![]() ![]() It was a matter for the judge to determine competence, taking into account the effect of the witness's performance as a whole and whether there was a common and comprehensible thread in her responses to the questions. Sed, held that the test of competence set out in Section 53 did not require a witness to understand all the questions put to her and for all her answers to be understood. Furthermore, those who are competent to give evidence should be assisted to do so, for example, with the assistance of intermediaries. Watts EWCA Crim 1824, it was held by the Court of Appeal that the competency test is satisfied if the witness is able to understand the question put to him (or her) and give answers to them which can be understood. The judge had substituted the issue of the interpreter's difficulties in communicating for the test of whether the witness could understand questions and give intelligible answers. There, the Court held that the judge’s ruling was wrong in law as the exercise carried out by the judge was not a fair test of the witness' competency. This approach was confirmed by the Court of Appeal in the case of F. the competency test is not failed because the forensic techniques of the advocate (in particular in relation to cross-examination) or the processes of the court (for example, in relation to the patient expenditure of time) have to be adapted to enable the witness to give the best evidence of which he or she is capable.” In R v B EWCA Crim 4, on the subject of competency, the Court of Appeal stated that: The Registered Intermediary must not be asked to comment on credibility or competence their role is to assist the witness to give evidence to the best of his or her ability. This assessment of competency should, where applicable, take into account techniques or measures that can be used to assist the witness to give his or her evidence, for example the use of a Registered Intermediary appointed under Section 29 of the YJCEA 1999. Provided the witness can understand the questions put to him or her (by both parties) and can also provide coherent answers, then he or she is competent. The exception under Section 53(3) of the YJCEA 1999 is entirely witness specific and there should be no presumptions or preconceptions. The exception under Section 53(4) of the YJCEA 1999 will be easy to establish. An incompetent witness is one who comes within one of the exceptions set out above. A co-accused can only give evidence for the prosecution once he or she ceases to be a co-accused (for example, following a guilty plea).Īt a trial, the judge or the magistrates will decide if a witness is competent. A person charged in criminal proceedings is not competent to give evidence in the proceedings for the prosecution (whether he is the only person, or is one of two or more persons, charged in the proceedings) (Section 53 (4) of the YJCEA 1999).A person is not competent to give evidence in criminal proceedings if it appears to the Court that they are unable to understand questions put to them as a witness and give answers to them which can be understood.The principle is set out in Section 53(1) of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 (YJCEA 1999): “At every stage in criminal proceedings all persons are (whatever their age) competent to give evidence”. Definition of CompetencyĪ witness is competent if he or she can lawfully be called to give evidence. These witnesses are only compellable to give evidence against their partner in limited circumstances as set out below. However, there is an exception relating to the Defendant and his or her spouse or civil partner. ![]() Any person is a competent witness and is capable of giving evidence but this is subject to two exceptions which are set out in the guidance below.Īll competent witnesses may be compelled by the Court to testify.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |