| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Ms Ann Coffey (Stockport): I support my hon. Friend's new clause. She has campaigned hard and long
for changes in the way in which children are allowed to present evidence in court. The crucial part of the proposals would allow pre-trial cross-examination of children and speed up the court process.
Appearing as a witness in court can be an intimidating experience for anyone, and it can be particularly traumatic for children, especially when they are being asked to give evidence involving descriptions of incidents in which they have been sexually or physically abused. Such evidence may be against a parent or step-parent. The child is already traumatised by shame, guilt, anger and deep distress. The initial disclosure by the child can cause great difficulties for the family of which he or she was a member. The family's emotional disturbance will continue for months. The child and the family have to cope with that.
It is not only the immediate families that have to cope. If the family member accused of assault is still in the house, the child will probably be moved to foster parents or to a children's home. The foster parents, or staff of the home, have to cope with deeply disturbed children for a long time. The child may ask about what is happening or when he or she can go home. Children, especially young children, do not have the maturity to understand the complexities of the justice system.
Speeding the system up is important. The longer the delay in resolution by the court process, the longer it is before counselling and therapy can begin, not only for the child, but for other family members. The longer the delay in beginning counselling, the harder it is to repair the damage--if it can be repaired. No one should underestimate the effect of sexual abuse on children. I am not an expert, but I worked for 20 years in child care before I was elected to the House, and I know enough to understand how complicated, sensitive and difficult the subject is.
We must have a court system that delivers justice so that, as far as possible, the innocent go free and the guilty are convicted. Sexual abuse is a serious offence. In difficult cases, where forensic evidence may not exist or be inconclusive, the evidence of the child is crucial. The new clauses acknowledge that such evidence must be credible and open to proper examination. Pre-trial cross-examination takes nothing away from that process, but would ensure that it took account of the special vulnerability of child witnesses.
There is often a great gap between the Government's rhetoric on an issue and their actions. On this matter, the gap is very evident. The new clauses have cross-party support and give the Minister the opportunity to close the gap. Accepting their principle would give justice to children who are traumatised by the way in which the court process is set up, and further traumatised by the way that they have to give evidence, on top of the trauma that they have suffered as victims of assault.
Mr. Roger Sims (Chislehurst):
The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) is a doughty champion of children's causes. She and the hon. Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey) have effectively deployed the case for the new clauses, to which I was glad to add my name to ensure that these issues were discussed today.
I shall not detain the House by repeating the arguments, but I was much involved in the early stages of legislation to make the video recording of children's evidence
admissible in the courts. I drew on my experience as a magistrate, as chairman of my local juvenile court before I entered Parliament, and on my close knowledge of the work of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. I was a predecessor of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme as a trustee of that society. I saw something of the pioneering work that was done in Bexley to work out ways in which evidence could be taken on video.
When the idea was first proposed, the hope was that, when an accused person was confronted with a video recording of evidence given by the child as soon as possible after the offence was revealed, and realised that the evidence would be produced in court, he--it is usually he, but could of course be she--would change his plea to avoid the child having to appear in court and realise that such evidence would be difficult for him to refute.
Unfortunately, although that hope has been realised in some cases, it has not happened to the extent to which many of us had hoped. As a result, a number of such charges still find their way to court. That being so, it is all the more important that the recommendations of the Pigot report are implemented. I remind my hon. Friend the Minister that the Government specifically requested the Pigot report. The committee was set up by the Government to advise them on how such matters should be handled. That the report's recommendations have been implemented only in part has shown the potential value of video evidence, and, now, there is surely a need to implement them in full.
It is important that our legal procedures provide justice for the accused--of course I understand that in this context--but it is also important that there should be justice for children. For all the reasons described by the hon. Members for Newcastle-under-Lyme and for Stockport, that is not always so at the moment.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will feel able to accept some or all of the new clauses--at least in spirit, if not to the letter. Failing that, I hope that he will be able to give some convincing explanation why he cannot do so.
Mr. Alex Carlile:
I shall start by paying tribute to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding). Since she came into the House, she has dedicated herself to this issue and has already achieved a great deal. I hope that she will achieve more tonight.
I want to try to offer some apolitical, practical observations on what is proposed in the light of what is already available. As it happens, and as the House knows, I am a practising barrister. I have practised in cases during which the existing video provisions have been used--as a prosecutor in some and as a defender in others. I have also been a recorder of the Crown court for a number of years and, as a judge, I have conducted cases in which video equipment has been used.
My observation is that, although there were many doubts among practitioners about the way in which the video system would work, it has worked very well. It has been possible to prosecute and defend effectively, and judges, after all, have had to learn only how to control a box with three buttons on it, which most of them have managed without too much difficulty. The system is simple and effective.
In accordance with the recommendations of the Pigot committee, it is proposed that, having tried and tested the system, we should extend it to cover cross-examination.
It would not be a very dramatic extension, and I believe that all practitioners with experience regard it as feasible. It would not remove from the trial judge discretion--indeed, it specifically preserves it--where appropriate to have a live cross-examination in open court with the defendant and witness present, which would undoubtedly remain appropriate in some cases, although I suspect not very many.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Timothy Kirkhope):
I do not think that there is any particular difference between hon. Members on the need to look after the interests of children in what might often be an extremely stressful situation. I add my tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) and the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding). I know of their enormous work, especially as trustees of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, and in other ways, looking after the interests of children. The Government also want to try to preserve those interests. Because of that, I am unable to recommend that the House should accept the new clauses, and I shall explain why.
The new clauses reflect the concern that we all share. We must be responsive to the needs of children in such a difficult situation. It was, of course, that concern that prompted the Government to include in the Bill provisions on binding rulings on applications to give evidence by means of a video recording or live television link. The new clauses go further in a way in which, as I shall explain, we do not believe is in the best interests of children.
New clause 6, which repeats some of the recommendations of the 1989 Pigot report, provides for a scheme of pre-trial cross-examination of children to be video recorded for use at trial. The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme suggests that, in that way, cross-examination could be conducted sooner, that the child would never have to appear in court, and that there would be no constraints on the provision of therapy. I am sure that those are all laudable objectives, but neither we nor the former Lord Chief Justice, whose views we sought, are satisfied that they can be achieved. Indeed, we are concerned that such an approach could result in more stress for the child rather than less.
Implementation of the Pigot report's recommendations has been mentioned. I should like to clarify that--I am sure hon. Members are aware of it--we have implemented the vast majority of the Pigot recommendations, mostly in the Criminal Justice Act 1991. Many helpful recommendations were implemented. If they were thought to be practical, they were introduced in that Act. I am sure that they have done much to help the way in which we deal with children in court or procedural settings.
The fundamental difficulty with the approach proposed by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme is that a proper cross-examination cannot take place until the defence is fully prepared to proceed with the trial. At that stage, the aim should be to proceed with the trial as soon as possible. I acknowledge the hon. Lady's remarks about
the need to proceed with the trial as soon as possible, but it is unlikely that pre-trial cross-examination could take place very much earlier than it does at present.
New clause 7 seeks to address that problem by imposing a time limit within which cross-examination must be completed following committal proceedings. In effect, as I have just explained, that time limit would be one within which both sides must be ready, not only for cross-examination, but for the trial to proceed. New clause 7 also provides for extensions of the time limit. It is likely that such a power would be used frequently, and that there would, therefore, be no practical improvement.
A further difficulty with pre-trial cross-examination is that it could lead to a child having to be recalled to answer further questions at the trial and so being caused further distress. New clause 8 recognises the potential for such recalls. That was also an aspect of the proposals on which we sought the views of the former Lord Chief Justice at an earlier stage in the passage of the Bill. He and his senior colleagues took the view that further questions might easily arise and that, bearing in mind the judge's responsibility to ensure a fair trial, the judge could not reasonably refuse the defence the chance to do so. Further cross-examination would also be video recorded, but could place further stress on the child who had to go through the process two or more times, perhaps at short notice.
New clause 9 appears to be designed to create a similar scheme by a different route. Sections 42 and 43 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 provide for a child's evidence to be given in the form of a written deposition taken down by a magistrate. The offence must be one involving sexual assault or violence and a qualified medical practitioner has to give evidence that attendance at court would involve serious danger to the child's life or health. The provisions were intended to provide a method of getting so-called "sick-bed" evidence by children tested at the bedside and admitted into court. The provisions are hardly ever used, as the hon. Lady suggested--no doubt because the test of serious danger to the child's life or health is very difficult to meet. In addition, evidence taken in that way is admissible only if the defence has had an opportunity to cross-examine the child.
The new clause would, therefore, allow the child's evidence and the cross-examination to be video recorded in advance of the trial. For that reason, it raises all the difficulties about pre-trial cross-examination to which I have just referred. A child in such a condition should be protected from stress as far as is humanly possible. In any event, if a child is seriously ill it must be doubtful whether he or she should be expected to have to video record evidence or undergo cross-examination.
The Government are unable to accept the new clauses, not because we doubt in any way the strong views that have been expressed, or the commitment of those who have expressed them to the interests of children, but because, for the reasons that I have explained, we do not believe that they are in the best interests of the child. Rather than embark on changes of the kind proposed in the new clauses, we are pursuing a range of practical improvements to the present arrangements for child witnesses to give evidence.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |