This story in today’s Times is a complete mess.
1. The prosecution doesn’t cross-examine prosecution witnesses.
2. Questions about sexual history are already “all but abolished”, and can never be asked to impugn a complainant’s character.
thetimes.co.uk/article/rape-v…
1. The prosecution doesn’t cross-examine prosecution witnesses.
2. Questions about sexual history are already “all but abolished”, and can never be asked to impugn a complainant’s character.
thetimes.co.uk/article/rape-v…
This isn’t legal nitpicking. These are important news stories and public confusion over this area of the law is already widespread after years of misinformation by politicians and campaigners.
If you don’t understand what you are reporting, please ask somebody who does.
If you don’t understand what you are reporting, please ask somebody who does.
Would also add that the most significant change the government could make to increasing confidence in criminal justice and tackling “rock-bottom prosecution rates” is to fund the police, CPS and courts so that people don’t have to wait 3-4 years for trials.
Pre-recorded cross-examination is a sticking plaster for a broken system in which we accept as normal a two-year police investigation and a 12-24 month court wait for a trial.
The newfound concern of ministers who voted to defund criminal justice is the rankest hypocrisy.
The newfound concern of ministers who voted to defund criminal justice is the rankest hypocrisy.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
