Cross examination of alleged victims of sex abuse

In a criminal trial, the defence barrister or solicitor, is entitled and indeed under a duty to vigorously and if necessary aggressively defend his client’s position. This can involve an alleged victim, (note the word alleged), being subjected to a most uncomfortable or even traumatic experience.

That is unfortunate, but the plan to give judges power to limit such cost examination, is completely unacceptable. There are all sorts of other solutions. Giving evidence behind a screen. Video evidence taking place in a room other courtroom, to lessen the stress. Evidence can sometimes be pre-recorded.

It is being said by Judges that the culture of confrontational cross examination is not appropriate to these cases. That is not for the judge to decide. It is for the defence barristers or solicitor to decide.  Sometimes a tactic like that backfires, and the more subtle approach is successful but that is a matter of tactics and style of the defence legal team.

Why should somebody charged with a sex offence as distinct from (say) benefit or tax credit fraud, be at a disadvantage? It is definitely going to lead to convictions of innocent defendants.