Examination of child witnesses not in violation of Article 6

2 February 2016 by

blogimage1Mark William Patrick MacLennan v Her Majesty’s Advocate, [2015] HCJAC 128 – Read judgment

The High Court has refused an appeal under Article 6 on the lack of effective cross-examination of child witness, but has provided interesting commentary on how such investigations could be better handled in future to meet Strasbourg standards.

by David Scott

 The Facts

The original charge concerned reports made against the appellant, the manager at a nursery in Fort William, from children alleging various forms of sexual contact. After initial allegations, joint investigation interviews (JIIs) were conducted between May and July 2013 with various children from the nursery. The value of some of the interviews was questioned by the High Court, with one described as “leading in the extreme” (paragraph 5), yet none were challenged by the defendant when presented as evidence during his trial.

The case was not reported to the Crown Office until 18 February 2014, and further commissions to collect evidence from the child witnesses were not conducted until the 1st and 2nd July 2014, over a year after the children’s first reports. These subsequent commissions took “an interesting, if predictable, course” (paragraph 10): children forgot they had attended nursery, had no recollection of the appellant, and were unable to remember or discuss the alleged incident.

A number of charges were found against the applicant, who subsequently appealed on the grounds that his right under Article 6(3)(d) was violated due to the delay in initiating the commission process. As the Crown had chosen not to refer to the initial JIIs at the Commission, the defence had been faced with the prospect of reminding the children of what they had originally said, negating the possibility of conducting any meaningful cross-examination.

The respondent argued that there were adequate safeguards in place, including judicial oversight of the commissions, appropriate directions to the jury, and the opportunity to cross-examine during the commission. The trial judge had directed the jury to exercise extreme caution with the evidence of the child witnesses at the JIIs and on commission, particularly emphasising the length of time between the JIIs and the commissions.

The Court’s Decision

The appeal was refused. While the starting point for the High Court was the principle that all evidence must normally be produced “in the presence of the accused at a public hearing with a view to adversarial argument”, (Saidi v France, paragraph 43; SN v Sweden, paragraph 44), this did not provide the accused with an unlimited right. The European Court had previously recognised the need for special features of criminal proceedings involving sexual offences, particularly in the case of child complainers, finding that the accused’s Article 6 rights had to be balanced against the Article 8 rights of the complainer, and it was primarily for domestic courts to ensure this balance was achieved (SN v Sweden, paragraph 47).

In the immediate case, the appellant had full opportunity to cross-examine and challenge the reliability of the children’s accounts at the JIIs, having regard both to the content of the JIIs themselves and the answers obtained at commission.  The fact that it appeared that the children could not immediately recall the alleged offences did not carry with it any implication that the cross-examination was not effective:  “on the contrary, the appellant’s counsel must have been reasonably content with the responses he obtained”. There had thus been no violation of the appellant’s right under Article 6.

Further guidance

The court went on to give two suggestions (and one criticism) for the future. The first, operable under the existing commission procedure, would permit the taking of evidence of young children at any time after the appearance on petition, avoiding unnecessary delay between the original complaint and the subsequent opportunities to cross-examine the witness. Such a provision would require introduction of a “relatively simple provision” by the Government, but would help to avoid a repeat of the questionable evidence produced in the immediate case.

The second suggestion would be to move away from the traditional approach towards one more similar to the Scandinavian model, facilitating defence involvement “very soon after, or even at, the JII”, if an accused so wished.  The move would “herald an end to seeing young children being questioned in a court or commission setting with the legal formalities of examination in chief and cross”, thus better protecting the Article 8 rights of the complainer. This would, however, require “far greater controls and training” to ensure continued fairness under Article 6.

As a final point, the court criticised the use of a psychologist’s expert opinion to establish the fairness of the JIIs (paragraph 6), “given the extensive material now available to lawyers on what constitutes a fair interview of a young child”. Decisions on such matters were to be made by lawyers and, ultimately, the judge.

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Related posts:

Welcome to the UKHRB

This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.




This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption ALBA Al Qaeda animal rights anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 Artificial Intelligence Asbestos assisted suicide asylum Australia autism benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery Catholicism Chagos Islanders Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners climate change clinical negligence Coercion common law confidentiality consent conservation constitution contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs Court of Protection crime Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation deportation deprivation of liberty Detention disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Family Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage Gaza genetics Germany Google Grenfell Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests international law internet Inuit Iran Iraq Ireland Islam Israel Italy IVF Japan Judaism judicial review jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid Leveson Inquiry LGBTQ Rights liability Libel Liberty Libya Lithuania local authorities marriage mental capacity Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery music Muslim nationality national security NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury Piracy Plagiarism planning Poland Police Politics pollution press Prisoners Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia Saudi Arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing statelessness stop and search Strasbourg Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treaty TTIP Turkey UK Ukraine USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wind farms WomenInLaw YearInReview Zimbabwe
%d bloggers like this: