麻豆约拍

In the first of a news series, Clive Anderson asks if overly aggressive cross-examination of witnesses in court turns trial by jury into trial by ordeal.

Senior circuit court judge Sally Cahill and barristers experienced in prosecuting and defending, discuss whether new rules dictating the way lawyers cross-examine defendants, victims and other witness in court could compromise the right to a full and rigorous defence and lead to injustices.

In a recent high profile child prostitution trial, one young girl was cross-examined for 12 days by seven different defence barristers and the parents of the murdered schoolgirl Milly Dowler were said to be mentally scarred by the trauma of the cross examination they had to go through in the trial of their daughter's killer.

Barrister Hugh Davies stresses the need for more protection for vulnerable witnesses while fellow advocate John Cooper strongly defends the right of a defence lawyer to vigorously cross-examine witnesses and challenge their evidence.

Barristers are currently being trained to work within new rules governing cross-examination which prevent them using complicated vocabulary and tricks of advocacy to bamboozle the immature or unconfident. Prosecutors and police chiefs have also published new guidelines on how to prepare cases involving child sexual abuse - focusing on the credibility of the allegations, not on the victim's strength or weaknesses as a witness.

How are these new rules and proposed changes playing out in the courtroom? Is justice being compromised/ And how exactly is it determined who is "vulnerable" in the first place?

Producer: Brian King
An Above the Title production for 麻豆约拍 Radio 4.