Do interrogators in British court (and similar situations) _really_
interrupt the answers given by a witness in the manner illustrated? I
thought that only happened in US court dramas.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Well I wish you'd just tell me, rather than trying to engage my enthusiasm,
because I haven't got one. (Marvin; first series, fit the fifth.)

J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
> Do interrogators in British court (and similar situations) _really_
> interrupt the answers given by a witness in the manner illustrated? I
> thought that only happened in US court dramas.

Short answer: no. More detail a couple of paragraphs down.

I had several issues with the whole thing. The “prosecution” called Harry
for “cross examination.” Cross examination is what the defence does to
prosecution witnesses (and vice versa). You just examine your own witness.

Normally the defence would cross examine the prosecution witnesses while
they are already on oath on the stand. You don’t call them separately after
they have been stood down (except in exceptional circumstances where
subsequent testimony has raised issues that require further examination,
which was not the case here.) if Harry had gone and sat in the public
gallery he could easily have compromised his reliability as a witness
because of what he had subsequently heard.

While the prosecution can interrupt witnesses when they are examining them
(in chief or on cross) they certainly cannot interrupt them when the other
side is examining them. They will either have had their chance to examine
them or will shortly have their chance. The prosecution can complain to the
judge if they don’t like what the other side is doing.

Are police misconduct hearings held in public?

On Tue, 02 Apr 2024 18:48:53 +0000, Wenlock wrote:

> Are police misconduct hearings held in public?

Yes, since 2014, unless there are special reasons otherwise, says
<https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/readings-2019-police-misconduct hearings-1.pdf>.

I'll give it a careful second listening tomorrow, and try not to be cooking
a meal while doing so, before giving judgment on it as a dramatic
representation. But it did sound a bit of mess.

Iain

In message <uuhjul$3cdiu$1@dont-email.me> at Tue, 2 Apr 2024 18:48:53,
Wenlock <wenlock.house@googlemail.com> writes
>J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>> Do interrogators in British court (and similar situations) _really_
>> interrupt the answers given by a witness in the manner illustrated? I
>> thought that only happened in US court dramas.
>
>Short answer: no. More detail a couple of paragraphs down.
[]
Thanks; I thought not. Regardless of whether it was defence or
prosecution answering the questions, I found it totally unacceptable
that Harry just about got "yes, but..." out, before he was interrupted.
I would _hope_ that the person chairing the meeting (judge if a court
case; don't know for a police disciplinary hearing) would have
reprimanded the questioner well before the stage this got to. (And
conversely would reprimand a witness who went on _excessively_.)

Good on Harry.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

No. I demur. Let it [the Royal Variety Performance] glitter ridiculously on, to
affirm that other people's pleasures, even ghastly ones, are part of the great
mouldy patchwork clown-trouser of the nation. - Libby Purves, rt 2022/12/17-23

Iain Archer wrote:

> On Tue, 02 Apr 2024 18:48:53 +0000, Wenlock wrote:

>> Are police misconduct hearings held in public?

> Yes, since 2014, unless there are special reasons otherwise, says
> <https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/readings-2019-police-misconduct hearings-1.pdf>.

> I'll give it a careful second listening tomorrow, and try not to be cooking
> a meal while doing so, before giving judgment on it as a dramatic
> representation. But it did sound a bit of mess.

And?

(Did you have a chance to listen again?)

I was more than a bit busy this week because, as of Friday morning and
at rather short notice, I'm back over here instead of over there -IYSWIM-
but while I was still in Huddersfield I made time to listen to the episode.
Having been prepared for it in advance it certainly sounded amateurish but
I don't have the professional experience to be able to say whether that's
lifelike or not. I think the outcome is what I would have liked it to have
been but then again without the appropriate background I'm in no position
to say whether the outcome was what it ought to have been

Nick

nick <nickodell49@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> Iain Archer wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 02 Apr 2024 18:48:53 +0000, Wenlock wrote:
>
>>> Are police misconduct hearings held in public?
>
>> Yes, since 2014, unless there are special reasons otherwise, says
>> <https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/readings-2019-police-misconduct
>> hearings-1.pdf>.
>
>> I'll give it a careful second listening tomorrow, and try not to be cooking
>> a meal while doing so, before giving judgment on it as a dramatic
>> representation. But it did sound a bit of mess.
>
> And?
>
> (Did you have a chance to listen again?)
>
> I was more than a bit busy this week because, as of Friday morning and
> at rather short notice, I'm back over here instead of over there -IYSWIM-
> but while I was still in Huddersfield I made time to listen to the episode.
> Having been prepared for it in advance it certainly sounded amateurish but
> I don't have the professional experience to be able to say whether that's
> lifelike or not. I think the outcome is what I would have liked it to have
> been but then again without the appropriate background I'm in no position
> to say whether the outcome was what it ought to have been

There was a lot wrong with the legal language. In addition to the misuse of
“cross-examination” there was a reference to “classified” information.
Harrison was looking at sensitive personal information, but unless Harry
had come to the interest of Special Branch it is inconceivable that it
would have actually been “classified” (the correct term these days is
“protectively marked.”)

On Fri, 5 Apr 2024 23:42:37 -0000 (UTC), Wenlock
<wenlock.house@googlemail.com> wrote:

>nick <nickodell49@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>> Iain Archer wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 02 Apr 2024 18:48:53 +0000, Wenlock wrote:
>>
>>>> Are police misconduct hearings held in public?
>>
>>> Yes, since 2014, unless there are special reasons otherwise, says
>>> <https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/readings-2019-police-misconduct
>>> hearings-1.pdf>.
>>
>>> I'll give it a careful second listening tomorrow, and try not to be cooking
>>> a meal while doing so, before giving judgment on it as a dramatic
>>> representation. But it did sound a bit of mess.
>>
>> And?
>>
>> (Did you have a chance to listen again?)
>>
>> I was more than a bit busy this week because, as of Friday morning and
>> at rather short notice, I'm back over here instead of over there -IYSWIM-
>> but while I was still in Huddersfield I made time to listen to the episode.
>> Having been prepared for it in advance it certainly sounded amateurish but
>> I don't have the professional experience to be able to say whether that's
>> lifelike or not. I think the outcome is what I would have liked it to have
>> been but then again without the appropriate background I'm in no position
>> to say whether the outcome was what it ought to have been
>
>There was a lot wrong with the legal language. In addition to the misuse of
>“cross-examination” there was a reference to “classified” information.
>Harrison was looking at sensitive personal information, but unless Harry
>had come to the interest of Special Branch it is inconceivable that it
>would have actually been “classified” (the correct term these days is
>“protectively marked.”)
>

I thought it unlikely that they'd have censured Harrison in the first
place for taking actions to ensure Martha and Alice's safety. I
thought Harry speaking for Harrison unlikely unless it was because, as
we know now, he wants to ensnare Alice back into a relationship.

And Robert forcing himself into Harrison's house last night when he
was clearly interrupting was also unlikely.

In message <9kv11j955p6ber45bfg423bvif7f21bl33@4ax.com> at Sat, 6 Apr
2024 08:52:41, Vicky <vicky.ayech@gmail.com> writes
[]
>I thought it unlikely that they'd have censured Harrison in the first
>place for taking actions to ensure Martha and Alice's safety. I

Hmm. That's basically "the end justifies the means" - he still did
something he shouldn't have, however good the reason. Personally, I
think he did right, but some would say that's a slippery slope. Though
in US TV drama, they take it to a ridiculous extent, dismissing evidence
because it was obtained in an illegal manner, which I think is wrong.
(Punish the law-breaker, but don't dismiss the evidence.)

>thought Harry speaking for Harrison unlikely unless it was because, as

Yes, I thought that showed a fairly unbelievable reversal of character..

>we know now, he wants to ensnare Alice back into a relationship.

... unless that. Which I've not really been paying enough attention to
discern. Or some other ulterior motive.
>
>And Robert forcing himself into Harrison's house last night when he
>was clearly interrupting was also unlikely.

Agreed. Very cliche soap situation.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Look out for #1. Don't step in #2 either.

On 2.4.24 21:18, Iain Archer wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Apr 2024 18:48:53 +0000, Wenlock wrote:
>
>> Are police misconduct hearings held in public?
>
> Yes, since 2014, unless there are special reasons otherwise, says
> <https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/readings-2019-police-misconduct hearings-1.pdf>.
>
> I'll give it a careful second listening tomorrow, and try not to be cooking
> a meal while doing so, before giving judgment on it as a dramatic
> representation. But it did sound a bit of mess.
>
> Iain
>
>
>

Having found and read your link, for which many thanks, the writers made
a complete mess of it. The link makes it clear that the "prosecutor"
does not call a witness - so Harry would not have been called in the
first place. He would simply have been questioned by Harrison's lawyer.

The sw obviously thought they knew better and so presented something
which not only felt wrong to this listener - but were actually wrong.

I despair.

--
Kosmo Richard W
www.travelswmw.whitnet.uk
https://tinyurl.com/KRWpics