suffering immense additional distress.
Dr. Godman : I am confused by the Minister's use of the terms "closed-circuit television link" and "video link". I refer him to a comment that he made at the beginning of our debate yesterday afternoon :
"I intend to accept the central point on video evidence. That does not include every aspect of new clause 1".--[ Official Report, 16 October 1990 ; Vol. 177, c. 1060.]
Why has the Minister changed his mind?
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton : I want to make it clear that I do accept the proposals for a video link, but the evidence goes further than that, and suggests that there is a risk that it could be prejudicial to the accused.
As to cross-examination, the television link would be continuous. The provision concerning identification would apply only where the court had granted an application for use of the television link procedure. Where a child gives evidence that he or she recalls having previously identified the person alleged to have committed the offence, the evidence of a third party of that identification would be admissible as evidence of such identification. There remains for determination by the court the sufficiency of that evidence--whether the Crown has sufficiently proved the identification. Accordingly, fairness to the accused would not be prejudiced.
Mr. Dalyell : This is a complex subject, and Ministers are certainly entitled to make decisions on the basis of their own experience. I personally would greatly value the views of the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir
Column 1231
N. Fairbairn) on such a subject. Equally, the House is entitled to know in detail why the Government have overturned the Law Commission recommendation, especially since its Lord President, Lord Hope, is currently proposing a scheme.Do the Government have the agreement, in their view, of the Lord President? Has he given advice to the effect that the Government, rather than the Law Commission, are correct? I do not want to make a party point, because none is to be made, but it is a matter of considerable importance to a number of our constituents. Again, I can think of a personal case in which I was tangentially involved on a constituency basis.
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton : I genuinely do not think that the Lord President has been approached to ask whether he supports the Law Commission's view in opposition to any other point of view on this matter. He is certainly aware of the Government's proposals, as the hon. Member for Linlithgow will be aware.
The Scottish Law Commission in its report recorded a number of reservations expressed to it about the use of screens. The Scottish court is exploring technical aspects of the use of screens and we would wish to monitor the present use before reaching a concluded view as to the needs of the statutory provision on the line recommended by the Scottish Law Commission.
Undoubtedly hon. Members are aware of the welcome memorandum on guidance on child witnesses which was issued by the Lord Justice-General at the end of July. The purpose of the memorandum is to provide assistance to judges in the exercise of their discretionary powers to put a child at ease--for example, by removing wigs and gowns. The adoption of other measures recommended in the Lord Justice-General's memorandum can be expected to make a substantial contribution to reducing stress for child witnesses. We wish to know how wider use of such measures will help before we consider further statutory or other innovations.
Two other Government amendments provide necessary definitions and make necessary adjustments to the long title of the Bill. The Government amendments provide a coherent and practical set of provisions. We wish to respond quickly to the opportunity to legislate now to bring in closed circuit television for child witnesses.
The new clauses tabled by the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow are not workable as they stand, in the absence of a provision enabling cases to be transferred and doing away with dock identification. Accordingly, I invite the House to support the Government amendments.
4.45 pm
Dr. Godman : I thank the Minister for responding as he did to my new clause 3. However, I wish to speak to new clause 1 which is also in my name. Incidentally, I shall not press new clause 3 as it was intended to elicit a comprehensive response from the Minister and I thank him for his positive response.
New clause 24 not only brings Scots law into line with English law in terms of section 32 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, but is an improvement on that English legislation. I think that I am right in saying that there are now 22 English Crown courts with closed circuit television
Column 1232
and that there is a fair geographical spread throughout England of what has become known as "CCTV". There is some confusion between closed-circuit television and video recordings. The Minister was talking about closed circuit television.My aim in new clause 1 is simple : to give added protection to children when they give evidence in criminal proceedings involving sex abuse or physical abuse.
In the past 10 months, two major reports on this deeply troubling matter have been published in England and Scotland. I refer to Judge Pigot's Home Office advisory group's report on video evidence published in September 1989 and to the 125th report of the Scottish Law Commission entitled, "Report on the evidence of Children and Other Potentially Vulnerable Witnesses" which was published about nine months ago.
In the context of new clauses 1, 2 and 4 and of the Minister's new clauses, English and Scottish legal systems have a good deal to learn from each other. I was much taken by the observations offered by Spencer and Flin in their book, "The Evidence of Children. The Law and the Psychology"--Spencer is a Cambridge fellow and Dr. Rhona Flin is a psychologist at the Robert Gordon's Institute in Aberdeen. In their book, published by Blackstone Press earlier this year, they said about evidence given by children :
"It is now almost 400 years since James VI of Scotland became James I of England, and nearly 300 years since the Act of Union : yet little knowledge about the Scottish legal system seems to have spread south of the Border. In Cambridge University Library there has been a copy of Dickson's classic treatise on the law of evidence in Scotland since 1864, and when the first author consulted it in 1989, he found that every page remained uncut!"
I believe that if the English were more familiar with our system of children's hearings, which was set up in 1971, they would establish something akin to that system in England. It is a matter of considerable regret to me that, despite a near consensus in the House, the Government have failed to use the Children Act 1989 as a step towards the creation of an informal system of courts south of the border. In that regard, England and Wales are some 20 years behind Scotland. However, in the matters dealt with by my new clauses Scotland lags behind England. The Minister is rectifying that to some extent in his new clauses.
In support of new clause 1 and the use of video-recorded interviews with children as evidence, I intend to quote from both the reports that I mentioned. I am disappointed by the Minister's comments on the use of such video-recorded interviews as evidence. I understand that such legislation, involving the use of such video-recorded interviews, will be introduced south of the border. If that is the case, we shall again be lagging behind in Scotland.
I confess that to draw up my new clause I plagiarised the draft Bill that was appended to the Scottish Law Commissioner's report. I make no apology for that, because, among other things, it has elicited a most heartening response on closed-circuit television from the Minister. I still hope to persuade the House on the need for a similar response to new clause 1. My aim is to lessen the appalling burden imposed on children, without harming the interests of the accused.
I think that the Pigot report may lead to new legislation south of the border. On page 69, it states :
Column 1233
"We recommend that at trials on indictment for violent and sexual offences and offences of cruelty and neglect and at comparable trials in the juvenile courts"--which is the English system--
"video-recorded interviews with children under the age of 14 conducted by police officers, social workers or those whose duties include the investigation of crime or the protection of the welfare of children should be admissible as evidence. Where the offence charged is of a sexual nature this provision should extend to child witnesses under the age of 17".
That is a radical proposal, but I accept it wholeheartedly. At page 18, paragraph 416, the Scottish Law Commission's report said :
"On the whole matter we accordingly recommend : 10(a) where a child has been cited to give evidence in a criminal trial, whether under solemn or summary procedure, it should be competent, as an alternative to adducing the child as a witness in court, to take the evidence of that child on commission prior to the date of the trial or, exceptionally, during the course of the trial."
This excellent report goes on :
"(b) the taking of evidence on commission should, so far as practicable, take place in a room which is congenial and non-threatening so that the child may feel at ease during the proceedings."
I heartily endorse that recommendation.
The video-recorded interviews to which I refer are far removed from precognitions under Scottish law. Precognition is
"The preliminary examination of witnesses or persons likely to know about the facts of a case, in order to obtain, with a view to trial, a general knowledge of the available evidence ; especially in criminal law, an examination by a procurator-fiscal of those who can give evidence regarding a crime or offence (in older practice conducted by or before a sheriff or other judge ordinary)". That quotation is taken from "The Oxford English Dictionary", second edition, volume XI. "The Concise Scots Dictionary" simply states that precognition is
"a statement made by a witness during this investigation." Such precognitions are usually conducted by ex-police officers, but it is not unknown for others to carry out such work, even though they may have had no training. The video-recorded interviews provided for by my new clause 1 would have to be spontaneous and voluntary. They should certainly not be based on interrogation and they should not be conducted by over-zealous professionals. I recognise that there are major difficulties ; they do not have to be pointed out to me by the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North -East (Mr. Campbell), or by my hon. and old Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). Precognitions have always caused difficulties for our courts. I am reminded of Lord Justice Clerk Thomson's comment in Kerr v. H.M. Advocate, Scottish Law Times 1958, volumne 82. He said that "Precognosers as a whole appear to be gifted with a measure of optimism which no amount of disillusionment appears to damp." As with precognitions, the interviews of children present problems because of their limited powers of conversation and their immaturity.
In the Butler-Sloss report the observation is offered that "Not all members of the judiciary"--
this is the English judiciary--
"are in favour of video recordings."
That comment, however, appears to be based on anecdotal evidence, perhaps obtained during conversations with fellow judges over a glass of sherry. No research evidence is offered in that report for the reservation concerning video-recorded interviews being used as depositions.
Column 1234
The commissioner to whom the Law Commission refers would need to be chosen carefully, perhaps initially from the ranks of reporters to the children's panels. I have every confidence in their integrity. My hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden will readily agree with that comment, because he was employed for a short time as a reporter. Professionals of that kind could, in the early days, take on the role of commissioner in order to obtain such evidence. A young child is much better able to remember dreadful incidents shortly after the perpetrator has committed them rather than in a courtroom six, eight, 10 months, or even a year or 18 months later. That is why I say that video-recorded interviews should be used as evidence in such cases. I regret that we are dealing with these important issues on Report. They are worthy of lengthy and tough- minded debate. There are cases under investigation in Scotland to which I cannot refer because they are sub judice. However, they have aroused a sense of horror and repugnance among all decent-minded people throughout the land, despite the conservative reservations of lawyers. I have much respect for lawyers, despite some of the observations that I have made, but, by heavens, they form part of a conservative profession. They always offer, as the Minister has done, the classic conservative argument that the moment is not right for change, that the moment is not propitious. It is the classic argument of the conservative lawyer, irrespective of political affiliation.New clause 2 provides for the use of screens. Again the Scottish Office is lagging behind the English. I refer to Home Office circular 61/1990, published in August 1990. The title of the circular is "Use of Screens in Magistrates' Courts."
That circular was sent to the clerk to the Magistrates' Courts Committee and to clerks to the justices, with a copy for the chairmen of the bench, for information. The circular has also been sent to the chief officers of police in England and to the chief probation officer. The circular says about screens :
"The purpose of this circular is to bring to the attention of courts a recent decision of the Court of Appeal on the use of screens in courts in cases of violence and/or sexual abuse involving child witnesses.
2. The Court of Appeal, in the case of R v X, R v Y, R v Z [1989] The Times' November 3 ruled that the use of screens was not unfair or prejudicial in order to prevent children from being intimidated by their surroundings.
3. Justices' clerks may also wish to be aware that the Advisory Group on Video Evidence, chaired by Judge Pigot, in its Report published in December 1989 recommended that screens should be used in proceedings in magistrates' courts in cases of violence against and/or sexual abuse of children. This would help child witnesses to bear the burdens of appearance in open court, cross-examination, face to face confrontation with the alleged perpetrator and repeated and unnecessary worry about matters which may be extremely distressing or even traumatic."
If the measure is regarded as necessary for English children, why is it not necessary for Scottish children?
During the summer recess, which was not all holiday for hard-working Members of Parliament, I examined--not with an architect's eye but with a shipwright's eye--all the court rooms in the sheriff courts in Edinburgh. On some occasions I sat in on cases. I have examined all the High Court courtrooms and the courtrooms in the sheriff court in Glasgow. That court must be the most modern in Scotland. God knows what the architects were thinking when they placed the witness box in each of those courts within 12 or 15 ft of the dock.
Column 1235
5 pmIn those circumstances, young children may have to give evidence about members of their family--their nearest and dearest--within three or four yards of the accused. If the English can introduce screens and such a circular can be sent out by the Home Office, why cannot the Minister send a similar circular to Scottish sheriffs? On page 19, paragraph 4.17 the Law commission report says : "we expressed considerable reservations about the use of screens as a means of concealing an accused from the sight of a child who is giving evidence in court. Those reservations were based, first, on a concern that screens might not in fact be effective in reducing a child's anxiety".
I recognise and reaffirm the distinctiveness of our legal system, but in this case we in Scotland have a good deal to learn from the English experience, just as they have a good deal to learn from our excellent system of children's hearings. Screens could be used in some of our courts and, given the architecture of those courts, they would provide an essential protection for children.
As I have said, I have no wish to continue with new clause 3 in the light of the Minister's comprehensive new clauses. However, although I am heartened by the Minister's new clauses, I am deeply disappointed and saddened by his obduracy about the use of screens. He is a courteous and civilised adversary in debates, but, in the light of the Home Office circular to English magistrates, I am appalled at what appears to be a contradiction between what he said in the House last night--column 1060 of Hansard --about the use of video evidence and what he has said today. I am fairly confident that it is a genuine mistake. Like many other hon. Members and many people outwith the House, he has confused closed circuit television links with video recordings. I do not think that there is any such thing as a video link. He is talking about a closed circuit television installation that allows a child to give evidence while sitting in congenial surroundings in a room adjourning the court. There cannot be a video link in those circumstances.
The video-recorded interview is a change. It has been argued for by police officers, police surgeons, social workers and the Royal Scottish Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Children. I visited the society's unit in the east end of Glasgow last week. It has a video camera with a two-way mirror. I do not know why they are called two-way mirrors because those being observed cannot see the observers. People such as Norman Dunning and Sam McTaggart of the RSSPCC should be allowed to interview a child following abuse or an assault. That interview should be used in its entirety as a production and should be admissible as evidence. The aim is to reduce the appalling distress that is inflicted upon children following such abuse.
Apparently my new clause has some technical deficiencies, but, if the Minister were to produce something along similar lines, I believe that it would lead to a significant improvement in the rehabilitation and treatment of children caught up in horrendous circumstates. Also it might persuade mothers, in some cases the fathers, or those responsible for the care and protection of children to come forward so that the alleged perpetrator may be proceeded against. My response to the Minister is mixed. I am pleased with his new clause concerning closed circuit television, but I
Column 1236
am deeply disappointed, indeed angered, over his obdurate response to my new clause 1. He still has a chance to change his mind about my new clause.Mr. Dewar : There was some laughter when the Minister said that he had consulted the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) about new clause 24. There was a voice from afar, a sort of thought transference, as the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) told us of the hon. and learned Gentleman's support for this proposition. It meant no disrespect to the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross, but the Minister has spent all his time in Committee disagreeing with him on everything and it seems odd that he should now pray in aid his agreement as a conclusive argument.
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton : All advocates at the Bar will recognise that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross is an exceptionally experienced criminal lawyer. He has had immense experience in the courts. The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) has been his junior counsel, as have my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I.
Mr. Dewar : I accept that. I do not wish to spend my time discussing the hon. and learned Gentleman's views except to say that I am not surprised that he supports new clause 24. I should have thought that he would have great doubts about new clause 26, which deals with identification procedures, but I shall come to that. This is an important announcement. It has come late in our proceedings and I regret that, because we have no opportunity for amendment. My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) might have made more progress if this had been carried out on a different timetable. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who, as we know, has long been involved in this matter. He has done an enormous amount of hard work and has shown tremendous interest and commitment in the cause of helping children through the stressful and difficult occasion of having to give evidence in court. The change in views must owe something to my hon. Friend's work and efforts. I speak perhaps from a prejudiced position. For a short period, I earned my bread and butter as a defence lawyer, practising mainly in the criminal courts. As a counterweight to that, I spent five years as a reporter to the children's panel, which might have given me a rather different perspective. I welcome the new clause on the use of television links to take the evidence of children. I hope that it will work well, because it is important to protect children in that difficult position.
We have heard much about the Scottish Law Commission report, which was published in February and is the fundamental basis of this debate. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow about the fundamental point made in paragraph 4.8, which says that there is
"a range of available options from which can be selected the one which appears likely to be the most beneficial in a given case." There were three available options, and I have some sympathy with the point about the reasons why one of the three has been selected. However, the Minister's argument was not clear on that point.
Column 1237
The Minister should say more about pre- trial deposition, the use of screens and why it was decided not to proceed with them ; there is some confusion. My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow made a strong plea on pre-trial deposition, but what he was advocating in his new clause is different from what the Law Commission advocated in its report. He kept saying that it is an excellent report and that it should be implemented, but the key to pre-trial deposition is that it is not just a recorded voluntary statement by the child but a formal examination of the child. A key factor recommended by the Law Commission was that there should be cross-examination of the child by the solicitors appearing for the Crown and defence which should take place at the latest possible date and as near to the trial date as is administratively possible. That is very different from what my hon. Friend was advocating. I do not want to enter into the details of that point because of the constraints on time, but pre-trial deposition can be interpreted in rather different ways. I sympathise with my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow about the use of screens and the Minister should say a little more about them.It came as a surprise to me that closed circuit television was now selected for debate in this way, and I stress the word "now", because, as anyone who has the most cursory interest in this matter will recognise, it has a curious history. Paragraph 4.28 of the Law Commission's report says :
"In the Discussion Paper"--
that was the basis of its findings--
"we suggested that live closed circuit television should not be introduced in Scotland as a means of enabling child witnesses to give their evidence. Our principal reason for reaching that conclusion was that we considered that a child who was too frightened to give evidence in court was unlikely to be any less frightened if required to sit in a distant room, surrounded by a mass of cameras and screens No doubt in view of the negative position which we ourselves had adopted at that stage, the majority of consultees simply agreed with us without making any further comment."
The Law Commission came down decisively against the proposition that it then advocated in its final report because, as I understand it, it reached the conclusion in paragraph 4.31 that
"a closed circuit television arrangement along the lines which we have described appears likely to be helpful."
Paragraph 4.29 says that English experience
"has persuaded us, first, that a closed circuit television arrangement need not be obtrusive or threatening from the point of view of the child, and second, that it need not, and does not, present problems from the point of view of judges, counsel and, so far as can be ascertained, juries."
It therefore reached its conclusions on the basis of English experience. I want to make a confession to the House which is probably shared by most hon. Members present : I have not seen the English experience in action. I do not know whether the Minister has done so ; perhaps when he replies he will say whether he has. 5.15 pm
I do not want to found too much on this, but perhaps as a corrective and a warning I say that we shall have to monitor this practice carefully. I have seen a report of a solicitor whom I know extremely well and who has very wide knowledge of these cases. He is noted for his work in welfare law and cases involving children. He recently visited Guildford Crown court--he showed much enthusiasm in doing so--and I have the report that he
Column 1238
wrote for the benefit of the Law Society. He says that he visited that court in a positive frame of mind. He states that he is strongly in favour of reform and"Given that I approached this task in that frame of mind I was disappointed by what I saw at Guildford. The most abiding overall impression is that the use of the live television link is very obviously more conducive to an inquisitorial process and is very much out of place grafted on to adversarial proceedings."
He mentions several technical difficulties that he witnessed and records the fact, in a rather legal phrase which may prejudice his testimony in some people's minds, that
"There is no doubt that the use of this television link system generates an aura in the court which is not conducive to a vigorous defence case."
He backed that up from what he saw in that court.
That is one of the difficulties. We are trying to produce such an atmosphere, but, as was fairly acknowledged by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow, the balance must be maintained, and it is sometimes difficult to achieve that.
I do not want to quote that report at length, because it would not be fair to do so, but it is clear that that solicitor, having seen the system in operation, took a rather different view from the Law Commission. We shall obviously have to monitor these matters carefully, although I am certain that we are right to try to strike at the problems of children giving evidence and to create an atmosphere that is fairer and will put them more at ease. We tend to argue these matters in the context of child abuse cases, but the Government's proposal is available--I stress the word "available"--for any witness under the age of 16. It is perhaps not always true to say that it will be used for a small child who perhaps has been sexually abused by a member of the family.
My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow mentioned the excellence of the report, but he will not have forgotten that in paragraph 4.7 the Law Commission states :
"Any new techniques or procedures will, we anticipate, be required in a relatively small number of cases."
I find that a little disappointing. If the Law Commission is right, such new techniques or procedures may not make as big an impact as perhaps some people expect.
I suspect that most of the evidence that is given by children about sexual abuse, perhaps in the home and involving members of their family, will be given not in criminal trials but in children's panel hearing proofs. Although that is not a criminal trial, and although some courts try to put the child at his or her ease, many of the inhibitions and the problems that will exist for the child giving evidence would exist for him giving evidence in a criminal charge. The effect for the child in terms of what may happen and whether he may continue to live at home is perhaps just as traumatic and drastic. We may have to consider how we run our children's hearing proofs because that may become a matter of some importance. Does the Minister intend to accept the Scottish Law Commission's recommendation in paragraph 4.40 that guidelines should be laid down for the courts on when these television arrangements should be used? Perhaps he feels that it would be better to leave the matter entirely to the discretion of the courts. The hon. Gentleman should say something also about the Scottish Law Commission's recommendation that, if this system is used, it must be founded on an application before the trial by one of the parties to the trial, be it the Crown or the defence.
Column 1239
Presumably, some thought has been given to that aspect. It would be useful to know whether a pre-trial application must be made and when this system will begin to operate.The report on the Guildford Crown court proceedings referred to a child who was in a separate room with someone who knew that child--I was going to say "minder" but it sounds a little inhuman. In that case, it was the mother. The counsel who conducted the
examination-in-chief and cross-examination remained in the court-room. I gather that in Canada counsel go into the room with the child and the whole case is examined there. This is a fundamental difference in approach. I suspect that some of the difficulties on which my colleague reported in the Guildford case may have arisen from the fact that there was a preference for counsel on both sides to speak "from afar" through the television mechanism.
Dr. Godman : One can think of variations. Why not put the accused person or persons in a room adjoining the court, with links to the courtroom? One can think of a number of ways in which life can be made much easier for the child without harming the interests of the accused.
Mr. Dewar : That matter can be discussed. It is a fairly basic principle--this may sound like a lawyer's point--that an accused man or woman is entitled to be present throughout his or her trial. If that person is in another room with a television link, there might be problems. However, I take my hon. Friend's point. All these matters can be discussed.
New clause 26 will be of particular concern to many people involved in court work because it involves identification of the accused. Paragraph 3.7 of the Scottish Law Commission report states : "The identification of an accused person as the perpetrator of an alleged offence is always an essential matter which the prosecution requires to establish in the course of a trial."
If this is an essential matter, careful arrangements must be made to ensure that identification can be fairly tested and challenged by the defence if it wishes.
I recognise that "dock identification"--to use the Scottish Law Commission's words--has been in disfavour in England and Wales since 1914 and I recognise all its shortcomings. I have often been struck by the fact that it is not very difficult for a person to know who he is supposed to identify if the other person is sitting in the dock between two policemen. Memory may be unreliable after a period has passed and not be as sound when the trial comes around. Identification is important. I accept that in many of the cases in which this procedure may be used, involving allegations of child abuse within a family, identification may not be a big issue. But for all that, there is a much more wide-ranging power in new clause 26 and we must pay some attention to it.
The Scottish Law Commission dealt at some length with this matter and concluded that in a case where there was identification parade evidence or some other recognised identification procedure--perhaps involving a young person and identification from a group of photographs--evidence of that should be lodged as a production 14 days before the trial. The Scottish Law Commission concluded that, during the period before the trial, the defence should have the right to challenge, and if that evidence were challenged presumably identification would have to be made during the trial in a more
Column 1240
traditional fashion. That may seem a little clumsy. Clearly, an attempt was made to ensure that there was a right of challenge. New clause 26 states that where"the child gives evidence that he recalls having identified, prior to the trial, a person alleged to have committed an offence, the evidence of a third party as to the identification of that person by the child prior to the trial shall be admissable as evidence as to such identification."
How does the defence challenge that identification? The Minister must address himself to that point. The defence can challenge the third party who is giving evidence, but the third party is not the primary person involved. Is it envisaged that, in those circumstances, the child can be cross-examined? Presumably, one would be able to cross-examine the child about the circumstances in which he made the identification.
It is important to establish exactly what is envisaged because the identification may be vital in some cases. Even in sexual abuse cases, assumptions may be made about who is responsible. In my experience, such assumptions are not always justified. Another person may have been responsible, even if the incident took place as described. We all know that identification can be shaken. I know even from my limited and lowly experience in the sheriff court that identification has been decisively shaken under cross-examination in terms of the jury's decision.
I am concerned about new clause 26. I recognise that we do not want to put undue pressure on a child, but some cases relate to charges that are peculiarly damaging to the reputation of the accused and have disastrous consequences. We must be careful to ensure that there is a right to challenge identification evidence. I am not sure whether, on the face of new clause 26, that will apply as well as the Minister would like. I hope that he will comment on that matter. My fears may be exaggerated. For example, there may be a pre-trial application by the Crown to protect a child. The defence may say, "The essence of our defence is that my witness was not involved. There has been a mistake in identification." The court may take that information into account in deciding whether this procedure is entirely appropriate. There is a difficult balance to strike and there are unanswered questions about the identification issue. I have taken enough time to express some of my anxieties. We are right to go down this road. I have some sympathy with the screen proposal. I feel that much more work should be done on the matter of pre-trial depositions than is possible during these truncated proceedings. I hope that what the Minister offers will protect the child, remove the threatening majesty of the system, allow the child to speak more freely and in a more relaxed fashion and allow the court to get the truth with more certainty, which is the point of the exercise. It is difficult to strike a balance, but I am happy with the idea that we should introduce these provisions, that we should monitor them carefully and that we should learn from experience and consider what further steps are necessary.
Mr. Menzies Campbell : I have grave reservations about these provisions. Those reservations are in no sense ameliorated by the fact that we are discussing these matters against the background of a time restraint. What we are discussing represents a substantial innovation in criminal procedure and the law of evidence in Scotland.
The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) spoke with great sincerity and on the basis of
| Next Section
| Home Page |