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

在英格兰和威尔士，控方大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，因此控方律师与控方律师将在法庭上传唤和讯问的证人（包括受害者）之间几乎没有任何直接接触。1986年设立皇家检察署（CPS）时，对皇家检察官也采取了类似的做法。在CPS存在的第一个十年里，检察官对那些被控方传唤出庭作证的人保持着超然甚至冷漠的态度。这与被告与他的律师以及在法庭上与他的律师（在某种程度上更弱的意义上）的密切关系形成鲜明对比。最近，由于各种原因，检察官与原告和其他王室证人的分离似乎是不恰当和不合逻辑的。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有关其案件进展的更多信息，进行法庭熟悉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在法庭上作证，要求检察官在审判前努力评估证人的需要，并安排适当的安排。第三批建议和组织变革的重点是通过更积极主动的起诉方式“建立起诉案件”，包括努力获取更多更好的证人证据。审前证人面谈强化了这三个重叠的举措，尤其是第三个。它被明确地认为是一种证据程序，如果不是严格的证据收集程序，因为它应该帮助检察官更直接地审查证人的证据（以及她作为证人的可信度），从而促进对案件进展（或不进展）作出更明智的决定。总检察长和公诉署署长都是PTWI的坚定支持者。然而，人们认识到PTWI在英格兰和威尔士代表了对正统法律的重大背离，并且在法律机构的某些方面可能存在相当大的文化反对。因此，政府决定谨慎行事，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。这项工作于2006年进行，目前正在进行评价。在政策方面，我们仍然需要知道：PTWI的理论和实际好处是什么？风险是什么？如何消除或改善这些风险？最后，权衡一下，PTWI是一个可取的倡议，还是不可取？利用独特的经验信息，本研究将寻求阐明刑事司法政策制定的这些紧迫问题，以及在英格兰和威尔士当代刑事诉讼理论化的更广泛的影响。在设法将这一重大程序创新置于体制、专业文化和比较法的范围内时，该项目还将对刑事程序的社会法律研究和比较法律学术作出重大贡献。

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.