A High Court judge in Singapore issued a judgment on Thursday ( Aug 29 ) outlining what constitutes appropriate conduct when lawyers cross-examine victims of sexual crimes and how safeguarding measures should be taken to protect such victims.
The view explained Justice Vincent Hoong’s justification for rejecting the appeals against his faith and phrase for a teacher who was imprisoned for 14 weeks for abusing a 10-year-old scholar at a fee center.
In lieu of being caned, he was given another two months in jail.
CROSS-EXAMINING ALLEGED VICTIMS OF SEXUAL Infractions
Justice Hoong noted that when the sufferer in the case was questioned about her dress during the harassment.
He claimed that if it revealed the nature of the crime, asking sufferers what they wore is appropriate.
” For instance, the line of questioning may verify whether the stroking was over or under clothes, whether there was skin-on-skin phone and or how it came to be quite skin-on-skin contact”, said Justice Hoong.
Such concerns are needed, he said. However, the inquiry becomes unpleasant when it is premised on or leads to the assertion that the defendant’s clothes in some way led to the physical abuse.
” For instance, any line of questioning that makes the claim that the sufferer had sparked unwanted interest because she was dressed innocently must be rejected,” said Justice Hoong.
He added that there was no lengthy cross-examination of the target, which lasted for half a day.
Although there were some comments that could have been made more appropriate to the fresh victim, the judge said the judge had the right to ask her questions in a thoughtful way and that she had the opportunity to understand her responses at several points.
He said that it should be kept in mind that cross-examination is not intended to unnecessarily bother, abuse, or deceive a witness.
Unnecessary questioning of the victim’s reliability, digging into useless individual history, or insinuating blame can not only traumatize the victim, but it can also sustain dangerous stereotypes about physical violence, according to Justice Hoong.
This may discourage other patients from revealing their identities because they fear they will go through the same suffering, he said.
” It is too often overlooked that the purpose of cross-examination is to elicit information from the testimony to help the cross-examiner’s situation”, said the prosecutor.
While cross-examination is a way to ensure that a witness’s testimony is correctly examined when in conflict with the situation of the celebration cross-examining, it is not intended to be a platform for theatricality or for an advocate to exhibit a talent for hostile or intense, repetitive or harsh questioning.
Insulating Steps
The trial in this case requested a cloaking measure to cover the victim’s testimony on the grounds that she was under 18 at the time.
The woman was 14 when she testified.
The defense filed an objection to the program, claiming that a cloaking determine implied that there had been” some sort of danger made to the victim” and that she had been afraid to see the plaintiff face-to-face.
A cloaking estimate is a method of allowing the witness to testify in court without having to look at the accused or have the accused glance at him or her. It also refers to a method of allowing the witness to testify while in the same court as the accused.
According to Justice Hoong, an application for shielding measures does not necessarily imply that a threat was made to the victim.
Such a request may be made for a particular category of witnesses, including but not limited to an alleged victim of a sexual offence or a witness under the age of 18.
The judge cited a relevant section of the law that states that a court may impose shielding measures if the witness is afraid to testify in front of the accused, afraid to testify in person, or if giving evidence in front of the accused would aggravate the witness.
If a witness ‘ credibility of the witness ‘ testimony will be questioned due to their fear or distress, the court may also impose shielding measures.
Justice Hoong said it is well-known that giving evidence can re-traumatize victims of sexual crimes, and that special measures like shielding can help lessen the trauma of testifying live in the same setting as the accused.
The Criminal Procedure Code mandates that all alleged victims of sexual or child abuse in Singapore will give testimony in closed court unless they wish to testify in front of an audience.
Justice Hoong argued that the presumption of innocence and the witness ‘ rights are at the center of” the concept of shielding measures in legal proceedings.”
The judge said,” Ultimately, the overriding aim is to ensure justice is served while balancing the need to protect the witness and maintain the integrity of the judicial process, against the fundamental rights of the accused.”
In order to be transparent, he argued that a court that uses a shielding measure despite an objection should clearly state the reasons for doing so.
He said that parties should bear in mind that “effective cross-examination elicits evidence without aggressive, repetitive and oppressive questioning”.
” Ultimately, the pursuit of justice should never compromise the dignity of the individuals involved”, he said.