En un reciente juicio por asesinato en el que Gillian Frost (Departamento de Abogacía) fue encargada de representar a uno de los acusados, juicio que acabó en absolución, uno de los aspectos más novedosos del caso fue el uso de un intermediario para ayudar a su cliente.
The defendant in question had significant learning difficulties and was in grave risk of being left at an unfair disadvantage without specialised apoyo to help him understand and follow the proceedings. Application was made for this support and granted. In the following article Gillian explains the legal background to this developing area.
La Ley
Section 16(1) of the Youth Justice and Criminal Pruebas Act 1999 (the Act) made provision for the use of special measures in the case of vulnerable and intimidated witnesses to facilitate the giving of their evidence.
El artículo 29 de dicha Ley permite el interrogatorio de un testigo a través de un intermediario como una de las medidas especiales permitidas.
El uso de medidas especiales para los demandados estaba expresamente excluido por el artículo 16(1) de la Ley. Sin embargo, una enmienda añadida por el artículo 104 de la Ley de Forenses y Justicia de 2009 ha modificado la Ley mediante la inserción del artículo 33BA. A continuación se reproduce parte del artículo 104:
sección 33BA Examen del acusado a través de un intermediario
(1) Esta sección se aplica a cualquier procedimiento (ya sea en un tribunal de magistrados o ante el Tribunal de la Corona) contra una persona por un delito.
(2) El Tribunal podrá, a petición del acusado, dictar una orden en virtud del apartado (3) si está convencido de que...
(a) that the condition is subsection (5) is or, as the case may be, the conditions in subsection (6) are met in relation to the accused, and
(b) que la orden es necesaria para garantizar que el acusado tenga un juicio justo.
(3) Una orden en virtud de esta subsección es una orden que dispone que cualquier interrogatorio del acusado se realice a través de un intérprete u otra persona aprobada por el tribunal a los efectos de esta sección (“un intermediario”).
(4) La función de un intermediario es comunicar -
(a) al acusado, preguntas formuladas al acusado, y
(b) a las personas que formulen tales preguntas, las respuestas dadas por el acusado en contestación a las mismas,
y explicar dichas preguntas o respuestas en la medida necesaria para que puedan ser comprendidas por el acusado o la persona en cuestión.
(5) Cuando el acusado sea menor de 18 años en el momento de presentar la solicitud, la condición es que la capacidad del acusado para participar eficazmente en el proceso como testigo prestando declaración oral ante el tribunal se vea comprometida por el nivel de capacidad intelectual o funcionamiento social del acusado.
(6) Cuando el acusado haya cumplido los 18 años de edad en el momento de presentar la solicitud, las condiciones son que -.
(a) el acusado padece un trastorno mental (en el sentido de la Ley de Salud Mental de 1983) o tiene un deterioro significativo de la inteligencia y la función social, y
(b) el acusado no puede, por ese motivo, participar efectivamente en el proceso como testigo que declara oralmente ante el tribunal.
(7) Cualquier interrogatorio del acusado en cumplimiento de una instrucción en virtud del apartado (3) deberá tener lugar en presencia de las personas que las Normas de Procedimiento Penal o la instrucción puedan prever y en circunstancias en las que
(a) el juez o los magistrados (o ambos) y los representantes legales que actúen en el proceso puedan ver y oír el interrogatorio del acusado y comunicarse con el intermediario, y
(b) el jurado (si lo hay) pueda ver y oír el interrogatorio del acusado, y
(c) cuando haya dos o más acusados en el proceso, cada uno de los otros acusados pueda ver y oír el interrogatorio del acusado.
A efectos del presente subapartado, no se tendrá en cuenta ninguna deficiencia visual o auditiva.”
Desgraciadamente, esta enmienda aún no ha entrado en vigor y se entiende que todavía no se ha dado una fecha de aplicación para la s.104, ya que aún se requiere una cantidad considerable de trabajo preparatorio.
Nonetheless, an application can succeed on the basis of the case of C v Sevenoaks Youth Court – EWHC 3088 (3/11/09), where an application was granted on behalf of a juvenile Defendant on a charge of assault. The case was heard in the High Court on an application for permission to apply for judicial review. Paragraph 16 of the judgment of Openshaw J reads:
“I have already made clear that there is no statutory power permitting the appointment of an intermediary for a Defendant, but there may be some procedural power in the Criminal Procedure Rules. Criminal Procedure r 1.11 sets out the overriding objective to deal with criminal cases justly, which includes at (c) recognising the rights of a Defendant, particularly under art 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Furthermore, the court’s case management powers at r 3.10(b)(v) require the court to consider what arrangements are necessary to facilitate the participation of any person in the trial, including the Defendant. In an appropriate case this surely requires the appointment of an intermediary for the Defendant himself.”
Nuestro caso
Representamos a un acusado en lo que creemos fue el primer uso práctico de un intermediario acusado en un juicio importante. Se trataba de un juicio por asesinato ante un juez del Tribunal Superior. El caso también incluía secuestro, detención ilegal y perversión del curso de la justicia.
This was a six handed case. The fifth Defendant was our client who had limited abilities which we will detail below (but included an IQ of 63). The intermediary sat in the Dock alongside the Defendant throughout the evidence relevant to him and went with him to the witness box when he testified.
El juicio se complicó por la naturaleza “cortante” de las defensas y hubo una cuestión planteada por los codemandados sobre la necesidad de un intermediario.
Pasos prácticos
(1) EVALUACIÓN INICIAL POR PARTE DE LA DEFENSA
En nuestro caso, el acusado, un hombre de 36 años, no había estado representado durante sus dos primeros interrogatorios y no se le había proporcionado un intermediario (el FME (médico de la policía) aceptó como prueba que le habría recomendado uno si hubiera sabido que el acusado tenía un coeficiente intelectual muy bajo).
When we read the answers given by the defendant in those police interviews we appreciated that the defendant was likely to struggle to give evidence on his own behalf at trial. He spoke of having a very bad memory during the interview. When we met him he presented as vulnerable and slow.
Aconsejamos la obtención de un informe psiquiátrico y otro de un psicopedagogo.
(2) LOS INFORMES
The reports we obtained showed that the Defendant would be able to stand trial but that he did not have the capacity to properly give evidence in normal court working procedure conditions. He would need regular breaks and he would need to be given information in extremely small packages. His concentration would be limited and breaks would be required to check that he understood the proceedings.
En este caso, los informes recomendaban específicamente la asistencia de un intermediario. Los informes fueron notificados a la Corona.
(3) LA SOLICITUD
The application for an intermediary has to be made expeditiously because if granted an appropriate intermediary has to be located and funding obtained. In our case the Prosecution also obtained two medical reports. (At trial we called the Prosecution psychologist as a defence witness as she had been able to do more extensive testing of the Defendant). It was agreed that the Defendant had low level of verbal comprehension, low IQ and very poor short term memory.
La Fiscalía no se opuso a que el acusado recurriera a un intermediario. Sin embargo, tuvimos que entregar los informes a los coacusados para que sus abogados pudieran plantear las dudas que pudieran tener.
En principio, el Juez de primera instancia estuvo de acuerdo en que se utilizara un intermediario siempre y cuando el demandado prestara declaración y para ayudarle de forma más general durante la declaración de otros.
(4) PASOS POSTERIORES A LA CONCESIÓN DE LA SOLICITUD
The Register of Approved Intermediaries is maintained by a Department of the Ministry of Justice. They assist in helping to find an appropriate intermediary. A period of liaison between the intermediary and “client” is recommended so that they can establish a relationship. This may not always be a long period but ideally should be established by one or two interviews before trial and after the Intermediary has been provided with at least a Resumen of the case and any interview Exhibits. The intermediary will normally be required to furnish an assessment of his own, written or oral, depending on the circumstances and time available.
La financiación del intermediario para los demandados se realiza mediante una solicitud de autorización previa a la Comisión del Servicio Jurídico. Hay que presentar las tarifas de los intermediarios. La autorización es para la evaluación previa al juicio y para la asistencia al juicio. Jason Connolly, responsable de políticas del Ministerio de Justicia, nos ayudó facilitándonos información como los Códigos de Práctica y Ética de los Intermediarios Registrados y sus tarifas de remuneración.
(4) CUESTIONES RELATIVAS AL JUICIO
Había 4 asuntos que tratar:
(1) Era necesario establecer las “reglas básicas” para que el intermediario pudiera llevar a cabo su tarea con el mínimo trastorno para el flujo del caso. Nuestro intermediario hizo algunas observaciones al tribunal (en ausencia del jurado) sobre cómo veía su papel. El intermediario aconsejó al abogado que evitara las dobles negaciones y las cláusulas múltiples y que procurara formular preguntas cortas. El intermediario discutió el procedimiento a adoptar para indicar al juez que el acusado necesitaba un descanso.
(2) Qué instrucciones (u orientaciones) deben darse a un jurado con respecto a la función del “funcionario” visto en el banquillo con el acusado.
The learned trial Judge made some introductory remarks when the jury were first made aware of the intermediary’s presence. Later on in the trial the trial Judge circulated to counsel a proposed statement to be given to the jury in relation to the intermediary assisting the defendant in the witness box. This set out the psychologist’s findings and recommendation for an intermediary. The jury were also told that not all parties accepted that evidence but the Judge had allowed the intermediary on the basis that he had to ensure a fair trial. The jury were told that the Barristers had been advised as to how they should ask questions (eg avoiding double negatives). The jury were told the intermediary would indicate if he considered the defendant did not understand a question. The jury were told that they would have to decide relevant matters themselves, regardless of the Judge’s decision that an intermediary should be allowed and regardless of the presence of the intermediary in court.
(3) At what stage to deal with the Issue of the need for an Intermediary. Each case will vary depending on for example: number of defendants; whether the defendant is to give evidence or just have assistance in the dock during the prosecution evidence; whether there is agreement or not as to the necessity for the intermediary. In our case the need for an intermediary was raised pre-trial but the substantive argument developed during the course of the trial. The Judge, in order to ensure a fair trial for our defendant, allowed the intermediary to be in the dock. That helped counsel as the intermediary could note on what occasions the defendant had difficulty understanding and we could assist him later in conference about those parts of the evidence. Before the defendant gave evidence (but after defendants 1 to 4 had given evidence) the role of the intermediary was canvassed further with counsel and the Judge ruled on how he would direct the jury. Interestingly our defence experts were interposed during the course of the defendant’s evidence but the learned Judge had made a statement to the jury before he gave his evidence. The intermediary was able to clarify the meaning of words or to reassure the defendant about issues as they arose. A brief reference was made to the jury as to the presence of the intermediary in the dock. In our case the intermediary was not present for the jury selection, opening speech and initial witnesses that did not affect our defendant.
(4) What further instruction (if any) was needed in the summing up? The learned trial Judge directed the jury that the defendant had been allowed the assistance of an intermediary in case there was any difficulty in him understanding the questions asked and the case put against him by the prosecution or other defendants. The jury were told that the extent of any impairment of his understanding was a asunto of dispute and that it was a matter for them whether he had real difficulties. The intermediary was allowed in case there were difficulties.
Conclusión
The choice of whether or not to call a defendant to give evidence is sometimes a difficult one to make. In some cases it may be that medical evidence for a vulnerable person would be sufficient to avoid any adverse inference from not giving evidence. However, there may be times when counsel’s experience is such that they believe that the calling of a defendant is essential. The use of an intermediary is a course of action which can help that vulnerable defendant to feel more relaxed because he knows there is someone who can intervene if he has difficulty understanding a question. The intermediary assists counsel because in a case of a poor memory the defendant will forget what he needs to tell counsel by the time of the next break in the case. He can indicate to the intermediary immediately who can make a note of the point and inform counsel. Special measures for witnesses have been available for some time (prosecution and defence witnesses) and now there is the availability of at least this special measure for vulnerable defendants. As mentioned above, the statutory framework is not yet implemented. There is much to be done, partly to ensure there will be sufficient registered intermediaries available. Hopefully all those defendants that require an intermediary will be able to have one. It will be important to be aware of the possibility as soon as practicable. Trying to match a registered intermediary that is local to the relevant court will be important in keeping down costs. The longer the time it takes to obtain the funding for an intermediary the harder it may be to find an appropriate intermediary who is sufficiently local.
GILLIAN FROST (Barrister, Ronald Fletcher Baker LLP)
Un artículo similar escrito por Gillian Frost apareció en la revista Criminal Bar Quarterly.
(Please note: This article was originally published on our previous website and is provided for general information purposes only. While it reflects the legal position at the time of writing, the law may have changed since publication. For up-to-date advice tailored to your circumstances, please contact our team.)
