To identify any potential areas of cross-examination the defence may later explore. For example, has the child been prompted or led in any way in the interview? Has the interviewer complied with Achieving Best Evidence? Was anyone present in the interview room who should not have been? The imposition of appropriate conditions or a remand in custody where applicable can be a highly effective way of safeguarding children. The nature of the application will depend on the circumstances of the case; where the defendant is charged with an allegation of physical or sexual abuse against a child, protection of the child will be obvious. However, there will be cases where there is a child who is not a victim or a witness, but where the behaviour of the defendant is such that there are substantial grounds for believing that the child is in danger. The reporting restrictions available depend on the age of the victim, witness or defendant, the nature of the proceedings and the court.

In such cases, prosecutors should ensure that the final decision is fully supported by relevant information and reasoning. In many cases it is possible adequately to mitigate adverse effects of the trial process by applying for appropriate special measures. In extreme cases, witness anonymity, for example, may be considered. The Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 (YJCEA) introduced a range of measures that can be used to facilitate the gathering and giving of evidence by vulnerable and intimidated witnesses. The measures are collectively known as " special measures".

Changes over time for: Section 53

Part II Chapter I of Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 (YJCEA 1999) sets out a range of measures that may be available to witnesses in criminal proceedings who are “vulnerable” or “intimidated”. See the legal guidance on Special Measures and Part 18 of the Criminal Procedure Rules. Regular liaison should be had by the prosecution team with the Witness Service supporter or OIC so that a child can wait until shortly before needed to give evidence, either at home or somewhere away from the court where he or she is likely to feel more relaxed. Explaining delays Trawling' for new potential witnesses is not prohibited. The police have a statutory duty to investigate allegations of child abuse, regardless of whether they relate to contemporary or past events. Prosecutors should certainly enquire as to whether and how it has been done and consider the implications for any evidence that arises. Any initial approach by the police to former residents should, so far as possible, go no further than a general invitation to provide information to the investigation team. The court process In R v Barker [2010] EWCA Crim 4, it was stated that it was not open to the judge to create or impose some additional but non-statutory criteria based on the approach of earlier generations to the evidence of young children. In particular, although the chronological age of the child will inevitably help to inform the judicial decision about competency, in the end, the decision is about the individual child and their competence to give evidence in the trial in question. Public interest stage

However, there may be circumstances where the offence committed is so serious or the suspect’s past record suggests that there are no suitable alternatives so that a prosecution is therefore in the public interest. Other aggravating features are: The 2013 multi-agency protocol for Good Practice for Disclosure of Information in Cases of Alleged Child Abuse and Linked Criminal Cases sets out mechanisms for the appropriate disclosure of police information in family proceedings courts to assist the courts in the determination of any factual or welfare issue within the family proceedings. An unredacted evidential statement of the witness; this is not required where it is proposed to request the court to exercise its discretion under section 87(2)(a) not to be informed of the identity of the witness, unless the prosecutor decides that they need to see a version which does identify the witness; and,

Cite This Work

Completion of sexual quizzes on the internet - R v Ben-Rajab and Baccar [2012]1Cr App R4, in which the Court of Appeal took the view that the expression is wide enough to embrace the activity of viewing pornography or engaging in sexually-charged messaging over a live internet connection and included answering questions in a sexually explicit quiz; whether the police have any reason to believe that the witness may not provide truthful evidence to the court. There are often good reasons why such cases do not come to light at the time of the incidents, beyond the possibility that they are untrue. For example: children are used to being controlled by adults and offenders can be expert at exercising control; they may not even realise until they are older that they have been subjected to abuse; they may only be prompted to reveal what happened to them when they see the pattern being repeated with younger relatives. There is nothing that intrinsically prevents a prosecution, merely because the incident dates from a much earlier time. Abuse of process arguments can often be successfully defended. Nevertheless, prosecutors must take additional care with such cases, if for no other reason than that the evidence is inevitably more fragile. Consideration must also be given to what evidence may no longer be available and how this might impact on the fairness of the trial. Institutional cases In addition, the court must be satisfied that to refuse leave would result in an unsafe conclusion being drawn on a relevant issue of trial. Permission will also be refused by the court if it is considered that the principal aim of evidence claimed to relate to a relevant issue is simply to undermine the complainant’s reliability.

It is good practice to give witnesses an indication of the time they are likely to have to wait, to minimise the waiting time at court for children and to arrange for them to be at court for the shortest possible time. Practice Direction 12G (para 2.1 ‘Communication of information’): This sets out what information can be communicated to third parties - including the police and CPS. In essence, a party in family proceedings or any person lawfully in receipt of information can give the 'text or summary of the whole or part of a judgement given in the proceedings' to a police officer for the purposes of a criminal investigation or to a member of the CPS 'to enable the department to discharge its functions under any enactment.' If a prosecutor decides that it is not appropriate to make an application, then the prosecutor must advise both the police and the person in the CPS who would have been responsible for authorising the application, to allow the police to make further representations if required. Arrangements before and at trial If the VRI has been edited, for example to remove inadmissible material, this should be explained to the child so that they are not confused when the recording does not match their recollection of the interview. Provision for prosecution counsel to speak to the anonymous witness at court before they give evidence;In essence s.41 institutes a structured approach to the exercise of judicial discretion in sexual offences cases, effectively limiting the circumstances in which evidence of a complainant’s sexual history can be admitted or examined. Separate guidance is available in relation to youth offenders. Separate, detailed guidance is also available in relation to child abuse cases. Prosecutors and Safeguarding There are also automatic reporting restrictions on certain pre-trial hearings (see the Contempt of Court, Reporting Restrictions and Restriction on Public Access to Hearings legal guidance). However, such restrictions generally only last until the conclusion of the trial(s).