Is Pre-recorded Witness Testimony 'Achieving Best Evidence' in Sexual Offence Trials?

Researchers have explored the impact of special measures at different stages of the criminal justice process. However, the few empirical studies focusing on pre-recorded evidence in the UK pre-date the planned introduction of pre-recorded cross-examination, which is the most controversial measure to date, yet is likely to have the greatest impact - both in terms of witness welfare and trial methodology. Though an MoJ pilot on pre-recorded cross-examination provided initial data, it was restricted to cases involving 'vulnerable' child witnesses and those with mental disabilities. This study, however, will investigate pre-recorded evidence in sex offence cases involving 'intimidated' adult witnesses, addressing the tendency in the literature and legal guidance to treat vulnerable children and intimidated adults analogously. It will also explore the operation of pre-recorded cross-examination in cases where the measure is likely to be most problematic to implement, i.e. multi-defendant cases involving historic child grooming, sex trafficking or gang rape cases where several advocates may want to examine the same witness.
Moreover, now that the last remaining measure is set to be implemented, there is a need to understand how these measures interact before further reforms are proposed. This study will explore this gap in the literature by considering whether both types of pre-recorded witness testimony 'achieve best evidence' and provide a fair trial for defendants and intimidated witnesses. It will investigate the impact of pre-recorded evidence on the quality and credibility of evidence, trial procedure, substantive rights and trial philosophy by questioning the extent to which pre-trial recording of witness evidence:
(i) affects the way that the examination of witnesses is conducted, e.g. style, length, type of questioning and whether restrictions placed on defence counsel at pre-trial hearings unduly restricts their ability to robustly cross-examine the accused;
(ii) impedes or improves the quality and credibility of the evidence; e.g. whether pre-recorded evidence causes the jury to disengage, is less persuasive and obstructs opportunities for re-examining the witness.
(iii) impacts on case management and trial strategy, e.g. whether the operation of fast-track procedures and evidence disclosure protocols pose problems for case preparation in practice.
(iv) is symptomatic of a broader departure from the dyadic, adversarial model of justice, e.g. in view of increasing recognition of the rights of victims to participate, the shift in emphasis towards pre-trial procedures, the 'dematerialisation' of the trial through use of technology, and greater use of out of court statements at the trial.
A collaborative, qualitative research strategy is most suitable for this project because I want to conduct a detailed evaluation of legal professionals' concerns regarding pre-recorded evidence.