En un reciente juicio por asesinato en el que Gillian Frost (Departamento de Abogac\u00eda) fue encargada de representar a uno de los acusados, juicio que acab\u00f3 en absoluci\u00f3n, uno de los aspectos m\u00e1s novedosos del caso fue el uso de un intermediario para ayudar a su cliente.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The defendant in question had significant learning difficulties and was in grave risk of being left at an unfair disadvantage without specialised apoyo<\/a> 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Section 16(1) of the Youth Justice and Criminal<\/a> Pruebas<\/a> 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n El art\u00edculo 29 de dicha Ley permite el interrogatorio de un testigo a trav\u00e9s de un intermediario como una de las medidas especiales permitidas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n El uso de medidas especiales para los demandados estaba expresamente excluido por el art\u00edculo 16(1) de la Ley. Sin embargo, una enmienda a\u00f1adida por el art\u00edculo 104 de la Ley de Forenses y Justicia de 2009 ha modificado la Ley mediante la inserci\u00f3n del art\u00edculo 33BA. A continuaci\u00f3n se reproduce parte del art\u00edculo 104:<\/p>\n\n\n\n (1) Esta secci\u00f3n 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n (2) El Tribunal podr\u00e1, a petici\u00f3n del acusado, dictar una orden en virtud del apartado (3) si est\u00e1 convencido de que...<\/p>\n\n\n\n (a) that the condition is subsection (5) is or, as the case may be, the conditions<\/a> in subsection (6) are met in relation to the accused, and<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n (b) que la orden es necesaria para garantizar que el acusado tenga un juicio justo.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n (3) Una orden en virtud de esta subsecci\u00f3n es una orden que dispone que cualquier interrogatorio del acusado se realice a trav\u00e9s de un int\u00e9rprete u otra persona aprobada por el tribunal a los efectos de esta secci\u00f3n (\u201cun intermediario\u201d).<\/p>\n\n\n\n (4) La funci\u00f3n de un intermediario es comunicar -<\/p>\n\n\n\n (a) al acusado, preguntas formuladas al acusado, y<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n (b) a las personas que formulen tales preguntas, las respuestas dadas por el acusado en contestaci\u00f3n a las mismas,<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n y explicar dichas preguntas o respuestas en la medida necesaria para que puedan ser comprendidas por el acusado o la persona en cuesti\u00f3n.<\/p>\n\n\n\n (5) Cuando el acusado sea menor de 18 a\u00f1os en el momento de presentar la solicitud, la condici\u00f3n es que la capacidad del acusado para participar eficazmente en el proceso como testigo prestando declaraci\u00f3n oral ante el tribunal se vea comprometida por el nivel de capacidad intelectual o funcionamiento social del acusado.<\/p>\n\n\n\n (6) Cuando el acusado haya cumplido los 18 a\u00f1os de edad en el momento de presentar la solicitud, las condiciones son que -.<\/p>\n\n\n\n (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 funci\u00f3n social, y<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n (b) el acusado no puede, por ese motivo, participar efectivamente en el proceso como testigo que declara oralmente ante el tribunal.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n (7) Cualquier interrogatorio del acusado en cumplimiento de una instrucci\u00f3n en virtud del apartado (3) deber\u00e1 tener lugar en presencia de las personas que las Normas de Procedimiento Penal o la instrucci\u00f3n puedan prever y en circunstancias en las que<\/p>\n\n\n\n (a) el juez o los magistrados (o ambos) y los representantes legales que act\u00faen en el proceso puedan ver y o\u00edr el interrogatorio del acusado y comunicarse con el intermediario, y<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n (b) el jurado (si lo hay) pueda ver y o\u00edr el interrogatorio del acusado, y<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n (c) cuando haya dos o m\u00e1s acusados en el proceso, cada uno de los otros acusados pueda ver y o\u00edr el interrogatorio del acusado.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n A efectos del presente subapartado, no se tendr\u00e1 en cuenta ninguna deficiencia visual o auditiva.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Nonetheless, an application can succeed on the basis of the case of C v Sevenoaks Youth Court \u2013 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<\/a> to apply for judicial review. Paragraph 16 of the judgment of Openshaw J reads:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cI have already made clear that there is no statutory<\/a> power permitting the appointment of an intermediary for a Defendant, but there may be some procedural<\/a> 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<\/a> on Human Rights. Furthermore, the court\u2019s 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.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Representamos a un acusado en lo que creemos fue el primer uso pr\u00e1ctico de un intermediario acusado en un juicio importante. Se trataba de un juicio por asesinato ante un juez del Tribunal Superior. El caso tambi\u00e9n inclu\u00eda secuestro, detenci\u00f3n ilegal y perversi\u00f3n del curso de la justicia.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This was a six handed case. The fifth Defendant was our client who had limited abilities which we will<\/a> 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n El juicio se complic\u00f3 por la naturaleza \u201ccortante\u201d de las defensas y hubo una cuesti\u00f3n planteada por los codemandados sobre la necesidad de un intermediario.<\/p>\n\n\n\n (1) EVALUACI\u00d3N INICIAL POR PARTE DE LA DEFENSA<\/p>\n\n\n\n En nuestro caso, el acusado, un hombre de 36 a\u00f1os, no hab\u00eda estado representado durante sus dos primeros interrogatorios y no se le hab\u00eda proporcionado un intermediario (el FME (m\u00e9dico de la polic\u00eda) acept\u00f3 como prueba que le habr\u00eda recomendado uno si hubiera sabido que el acusado ten\u00eda un coeficiente intelectual muy bajo).<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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<\/a>. When we met him he presented as vulnerable and slow.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Aconsejamos la obtenci\u00f3n de un informe psiqui\u00e1trico y otro de un psicopedagogo.<\/p>\n\n\n\n (2) LOS INFORMES<\/p>\n\n\n\n The reports we obtained showed that the Defendant would be able to stand<\/a> trial but that he did not have the capacity<\/a> 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n En este caso, los informes recomendaban espec\u00edficamente la asistencia de un intermediario. Los informes fueron notificados a la Corona.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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<\/a> 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n La Fiscal\u00eda 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n En principio, el Juez de primera instancia estuvo de acuerdo en que se utilizara un intermediario siempre y cuando el demandado prestara declaraci\u00f3n y para ayudarle de forma m\u00e1s general durante la declaraci\u00f3n de otros.<\/p>\n\n\n\n (4) PASOS POSTERIORES A LA CONCESI\u00d3N DE LA SOLICITUD<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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 \u201cclient\u201d 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<\/a> 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n La financiaci\u00f3n del intermediario para los demandados se realiza mediante una solicitud de autorizaci\u00f3n previa a la Comisi\u00f3n del Servicio Jur\u00eddico. Hay que presentar las tarifas de los intermediarios. La autorizaci\u00f3n es para la evaluaci\u00f3n previa al juicio y para la asistencia al juicio. Jason Connolly, responsable de pol\u00edticas del Ministerio de Justicia, nos ayud\u00f3 facilit\u00e1ndonos informaci\u00f3n como los C\u00f3digos de Pr\u00e1ctica y \u00c9tica de los Intermediarios Registrados y sus tarifas de remuneraci\u00f3n.<\/p>\n\n\n\n (4) CUESTIONES RELATIVAS AL JUICIO<\/p>\n\n\n\n Hab\u00eda 4 asuntos que tratar:<\/p>\n\n\n\n (1) Era necesario establecer las \u201creglas b\u00e1sicas\u201d para que el intermediario pudiera llevar a cabo su tarea con el m\u00ednimo trastorno para el flujo del caso. Nuestro intermediario hizo algunas observaciones al tribunal (en ausencia del jurado) sobre c\u00f3mo ve\u00eda su papel. El intermediario aconsej\u00f3 al abogado que evitara las dobles negaciones y las cl\u00e1usulas m\u00faltiples y que procurara formular preguntas cortas. El intermediario discuti\u00f3 el procedimiento a adoptar para indicar al juez que el acusado necesitaba un descanso.<\/p>\n\n\n\n (2) Qu\u00e9 instrucciones (u orientaciones) deben darse a un jurado con respecto a la funci\u00f3n del \u201cfuncionario\u201d visto en el banquillo con el acusado.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The learned trial Judge made some introductory remarks when the jury were first made aware of the intermediary\u2019s 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\u2019s 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<\/a> 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\u2019s decision that an intermediary should be allowed and regardless of the presence of the intermediary in court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n (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<\/a> 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<\/a> and we could assist him later in conference about<\/a> 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\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n (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<\/a> of dispute and that it was a matter for them whether he had real difficulties. The intermediary was allowed in case there were difficulties.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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\u2019s 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<\/a> down costs. The longer the time it takes<\/a> to obtain the funding for an intermediary the harder it may be to find an appropriate intermediary who is sufficiently local.<\/p>\n\n\n\n GILLIAN FROST (Abogada, Ronald Fletcher Baker LLP)<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n Un art\u00edculo similar escrito por Gillian Frost apareci\u00f3 en la revista Criminal Bar Quarterly.<\/p>\n\n\n\n (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<\/a> our team<\/a>.)<\/em><\/p>","protected":false},"author":11,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"om_disable_all_campaigns":false,"_uf_show_specific_survey":0,"_uf_disable_surveys":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-9300","knowledge-base","type-knowledge-base","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"acf":[],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\tLa Ley<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
secci\u00f3n 33BA Examen del acusado a trav\u00e9s de un intermediario<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
Desgraciadamente, esta enmienda a\u00fan no ha entrado en vigor y se entiende que todav\u00eda no se ha dado una fecha de aplicaci\u00f3n para la s.104, ya que a\u00fan se requiere una cantidad considerable de trabajo preparatorio.<\/p>\n\n\n\nNuestro caso<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
Pasos pr\u00e1cticos<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
(3) LA SOLICITUD<\/p>\n\n\n\nConclusi\u00f3n<\/h4>\n\n\n\n