Report comment

Am I missing something?

As part of a proposal to reduce costs we will allow witnesses to prerecord their cross-examinations.

How? When? Where? In whose presence?

Under the current "live courtroom" process a witness is "examined in chief" by their barrister and then "cross-examined" by the opposing barrister. In my experience the cross-examination often challenges statements made or omitted during the examination in chief. So, it appears to me that, if the witness is going to pre-record their evidence then the witness, both barristers and, I hope, a judge will need to be all together in one place at one time in advance of the actual hearing in order to do this.

But isn't this what the live courtroom already does? How will this save costs when the barristers and the judge will then be just sitting in court while the video is played to the jury?

As an Expert Witness I am frequently asked questions about what one of witnesses has said. Will I get to watch their recordings before the trial?

And what about the jury? Are they going to be sat in front of big screens to watch the pre-recorded witnesses saying their piece?

Whilst I accept that in a tiny proportion of cases it is necessary for evidence to be recorded away from the actual courtroom I do not accept that there is any value in making this the norm.