Is Pre-recorded Witness Testimony 'Achieving Best Evidence' in Sexual Offence Trials?

研究人员探讨了特别措施在刑事司法程序不同阶段的影响。然而，在联合王国，少数几项侧重于预先记录的证据的实证研究是在计划引入预先记录的交叉询问之前进行的，这是迄今为止最具争议的措施，但可能在证人福利和审判方法方面产生最大的影响。虽然司法部的一个预先录音的交叉询问试点提供了初步数据，但仅限于涉及“弱势”儿童证人和精神残疾儿童证人的案件。然而，本研究将调查性犯罪案件中涉及“恐吓”成年证人的预先记录的证据，解决文学和法律的指导中的倾向，以对待弱势儿童和恐吓成年人类比。它还将探讨在可能最难实施的情况下，即涉及历史性的儿童修饰、性贩运或轮奸案件的多名被告案件中，预先记录的交叉询问的操作，其中几名律师可能希望询问同一证人。此外，现在最后一项措施即将实施，在提出进一步改革之前，有必要了解这些措施如何相互作用。本研究将探讨这一差距，在文献中考虑是否两种类型的预先录制的证人证词“实现最佳证据”，并提供一个公平的审判被告和恐吓证人。它将调查预先录制的证据对证据的质量和可信度、审判程序、实质性权利和审判理念的影响，询问证人证据的预审录制在多大程度上：㈠影响询问证人的方式，例如询问的风格、长度和类型，以及预审听讯时对辩护律师的限制是否不适当地限制了他们有力地盘问被告的能力;（ii）妨碍或改善证据的质素及可信度;例如预先录下的证据是否会令陪审团离心离德、说服力较弱及妨碍重新讯问证人的机会。(iii)对案件管理和审判战略的影响，例如，快速通道程序和证据披露协议的运作是否在实践中对案件准备工作造成问题。(iv)这是对二元、对抗式司法模式的更广泛背离的征兆，例如，鉴于对受害者参与权的日益承认，重点转向审前程序，通过使用技术使审判“非物质化”，以及在审判中更多地使用庭外陈述。质性研究策略是最适合这个项目，因为我想进行一个详细的评估法律的专业人士的关注有关预先记录的证据。

Researchers have explored the impact of special measures at different stages of the criminal justice process. However, the few empirical studies focusing on pre-recorded evidence in the UK pre-date the planned introduction of pre-recorded cross-examination, which is the most controversial measure to date, yet is likely to have the greatest impact - both in terms of witness welfare and trial methodology. Though an MoJ pilot on pre-recorded cross-examination provided initial data, it was restricted to cases involving 'vulnerable' child witnesses and those with mental disabilities. This study, however, will investigate pre-recorded evidence in sex offence cases involving 'intimidated' adult witnesses, addressing the tendency in the literature and legal guidance to treat vulnerable children and intimidated adults analogously. It will also explore the operation of pre-recorded cross-examination in cases where the measure is likely to be most problematic to implement, i.e. multi-defendant cases involving historic child grooming, sex trafficking or gang rape cases where several advocates may want to examine the same witness. Moreover, now that the last remaining measure is set to be implemented, there is a need to understand how these measures interact before further reforms are proposed. This study will explore this gap in the literature by considering whether both types of pre-recorded witness testimony 'achieve best evidence' and provide a fair trial for defendants and intimidated witnesses. It will investigate the impact of pre-recorded evidence on the quality and credibility of evidence, trial procedure, substantive rights and trial philosophy by questioning the extent to which pre-trial recording of witness evidence:(i) affects the way that the examination of witnesses is conducted, e.g. style, length, type of questioning and whether restrictions placed on defence counsel at pre-trial hearings unduly restricts their ability to robustly cross-examine the accused; (ii) impedes or improves the quality and credibility of the evidence; e.g. whether pre-recorded evidence causes the jury to disengage, is less persuasive and obstructs opportunities for re-examining the witness. (iii) impacts on case management and trial strategy, e.g. whether the operation of fast-track procedures and evidence disclosure protocols pose problems for case preparation in practice. (iv) is symptomatic of a broader departure from the dyadic, adversarial model of justice, e.g. in view of increasing recognition of the rights of victims to participate, the shift in emphasis towards pre-trial procedures, the 'dematerialisation' of the trial through use of technology, and greater use of out of court statements at the trial.A collaborative, qualitative research strategy is most suitable for this project because I want to conduct a detailed evaluation of legal professionals' concerns regarding pre-recorded evidence.