In un recente processo per omicidio, in cui Gillian Frost (Dipartimento di Avvocatura) \u00e8 stata incaricata di rappresentare uno degli imputati, processo che si \u00e8 concluso con un'assoluzione, uno degli aspetti pi\u00f9 innovativi del caso \u00e8 stato l'uso di un intermediario per assistere il suo 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 supporto<\/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> Prove<\/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 L'articolo 29 di tale legge consente l'esame di un testimone attraverso un intermediario come una delle misure speciali consentite.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Il ricorso a misure speciali per i convenuti era espressamente escluso dalla s.16(1) della legge. Tuttavia, un emendamento aggiunto dalla s.104 del Coroners and Justice Act 2009 ha modificato la legge inserendo la s.33BA. La parte dello s.104 \u00e8 riprodotta di seguito:<\/p>\n\n\n\n (1) La presente sezione si applica a qualsiasi procedimento (sia presso una magistratura che presso la Crown Court) contro una persona per un reato.<\/p>\n\n\n\n (2) La Corte pu\u00f2, su richiesta dell'imputato, impartire un ordine ai sensi del comma (3) se ritiene che<\/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) che la direzione \u00e8 necessaria per garantire all'imputato un processo equo.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n (3) Una direttiva ai sensi del presente comma \u00e8 una direttiva che prevede che l'esame dell'imputato sia condotto attraverso un interprete o un'altra persona approvata dal tribunale ai fini della presente sezione (\u201cun intermediario\u201d).<\/p>\n\n\n\n (4) La funzione di un intermediario \u00e8 quella di comunicare<\/p>\n\n\n\n (a) all'imputato, le domande rivolte all'imputato, e<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n (b) alle persone che pongono tali domande, le risposte date dall'imputato in risposta ad esse,<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n e di spiegare tali domande o risposte nella misura necessaria a consentirne la comprensione da parte dell'imputato o della persona in questione.<\/p>\n\n\n\n (5) Se l'imputato ha meno di 18 anni al momento della presentazione della domanda, la condizione \u00e8 che la capacit\u00e0 dell'imputato di partecipare efficacemente al procedimento come testimone che depone oralmente in tribunale sia compromessa dal suo livello di capacit\u00e0 intellettuale o di funzionamento sociale.<\/p>\n\n\n\n (6) Se l'imputato ha raggiunto l'et\u00e0 di 18 anni al momento della presentazione della domanda, le condizioni sono che -<\/p>\n\n\n\n (a) l'imputato soffre di un disturbo mentale (ai sensi del Mental Health Act 1983) o comunque presenta una significativa riduzione dell'intelligenza e delle funzioni sociali, e<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n (b) l'imputato non \u00e8 per questo motivo in grado di partecipare efficacemente al procedimento come testimone in aula.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n (7) L'esame dell'imputato in esecuzione di una disposizione di cui al comma (3) deve avvenire in presenza delle persone previste dal regolamento di procedura penale o dalla disposizione e in circostanze in cui<\/p>\n\n\n\n (a) il giudice o i giudici (o entrambi) e i rappresentanti legali che intervengono nel procedimento possano vedere e ascoltare l'esame dell'imputato e comunicare con l'intermediario, e<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n (b) la giuria (se presente) \u00e8 in grado di vedere e ascoltare l'esame dell'imputato, e<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n (c) se nel procedimento sono presenti due o pi\u00f9 imputati, ciascuno degli altri imputati \u00e8 in grado di vedere e ascoltare l'esame dell'imputato.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Ai fini della presente sottosezione non si tiene conto di eventuali problemi di vista o di udito\u201d.\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 Abbiamo rappresentato un imputato in quello che riteniamo sia stato il primo utilizzo pratico di un intermediario dell'imputato in un processo importante. Si trattava di un processo per omicidio davanti a un giudice dell'Alta Corte. Il caso riguardava anche il sequestro di persona, la falsa detenzione e l'alterazione del corso della giustizia.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This was a six handed case. The fifth Defendant was our client who had limited abilities which we volont\u00e0<\/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 Il processo \u00e8 stato complicato dalla natura \u201ca gola stretta\u201d delle difese e c'\u00e8 stata una questione sollevata dai coimputati in merito alla necessit\u00e0 di un intermediario.<\/p>\n\n\n\n (1) VALUTAZIONE INIZIALE DA PARTE DELLA DIFESA<\/p>\n\n\n\n Nel nostro caso, l'imputato, un uomo di 36 anni, non era stato rappresentato durante i primi due interrogatori e non gli era stato fornito un intermediario (l'FME (medico della polizia) ha dichiarato che ne avrebbe consigliato uno se avesse saputo del quoziente intellettivo molto basso dell'imputato).<\/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 Abbiamo consigliato di ottenere una relazione psichiatrica e una relazione di uno psicologo dell'educazione.<\/p>\n\n\n\n (2) LE RELAZIONI<\/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 In questo caso i rapporti raccomandavano specificamente l'assistenza di un intermediario. I rapporti sono stati notificati alla 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 L'accusa non si \u00e8 opposta all'uso di un intermediario da parte dell'imputato. Tuttavia, abbiamo dovuto notificare i rapporti ai coimputati in modo che i loro legali potessero sollevare eventuali dubbi.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In linea di principio, il giudice del processo ha concordato sul fatto che un intermediario dovesse essere utilizzato se e quando l'imputato avesse testimoniato e per assisterlo pi\u00f9 in generale durante la testimonianza di altri.<\/p>\n\n\n\n (4) PASSI SUCCESSIVI ALL'ACCOGLIMENTO DELLA DOMANDA<\/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 Sintesi<\/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 Il finanziamento dell'intermediario per gli imputati avviene tramite una richiesta di autorizzazione preventiva alla Commissione per i servizi giuridici. Devono essere presentate le tariffe per gli intermediari. L'autorizzazione riguarda la valutazione pre-processuale e la partecipazione al processo. Jason Connolly, Policy Officer del Ministero della Giustizia, ci ha aiutato a fornire informazioni come i Codici di pratica ed etica degli intermediari registrati e le loro tariffe di remunerazione.<\/p>\n\n\n\n (4) QUESTIONI PROCESSUALI<\/p>\n\n\n\n Le questioni da affrontare sono 4:<\/p>\n\n\n\n (1) Le \u201cregole di base\u201d dovevano essere stabilite in modo che l'intermediario potesse svolgere il suo compito con il minimo disturbo al flusso del caso. Il nostro intermediario ha fatto alcune osservazioni alla corte (in assenza della giuria) su come considerava il suo ruolo. L'intermediario ha consigliato all'avvocato di evitare le doppie negazioni e le clausole multiple e di cercare di porre domande brevi. L'intermediario ha discusso la procedura da adottare per indicare al giudice che l'imputato ha bisogno di una pausa.<\/p>\n\n\n\n (2) Quali indicazioni (o linee guida) dovrebbero essere fornite alla giuria in merito alla funzione del \u201cfunzionario\u201d visto nel banco con l'imputato.<\/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 matter<\/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 (Avvocato, Ronald Fletcher Baker LLP)<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n Un articolo simile, scritto da Gillian Frost, \u00e8 apparso sul periodico 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 legge<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
sezione 33BA Esame dell'imputato tramite intermediario<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
Purtroppo questo emendamento non \u00e8 ancora entrato in vigore e, a quanto risulta, non \u00e8 stata ancora fissata una data di attuazione per l'articolo 104, in quanto \u00e8 ancora necessaria una notevole quantit\u00e0 di lavoro preparatorio.<\/p>\n\n\n\nIl nostro caso<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
I passi pratici<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
(3) LA DOMANDA<\/p>\n\n\n\nConclusione<\/h4>\n\n\n\n