| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following: New clause 7--Time limits for pre-trial hearings--
'.--(1) Where permission is given under section 32A of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 subsection (3A), the pre-trial hearing shall be fixed within six weeks of the transfer or committal proceedings unless the court considers that it would be contrary to the interests of justice to do so.
(2) Where the court does not consider that the usual time limit of six weeks would be in the interest of justice, an alternative time limit shall be fixed by the court.'.
New clause 8--Recall of child witnesses--
New clause 9--Evidence of absent children--
Mrs. Golding:
I wish to declare an interest, in that I am a trustee of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and the joint chairman of the all-party parliamentary group for children.
I pay tribute to the work that the NSPCC has done to achieve justice for children, and which has led to the production of these new clauses. The Minister has said that the Labour party has not been heavily involved in this issue, but I can refer him to three Acts that contain measures that were proposed by Labour Members and others in an effort to get the Government to do something to provide more justice for children. I also wish to pay tribute to Baroness Faithfull, who died recently. She was irrepressible, and will be irreplaceable as far as children are concerned.
Much has been done to improve our criminal justice system through a series of Criminal Justice Acts. Unrepresented defendants can no longer cross-examine a child witness. Child witnesses are allowed to give evidence through a live television link or from behind screens with the leave of the court. Video recording can be given in evidence in place of the examination-in-chief, as long as the child is available for cross-examination at the trial. The competency requirement for child witnesses has been abolished.
It is clear from research that, even when a child has given the evidence-in-chief on video and has then been cross-examined by live television link, he or she finds the experience of live cross-examination at trial extremely intimidating. Children suffer from high stress while waiting for our court system to move, and there can be long delays before they give evidence. These new clauses would go a long way towards remedying that problem.
Imagine, Mr. Deputy Speaker, having to speak in a court to a room full of strangers while being repeatedly told that you may be lying. Very often, that can be done until the witness breaks down in tears and does not know what to say. Imagine being six, seven, eight or nine years old and having to face our court system. It is bad enough for an adult--it must be much worse for a young child. Too many children face such abuse from a legal system that is supposed to protect them.
The NSPCC, which does much good work to help children who have to go to court to give evidence, told me that a 13-year-old child called Philip had to wait seven months to go to court. He attended the trial, but was unable to testify at the last moment. He said:
We must implement the recommendations of the 1989 Judge Pigot report of the Home Office advisory group into the giving of video evidence, and allow children to give evidence at an early stage outside court. That key proposal is receiving strong backing from people and organisations directly involved with children. The Royal College of Psychiatrists has said:
The Criminal Bar Association and the Law Society back the proposal. the Government should certainly back it. It would go a long way to remove the unnecessary stress on child witnesses, and it would be better for the child's welfare if such cases came to court as quickly as possible. That would ensure that fuller and more accurate evidence was given, and it would be in the interests of the accused. In addition, the Director of Public Prosecutions said recently:
New clause 8 provides for the judge to recall a child witness if he deems it necessary. The Minister may say that that negates the benefits of new clause 6, but I do not see it that way. It is in the interests of the accused and of the accuser that there should be a mechanism for the recall of a witness who has testified if something unforeseen has occurred. Many sex abuse cases, I am told, are perfectly straightforward. The evidence is known to both sides, and it would be exceptional for a recall to be applied for. It is another recommendation of the Pigot committee.
Despite its contradictory appearance, the advantage of the pre-trial hearing is that the main evidence will have been dealt with and the child will be expected to deal only with the new points on application to the judge. That is fair to both sides, and that is what our justice system should be about.
New clause 9 deals with evidence from absent children. It is another proposal that has been made before, but it is no less relevant today. The Children and Young Persons Act 1933 very sensibly allowed for written evidence to be given by children who were not well enough to be brought to court. The new clause would extend that provision to the use of video recorded evidence. As technology moves on, so should we.
New clause 7 deals with the time limit for pre-trial hearings and states:
I had a letter from a lady from Carlisle about a man who had been brought to court charged with indecently assaulting her 14-year-old daughter. He was also charged with assaulting his daughter. The charge was brought in May 1995. The case went to Carlisle Crown court on6 September 1995. On 16 October, the court arranged a trial date of 15 January, but the judge directed that there should be a hearing on 17 November, when he would consider whether to allow the two victims to give their evidence by video link.
I got this information from the chief executive of the Court Service's reply to my complaint. He said:
'.--There shall be inserted after subsection (5) of section 32A of the Criminal Justice Act 1988--
"(5A) The court may grant leave for the recall of a child witness who was cross examined at a preliminary hearing if it appears to the court to be in the interests of justice to give such permission.
(5B) Where the court allows a child witness to be recalled, a further out-of-court hearing should be held under the same conditions as the preliminary hearing".'.
'.--(1) The Children and Young Persons Act 1933 shall be amended as follows.
(2) In section 42, in subsection (1) the words "or by video recording" shall be inserted after the words "may take in writing".
(3) In section 43, the words "he or" shall be omitted.'.
"I could have done it six months ago when I was so angry about what he did to me. I can't face it now. I've had too long to think about it".
A problem for many children is that the stress and strain of waiting to go to court is too much for them. How can we protect other children if a child cannot give evidence? How can the accused defend himself if the case does not come to trial? How can we protect other children and break the cycle of abuse? We must obtain the best possible evidence from child witnesses without inflicting more emotional damage upon them. A court is no place for children, and we must do more to tackle that fact.
"Overall, we consider that the Pigot Committee recommendations should be implemented fully."
12 Jun 1996 : Column 344
The report of the Commission on Children and Violence said:
The British Association of Social Workers said:
"The proposals concerning child witnesses in the Pigot Report should be implemented in full."
"The recommendations of the Pigot Report should be implemented in full, which call for pre-trial hearings."
The Law Society said:
"The Pigot Report recommended that a judge should be able to order that the cross-examination of a child witness takes place at a pre-trial hearing in informal surroundings"
and backed that recommendation.
"A justice system where decisions of guilt or innocence are based on the fortitude of witnesses rather than the truth of allegations should not be permitted."
New clause 6 is backed by a wide variety of people and groups. The Minister said that we should consult legal practitioners. We have, and we have received much backing. I hope that the Minister will support it. We have asked for this measure for a long time, and it is time that the Government supported it.
"Where permission is given under section 32A of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 subsection (3A), the pre-trial hearing shall be fixed within six weeks of the transfer or committal proceedings unless the court considers that it would be contrary to the interests of justice to do so."
All the Home Office Ministers to whom I have listened--and I have listened to many--have emphasised their commitment to children and the need to hold hearings as quickly as possible and to bring such cases to court quickly. New clause 7 seeks to ensure that the pre-trial hearing is fixed at an early date to reduce the stress suffered by children. Under the present system, there is an average of 10 months before cases come to court. All too often, they are thrown out. One case has been waiting 13 months to go to trial. What sort of court system is that? What does that say about a Government who allow it?
"On 17 November, the judge did not decide on this point but told the prosecution how he was likely to view such an application. The provision of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 about evidence by video link relates to child witnesses under the age of fourteen . . . The judge therefore told the prosecution that on the basis of the age of the witnesses alone it would be difficult to persuade him to agree to the application."
I do not understand that, because the Criminal Justice Act was amended in 1991 to permit children up to the age of 17 to give their evidence in that way. It is obvious that the judge did not know about that. The judge also asked the prosecution to consider the likely effects on the other victim of giving evidence against her father. I do not know who the judge was or why he should think that fathers do not abuse their children. Often, someone in the family--and very often the father--is involved in abuse cases. If that judge is saying that children cannot give evidence against their father, hardly any cases would come to court. That would be nonsense.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |