Prosecutors' Interviews with Crown Witnesses: A Socio-Legal and Comparative Analysis

检察官对官方证人的访谈：社会法律和比较分析

• 批准号: AH/F005970/1
• 负责人: Paul Roberts
• 金额: $ 3.89万
• 依托单位: University of Nottingham
• 依托单位国家: 英国
• 项目类别: Research Grant
• 财政年份: 2007
• 资助国家: 英国
• 起止时间: 2007 至 无数据
• 项目状态: 已结题
• 来源: https://gtr.ukri.org/projects?ref=AH%2FF005970%2F1
• 关键词: Prosecutors; Interviews; Crown; Witnesses; Socio

Prosecution barristers traditionally do not speak to complainants and other prosecution witnesses in England and Wales. Fears of being accused of 'coaching' a witness to testify at trial have precluded virtually all direct contact between prosecution counsel and the witnesses (including victims) whom prosecution counsel will call and examine in-chief in court. A similar approach was extended to Crown Prosecutors when the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) was created in 1986. For the first decade of the CPS's existence, prosecutors remained detached and possibly even aloof from those called to testify by the prosecution at trial. This is in striking contrast to the much closer relationship enjoyed by the accused with his solicitor and (in a somewhat more attenuated sense) with his barrister at court.In recent times, and for various reasons, prosecutors' detachment from complainants and other Crown witnesses has come to seem inappropriate and illogical. Part of the impetus for a closer relationship comes from the Government's policy of 'placing victims at the heart of the criminal justice system', and specifically of providing victims with more information about the progress of their case, court familiarisation visits to explain the mechanics of the judicial process, and support and reassurance. A related set of initiatives has produced 'special measures' to assist vulnerable and intimidated witnesses to testify in court, requiring prosecutors to try to assess witnesses' needs in anticipation of the trial and to arrange appropriate provision. A third raft of proposals and organisational changes is focused on 'building up prosecution cases' through more proactive styles of prosecution, including efforts to procure more and better witness evidence.Pre-trial witness interviewing reinforces all three of these overlapping initiatives, but especially the third. It is explicitly conceived as an evidentiary, if not strictly an evidence-gathering, procedure in that it is supposed to help the prosecutor to examine the witness' evidence (and her credibility as a witness) more directly, and thereby facilitate better informed decisions about the progress (or non-progression) of the case. The Attorney-General and the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) are both on record as firm proponents of PTWI. However, it is recognised that PTWI represents a significant departure from legal orthodoxy in England and Wales, and that there may be considerable cultural opposition to its introduction in certain quarters of the legal establishment. Rather than progress immediately to full national roll-out, it was consequently decided to proceed cautiously, by conducting an Evaluation Pilot in four CPS Areas in the north-west of England. This was conducted in 2006, and is now undergoing evaluation.In policy terms, we still need to know: What are the theoretical and actual benefits of PTWI? What are the risks, and how could they be eliminated or ameliorated? And ultimately, on balance, is PTWI a desirable initiative, or not? Utilising a body of unique empirical information, this study will seek to shed light on these urgent questions for criminal justice policymaking, as well as on their broader ramifications for theorising contemporary criminal procedure in England and Wales. In seeking to place this major procedural innovation in its institutional, professional-cultural and comparative law contexts, the project will also make significant contributions to socio-legal research and comparative legal scholarship on criminal process.

在英格兰和威尔士，控方律师传统上不与原告和其他控方证人交谈。由于担心被指控“指导”证人在审判中作证，控方律师与控方律师将在法庭上传唤和询问的证人（包括受害人）之间几乎没有任何直接接触。1986年成立皇家检察署时，类似的做法也适用于皇家检察官。在CPS存在的第一个十年里，检察官仍然保持超然，甚至可能远离那些在审判中被检方传唤作证的人。这与被告人在法庭上与其律师及大律师（在较弱的意义上）的关系密切得多的情况，形成鲜明对比。近年来，基于种种原因，检控人员与投诉人及其他官方证人的关系疏远，似乎是不恰当及不合逻辑的。促进更密切关系的部分动力来自政府“将受害者置于刑事司法系统的核心”的政策，特别是向受害者提供更多有关其案件进展的信息，进行熟悉法院的访问以解释司法程序的机制，以及提供支持和保证。一套相关的倡议产生了“特别措施”，以协助易受伤害和受到恐吓的证人出庭作证，要求检察官努力评估证人在审判前的需要，并安排适当的供应。第三系列的建议和架构改革，集中于透过更主动的检控方式，包括努力取得更多和更佳的证人证供，以“累积检控案件”。审前会见证人，加强上述三项互相重叠的措施，尤其是第三项。如果不是严格意义上的证据收集程序的话，它被明确视为一种证据程序，因为它被认为有助于检察官更直接地审查证人的证据（及其作为证人的可信度），从而促进对案件的进展（或不进展）作出更知情的决定。总检察长和检察长都是《恐怖主义法》的坚定支持者。然而，人们认识到，PTWI代表了英格兰和威尔士法律的正统的重大偏离，并且在法律的机构的某些方面，可能存在相当大的文化反对。因此决定谨慎行事，在英格兰西北部的四个CPS地区进行评估试点，而不是立即在全国全面推广。在政策上，我们还需要知道PTWI的理论和实际效益是什么？风险是什么，如何消除或改善这些风险？最后，总的来说，PTWI是一个可取的倡议，或不是？利用一个独特的经验信息的身体，这项研究将寻求阐明这些紧迫的问题，刑事司法决策，以及对他们更广泛的影响，在英格兰和威尔士的当代刑事诉讼理论。该项目力求将这一重大的程序创新置于其体制、专业文化和比较法的背景下，还将对刑事诉讼的社会法律的研究和比较法律的学术研究作出重大贡献。

项目成果

Pre-Trial Witness Interviews and the 'Justice Gap' - A Plea for Sophistication in Criminal Procedure Reform

审前证人访谈与“司法差距”——刑事诉讼改革复杂化的诉求

• DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.1486040
• 发表时间: 2009
• 期刊: SSRN Electronic Journal
• 作者: Roberts P