Child witnesses set to be spared trauma of trials

Move to bring Scottish legal system in line with Norway.

Children could soon be protected from the ordeal of giving evidence in court.

Justice secretary Michael Matheson has backed sweeping changes to the way vulnerable young witnesses are treated by the justice system. This could see them give their evidence in a place they’re comfortable with months in advance of a trial.

At present, thousands of children are cross-examined in court every year. They are usually allowed to stand behind a special screen or speak via a video link from another part of the building.

But a judge-led review is urging further protections, already common in parts of Europe.

These include allowing child victims and witnesses to give their evidence to a camera away from court in child-friendly facilities. The pre-recorded footage would then be played back to a jury during the trial.

Mr Matheson said: “We should be able to make progress where children in effect should not really be in courts.”

Last month a review of the treatment of children and other vulnerable witnesses concluded Scotland is “significantly lagging behind” the rest of the world.

The review, led by Lord Carloway and Lord Justice Clerk, said there had been a “dramatic” increase in the number of children giving evidence in a system that was “ill equipped to accommodate them”.

The experienced legal chiefs concluded: “There is a compelling case that the evidence of a child or vulnerable witness should be captured in advance of any trial, in the form of a forensic interview, preferably as soon as possible after the initial complaint.

“Properly conducted, and often taking place within hours or days of the reported incident, such interviews are the best way to elicit a reliable and comprehensive account of the reported incident.”

The report estimated that in the first six months of 2014, around 1,800 children gave evidence in Scotland’s courts.

Prior to 2002, victims of rape and other sex attacks, including children, could be cross-examined by the accused.

The law changed after a case involving John Anderson, from Paisley, who was found not guilty of raping a girl of 13 and not proven on a second charge of raping her mother.

During the trial, Mr Anderson, then 48, questioned the girl for nearly three hours and her mother for 30 minutes.

He later sparked outrage by claiming the teenager had enjoyed being cross-examined by him.

Speaking at a Victim Support Scotland event at last weekend’s SNP conference in Glasgow, Mr Matheson said: “If you go to somewhere like Norway, a child, if they are a witness, never sees a court. They are not cross-examined.

“I recognise the need to have access to a fair trial but I am also confident that, in Norway, they can deliver a fair trial.

“They can also do it in such a way that recognises the vulnerability of certain witnesses and have measures in place that help address these things more effectively.”

But he warned: “The challenge won’t be for the court service, the challenge will be for the legal profession and how they conduct themselves.

“We should be able to make progress where children in effect should not really be in courts.”

The “Evidence and Procedure Report Review” recommended a new process for handling child witnesses be developed.

A working group, involving people from legal, children’s support and victims’ organisations, is working on plans which will be handed to the Justice Secretary in the autumn.

Among the options being considered is to adopt the Norwegian approach.

In the Scandinavian country an independent, judicially supervised, forensic interview takes place in advance of a trial, but without cross examination.

The judge-led report said regardless of the approach adopted, the court system had to improve the facilities on offer to child witnesses.

David Sinclair, of Victim Support Scotland, said: “We have long advocated improvements to the way vulnerable witnesses are dealt with by the court.

“Going to court can be a significant ordeal for children and we are delighted that the Cabinet Secretary recognises this and we are very supportive of changing the way things work.”

Ian Cruickshank, convener of the Law Society of Scotland Criminal Law Committee, said: “We would welcome any measures which improve the quality of evidence presented in criminal trials, particularly in relation to children and vulnerable witnesses.

“However, it is essential any proposal will continue to ensure witness evidence.”

A Scottish Government spokesman last month described the research as “thorough and thoughtprovoking”.

He said: “The Justice Board will now develop the issues it raises in a short-term working group which will involve partners from across the justice sector. We look forward to receiving their report in the autumn.”

Goodwill and new technology are what’s needed to improve situation

by Derek Ogg QC, one of Scotland’s top advocates and a former head of National Sexual Crimes Unit

THERE are pros and cons to this. We have come a long way from the days when very young children came to court and were unable to complete their evidence because they were simply overwhelmed by the experience.

The question is one of balance, making sure a child can give evidence but give evidence without being traumatised by the giving of it. The cross-examination has to be done live as the only way a jury can assess the credibility of a witness is to see their reaction live. The important thing about children giving evidence is, by and large, they are untutored. They give their evidence naturally so seeing them is important. But that doesn’t mean the jury need to be in the same room as the child giving evidence.

Nowadays, it is very seldom that any child case takes place without the child being on a video link from a room in the court, so what is the difference?

If you’re going to do it on a live link, why can’t we just do this in a more pleasant, off-site and child-friendly venue where the lawyers on both sides can still do their thing live, record it and then edit it and then play it to the jury?

It has to be done sensitively, allowing the child to tell the story but crucially for the story to be tested.

If someone is wrongly accused then it needs robust testing. Even launching a prosecution is a massive step into someone’s life and we’ve got to make sure that any system we have protects the presumption of innocence of the accused.

The other advantage is that if you get video evidence of the child you can then show that to an accused, tell him or her that is what the jury are going to see and then ask their position.

You might get a genuine perpetrator who then wants to admit his or her guilt. It would force a genuine perpetrator to come face-to-face with the evidence as often they are in denial.

We should be able to improve this situation. Goodwill and money for the latest technology is all that is missing.

Court ordeal for girl, 16

BILLY SCULLION broke down in tears as his daughter Ryeannie was forced to relive a sex attack in court in order to convict her abuser.

The 16-year-old was asked to go into detail on the attacks carried out by her former boss, Lokman Gunbat, as she worked as a waitress in his Edinburgh caf.

Ryeannie was just 15 when Gunbat, 37, sexually assaulted her numerous times in 2013.

The 37-year-old also made sexually inappropriate remarks to her and said he would pay her to lose her virginity to him.

He was also convicted of sexually assaulting another 15-year-old employee and another girl aged 14.

Last week he was sentenced to serve three years in jail for his crimes.

Billy is angry his daughter had to relive her ordeal in court but is proud of the victims and their bravery which ensured Gunbat was punished for his crimes.

Billy said: “My daughter and the other girls had to relive it and give evidence, all because he denied what he did.

“If they hadn’t gone to court the case would not have gone ahead.

“Ryeannie gave evidence from behind a screen because she could not bear to see him.

“They didn’t want to look at him but they had to be cross-examined. I don’t think children should have to do that.”

Billy said he would welcome changes to procedures if it would prevent youngsters from the distress of seeing their attackers in court.

He said: “I wouldn’t like any children to have to relive what they’ve gone through because it’s hard on them.

“If there’s any way in future where their evidence could be presented to the court and it could be taken on without them having to go to court then I would back that.”