Are there any new cases on video link for adults?

After the Criminal Justice (Victims of Crime) Act 2017 removed s.13 Criminal Evidence Act 1992 from s.19 of the Act ( the section that allowed persons with an intellectual disability), vulnerable adults who used to be able to rely on s.13(1) ( under 18/person with an intellectual disability) now may ask the Court for the support measure of s.13 (1)(b) Criminal Evidence Act 1992 ( 'in any other case with the leave of the court.')

For adults without an intellectual disability, there might be harder hurdles to jump and the case of DPP v Ronald McManus (AKA Ronald Dunbar)[2011] IECCA 32 is helpful. The case involved a witness who was just over 18, giving evidence against her father and there was evidence before the trial judge that she was someone who may freeze while giving evidence and would need assistance. The Court of Appeal didn't have a problem with that.

The case of DPP v O’Driscoll[1] involved the use of video link under s.13(1)(b) Criminal Evidence Act 1992 where a prosecution witness had an acquired brain injury and counsel applied for the use of video link under s.13 (1)(b) and the use of an intermediary under s.14 Criminal Evidence Act. Both measures were granted by the trial judge and after conviction, the defendant appealed on the grounds that the trial judge had erred where there had been no necessity for their use at trial. The appeal was dismissed on the basis that the granting of the measures had been appropriate in the circumstances.

The Court of Appeal also dealt with the granting of the support measure of video link for a complainant over 18 under s. 13(1)(b) Criminal Evidence Act 1992 in DPP v Osei and Opoku.[2] In this case, the witness did not suffer from an intellectual disability but was residing in Australia and for this as well as for work and emotional reasons, the prosecution applied that she be allowed to give evidence via video link.[3] The Court of Appeal referred back to the original challenges to the use of video link and how the courts had become more accustomed to its use, noting that it did not inhibit cross examination of the complainant nor her being seen by the jury :

In the early years of the video link regime, a number of constitutional challenges were brought in cases such as White v. Ireland [1995] 2 IR 268, and Donnelly v. Ireland [1998] 1 IR 321. Since those early days, we have all become much more familiar with the technology and its use. When it is used, accused persons are not inhibited in any way from cross examining the witness. In this case, the witness in question, the complainant, was cross examined at some length by senior counsel on behalf of each accused. The jury could see her as she gave her evidence, and jurors, as well as the accused and their legal teams, were in a position to assess her demeanour as she gave her evidence.[4]

The Court of Appeal stated that it did not believe that the accused was in any way prejudiced because the complainant gave evidence via video link and was satisfied that the trial judge exercised his discretion to grant the measure in a proper manner.

1 DPP v O'Driscoll 2022 IECA 4 2 DPP v Osei and Opoku [2022] IECA 61 3 DPP v Osei and Opoku [2022] IECA 61 [12] 4 DPP v Osei and Opoku [2022] IECA 61 [14]