A proposal that aims to protect vulnerable and
intimidated court witnesses is expected to be brought before the Cayman Islands
Legislative Assembly within the next few weeks.
The Evidence (Amendment) Bill, 2010, would also allow for
live television link testimony in certain court proceedings.
According to the bill, a witness in criminal court
proceedings can receive assistance “if the court is satisfied that the quality
of evidence given by the witness is likely to be diminished by reason of fear
or distress on the part of the witness”.
The person who is accused of the crime cannot receive
similar assistance, according to the bill.
To determine that, the court must consider the age of the
witness, the nature of the criminal allegation, as well as the behaviour toward
the witness by the accused person or their friends and family members.
The court is also allowed to consider “the social and
cultural background and ethnic origin of the witness” and “the religious
beliefs or political opinions of the witness”.
Certain provisions are also made in the bill to help
individuals considered “vulnerable” witnesses: those under 17, or anyone
suffering from a mental or physical impairment.
The proposal leaves it up to the court to determine what
special measures should be taken to protect the witness from intimidation based
on the circumstances of each individual’s situation.
One such measure would allow the witness to testify in
court through a live television link if the person lives outside the Cayman
Islands, the witness is a child, or the witness is due to give evidence in a
violent or sex-related offence.
Another method would include the use of a screen or other
arrangement to prevent a witness from being seen by the accused. However, the
screen would still allow the presiding judge and a jury, as well as legal
representatives or interpreters, to see the witness.
A third way to protect witnesses from potential
intimidation would be for an interview to be prerecorded and shown to the court
as “evidence in chief” of the witness.
“The court shall consider whether any prejudice to the
accused which might result from that part being so admitted is outweighed by
the desirability of showing the whole, or substantially the whole, of the
recorded interview,” the bill states.
The prerecorded interviews may be disallowed if it
prevents the witness from being cross-examined or if both sides cannot agree on
terms for the prerecorded interview. In some cases, cross-examination of the
witness could also be performed by video recording, if the court agrees to that
method and is satisfied the recording was done properly.
Related Videos
How about a bill that prevents political intimidation by an elected leader or party members. That’s the one we’re waiting on too.
Tiger, I hope you have a long breath – I can’t help but feel that you’ll be holding it for a long time waiting for that bill! LOL!
Unfortunately, this bill is not a bill that will ensure a fair trial, but one that will ensure a conviction.
There is no allotment made for defence witnesses who may be intimidated by a complainant in a case (and there have been instances of that). This certainly does not constitute a fair law.
And I doubt that the day will ever come when a defence counsel and a prosecutor will both agree to the same content of any video and any sensible lawyer will argue the right to cross examine, so this is certainly a pointless clause. It creates arguments of availability for defence, prosecution, witness, police, videographer and ultimately only means that an accused waits for a prolonged period in prison waiting for trial.
And can someone please explain what a person’s religion have to do with this? I’m confused again.