Minister to answer MPs on the use of pre-recorded cross-examination in serious sexual offence cases
MPs on the Justice Committee will question the Minister of State in the Ministry of Justice, the Rt Hon Edward Argar MP, as part of their investigation into the way pre-recorded cross-examination evidence in serious sexual offences is gathered and used. They will also quiz Mr Argar on other areas of the law.
Meeting details
The questioning will be in five main areas:
- The MPs will ask Mr Argar about the rollout of video-recorded evidence and cross-examination. Video evidence usually involves police questioning - and then lawyers cross-examining - witnesses, with the film subsequently being played in court. The process was introduced to make the giving of evidence less intimidating. It also allows victims of serious sexual abuse to give evidence more quickly - so aiding recall of events.
However, some lawyers have argued that video evidence may be less compelling than in-person testimony. Others say its use, effectively involving a ‘trial within a trial’, will only add to the already long backlogs of all cases coming to court.
The Justice Committee had recommended a thorough review before such recordings (known as ‘Section 28’ procedures) became widespread, because of some of these critiques.
- MPs will also ask about the government’s ‘End-to-End Rape Review’ which seeks to reform and increase understanding of victims’ experience of rape and other serious sexual offences, so lessening the trauma that victims often experience during trails - while ensuring defendants get a fair trial.
- The Committee will ask about the government’s response to its earlier recommendations on victims’ rights. The Government’s Victims and Prisoners Bill is currently being scrutinised in the Commons, and the Committee will ask about the provisions relating to victims’ rights.
- The government’s decision to reduce the sentencing powers of magistrates in order to reduce the flow of prisoners to crowded prisons (when it had less than a year before increased those same powers) will also be examined.
- Finally, the Committee will ask Mr Argar to justify the government’s response to its recommendation to resentence prisoners who have received ‘Imprisonment for Public Protection’ (IPP) convictions, which can often effectively be indefinite sentences. The Government rejected this proposal in its response, although the Lord Chancellor has described IPP sentences as “a stain on our justice system”.