Mixed views on Vulnerable Witnesses Bill

In a submission to Holyrood’s Justice Committee on the Vulnerable Witnesses (Criminal Evidence) (Scotland) Bill, they said: “The Evidence Review suggests that such concerns are broadly unfounded. Research with mock juries has demonstrated that – contrary to many people’s misplaced confidence in their ability to do so – jurors are not in fact significantly better able to discern deception when children testify in open court as compared to via live-link or pre-recorded testimony.”

They added: “Likewise, there is no compelling evidence that the use of pre-recorded evidence by child witnesses has a significant effect on verdicts in criminal trials. Individual jurors may harbour a preference for evidence delivered live and in person, but the research suggests that this does not translate in any consistent or reliable way into collective verdict outcomes.”

The academics also supported the extension of the rule to other vulnerable witnesses, including “deemed vulnerable witnesses”.

The committee received submissions from numerous justice stakeholders, including the Crown Office, Faculty of Advocates and Law Society of Scotland.

The Law Society said in its submission that there must be “an understanding of the practical challenges of the changes being made and the resource requirements for the changes to be made”.

It called for solicitors to be “fairly and adequately remunerated” for the increased workload at the investigatory stage of the process rather than at trial.

In its submission, the Glasgow Bar Association expressed concern over a provision that would remove the opportunity to cross-examine children or deemed vulnerable witnesses who have been given the opportunity to give their evidence in the form of a prior statement.

It said: “This proposition would deprive any person charged with a criminal offence from examining (or having examined) vulnerable witnesses on his behalf. The risk of this approach is that the rights of an accused person under Article 6.3.d of the ECHR may not be observed.”

Committee convener, Margaret Mitchell MSP, said: “The Justice Committee is grateful to all those who submitted evidence on the Vulnerable Witnesses proposals. 

“Though there is a lot of support for the bill, some stakeholders have raised varying views. There will be an important role for the committee in considering whether the changes should be adopted, and what the implications might be.”