The victims’ minister faces criticism for alleged inaccuracies regarding the impact of video evidence on conviction rates in criminal cases, according to one of the UK’s foremost justice experts. Since 2013, a policy has allowed vulnerable witnesses, such as children and victims of rape, to provide video evidence instead of testifying in person during crown court trials. In March, Alex Davies-Jones MP, also responsible for addressing violence against women and girls, stated in a letter to the Commons justice committee that the policy, section 28, had not decreased guilty verdicts. This claim was based on research by the Ministry of Justice (MoJ), which Davies-Jones claimed presented the “most robust evaluation” of video cross-examination. However, this assessment conflicted with a broader study conducted by Cheryl Thomas KC, a leading expert on judicial matters at University College London (UCL). Thomas’s research, released last year, suggested that conviction rates dropped when video cross-examination was used, with a notable decline in rape cases. The MoJ focused on a shorter period and, according to Thomas, misrepresented verdicts by inflating conviction numbers and underestimating acquittals. She criticized the minister for inaccuracies in an official document, emphasizing the need for precise information to inform victims’ decisions in criminal proceedings. Mary Prior KC, chair of the Criminal Bar Association, corroborated Thomas’s findings, stating that the MoJ’s portrayal of video evidence as beneficial was misleading. The policy allows judges to authorize special measures, including pre-recording cross-examinations, to ease the courtroom experience for victims. The-decision to advance this policy, despite evidence suggesting a reduction in conviction rates, was questioned by Thomas, who is investigating potential reasons for this outcome. She posits that jurors may feel less empathy when watching pre-recorded testimonies compared to in-person statements. Prior emphasized that the success of such measures depends on addressing court backlogs and ensuring adequate support for barristers and judges handling these cases. The MoJ defended its stance, maintaining that pre-recorded cross-examination benefits victims’ ability to provide evidence, citing peer-reviewed findings from its evaluation.

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/mar/30/victims-minister-accused-of-factual-inaccuracies-over-use-of-video-evidence-in-uk-trials