Clause 86
Coroners and Justice Bill
3:45 pm
Edward Garnier (Shadow Minister, Justice; Harborough, Conservative)
I beg to move amendment 214, in clause 86, page 50, line 10, after ‘court’, insert
‘and without the party calling that witness giving such notice to the other parties in the proceedings as the court may direct’.
This is another brief amendment that seeks to firm up the requirement to give proper notice to those interested in the matter. Clause 86 deals with video-recorded evidence in chief and supplementary testimony. In subsection (2), it says:
“the witness may not without the permission of the court give evidence in chief otherwise than by means of the recording as to any matter which, in the opinion of the court, is dealt with in the witness’s recorded testimony.”
I am not sure, but the court may have an inherent power to admit other relevant evidence. Even when the witness has already given evidence by a recorded link, or in a recorded form, the court may have the power to admit further evidence from that same witness. I suggest merely that that further evidence should not be given without proper notice to others interested in the proceedings—without the party calling that witness giving such notice to the other parties in the proceedings that the court may direct.
Again, it comes back to the court being taken by surprise. Everyone is geared up for a particular witness to give evidence by a video recording. The evidence in chief is given, the court proceeds on that basis and then the party calling that witness says, “Actually, the person who is here has something further to say.” I suspect that administratively it would be more sensible to order the giving of such evidence to be done on notice only. I will not bring the Bill to a halt over this, but it is something that needs to be thought about.
Bridget Prentice (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Ministry of Justice; Lewisham East, Labour)
The hon. and learned Gentleman is trying, and rightly so, to give the witnesses and the defendant—the court as a whole—a proper procedure whereby a decision can be arrived at on the grounds of justice. Clause 86 relaxes part of the previous restriction on asking further questions of a witness who has used a video-recorded statement as evidence in chief. In fact, the witness can be asked additional questions on something that has not been covered in the video-recorded statement, and also on any matters that are covered in the statement, provided that the court gives permission.
In the case of a prosecution witness, the defence will have been served with a witness’s video statement and a verbatim transcript in advance of the trial. If something arises after that video recording has been made, the witness will be invited to make either a further video-recorded or written statement, and either or both of those would have to be served on the defence. The service of further written statements by the prosecution would put the defence and the court on notice that the witness has further evidence to give in addition to what was on the video, and the prosecutor will wish to conduct supplementary examination in chief of the witness.
In cases where matters arise during the trial, the application to ask supplementary questions will have to be made then. In practice, the prosecutor will, at the appropriate stage of the proceedings, verbally advise the defence and judge. I hope to give the hon. and learned Gentleman some reassurance. As the rules committee is revising this area of work at the moment, it would be appropriate for it to consider whether any further rules and guidance need to be applied.
Edward Garnier (Shadow Minister, Justice; Harborough, Conservative)
As the Minister was speaking, I discovered that in January 2002 the Home Office communication directorate published assistance for those preparing video-recorded interviews for criminal proceedings and for those dealing with witnesses subject to special measures. It is called “Achieving Best Evidence in Criminal Proceedings: Guidance for Vulnerable and Intimidated Witnesses Including Children,” and the guidance is available from the Stationery Office and on the Crown Prosecution Service website. Isn’t that good? It may well be that that guidance is the relevant place for the Minister to go first. However, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.