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

在英格兰和威尔士，检方律师传统上不与投诉人和其他检方证人交谈。由于担心被控在庭审中“指导”证人作证，检方律师与证人(包括受害者)之间几乎所有直接接触都被排除在外，检方律师将传唤证人并在法庭上进行主审。1986年皇家检察院成立时，类似的做法也扩展到了皇家检察官。在CPS存在的第一个十年里，检察官一直与那些被检方传唤在审判中作证的人保持距离，甚至可能是冷漠的。与此形成鲜明对比的是，被告与他的律师以及(在某种程度上有所缓和的)在法庭上与他的大律师之间的关系要密切得多。最近，由于各种原因，检方对投诉人和其他官方证人的疏远似乎是不适当和不合逻辑的。建立更紧密关系的部分动力来自政府的政策，即“将受害者放在刑事司法系统的核心位置”，特别是向受害者提供更多关于其案件进展的信息，对法院进行熟悉的访问以解释司法程序的机制，以及支持和保证。一系列相关举措制定了“特别措施”，帮助脆弱和受到恐吓的证人出庭作证，要求检察官设法在审判前评估证人的需求，并安排适当的供应。第三项建议和架构改革的重点，是透过更积极主动的检控方式，包括搜集更多和更佳的证人证据，以“建立检控案件”。预审证人面谈加强了这三项重叠的措施，但第三项措施尤甚。它被明确地设想为一个证据程序，如果不是严格意义上的证据收集程序，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)，从而促进关于案件进展(或不进展)的更知情的决定。总检察长和检察总长(DPP)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着对法律正统的重大背离，在法律机构的某些方面，可能会有相当大的文化反对。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，而不是立即在全国范围内全面推广。这是在2006年进行的，目前正在进行评估。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？最终，权衡一下，PTWI是不是一个可取的举措？利用一系列独特的经验信息，这项研究将试图阐明这些紧迫的刑事司法政策制定问题，以及它们对英格兰和威尔士当代刑事诉讼理论的更广泛影响。在寻求将这一重大程序创新纳入其体制、专业文化和比较法的背景下，该项目还将对刑事诉讼的社会法律研究和比较法学研究作出重大贡献。

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.