A British government minister is facing criticism for misrepresenting video evidence in court trials, with a study suggesting that the use of video cross-examination has led to lower conviction rates.
The use of video evidence in criminal trials has been a topic of debate in recent years.
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has implemented a policy, section 28, which allows vulnerable witnesses to record their evidence instead of being cross-examined in person during crown court trials.
However, critics argue that this policy has led to a decrease in conviction rates.
Conviction rates refer to the percentage of cases in which a defendant is found guilty by a court.
According to the FBI, the overall conviction rate in the United States is around 70%.
This number can vary significantly depending on the jurisdiction, with some states having conviction rates as high as 90% and others as low as 50%.
Factors influencing conviction rates include the quality of evidence, effectiveness of prosecution, and fairness of sentencing.
The MoJ’s Evaluation: A Misleading Picture?
In a letter to the Commons justice committee, Alex Davies-Jones MP, the victims’ minister, claimed that the use of video evidence had not led to fewer guilty verdicts.
She cited an evaluation conducted by the MoJ, which found that the policy helped victims give evidence earlier and avoid the stress of a live trial without reducing the chance of a conviction.
However, this evaluation has been challenged by Professor Cheryl Thomas KC, who led a separate study on the use of video cross-examination.
Professor Cheryl Thomas KC is a renowned British barrister and academic.
She is a Professor of Law at King's College London and has been recognized for her expertise in the field of law, particularly in the areas of evidence, proof, and criminal justice.
Thomas was appointed as a Queen's Counsel (KC) in 2004, an honor bestowed upon leading barristers for their exceptional legal abilities.
She is also a prominent figure in the UK's legal community, known for her influential work on evidence-based decision-making.
The Contrasting Findings
Thomas’s analysis compared 11,798 jury verdicts in section 28 cases from 2016 to 2023 with verdicts where the measures were not used.
The results showed that conviction rates were lower in section 28 cases: 61% compared to 70%. In rape cases, there was a 20 percentage point difference.
Thomas’s study also found that the MoJ‘s approach inflated the number of convictions and under-counted acquittals.
A Call for Accuracy
Thomas criticized the MoJ‘s evaluation as ‘misleading, narrow and bureaucratic’.
She claimed that Davies-Jones had got her facts wrong six times and that vulnerable witnesses need accurate information about special measures to make important decisions about how to give their evidence.
Alex Davies-Jones MP is a British Labour Party politician serving as the Member of Parliament for Vale of Clwyd in Wales.
She was elected to the House of Commons in the 2019 general election, becoming one of the first women to represent the constituency.
Prior to her parliamentary career, Davies-Jones worked in various roles, including as a senior manager at a charity and as a local councillor.
She has been involved in several campaigns, focusing on issues such as healthcare, education, and social justice.
Thomas is conducting further research to understand why conviction rates are lower in these cases.
The Backlog of Cases
Mary Prior KC, chair of the Criminal Bar Association, echoed Thomas’s concerns.
She said that if victims still face long delays, then there is no point promoting measures like video cross-examination.
Prior called for significant investment in reducing the court backlog, criminal barristers, and the judiciary to increase the use of section 28.
A Complex Issue
The debate surrounding the use of video evidence in UK trials highlights the complexity of this issue.
While some argue that it helps vulnerable witnesses give evidence without stress, others claim that it has led to a decrease in conviction rates.
As the debate continues, it is essential to ensure that accurate information is available to those affected by these policies.
