In criminal proceedings in England and Wales, there is a general presumption that the defendant will not be handcuffed in court unless there are reasonable grounds for doing so. The judge will consider if there are less intrusive methods of maintaining security.
Why is this so?
It is considered prejudicial against the defendant for the jury to see a handcuffed defendant.
It is considered prejudicial against the defendant for the jury to see a handcuffed defendant.
Which side has to demonstrate that handcuffs are necessary/ not necessary?
The prosecution must show that there are reasonable grounds to warrant a defendant being handcuffed.
The prosecution must show that there are reasonable grounds to warrant a defendant being handcuffed.
What are those reasonable grounds?
- Risk of violence;
- Risk of escape.
What about defendants who are already serving custodial terms in prison?
A warning from a prison to prison escort and dock security contractors that there might be some risk of escape does not automatically mean that the risk is great enough to justify handcuffing in court (R v Horden [2009] 2 Cr. App. R. 24).
Who decides whether or not the use of handcuffs is appropriate?
It is for the court, not the police to decide.
It is for the court, not the police to decide.
Who makes the application for handcuffs?
The prosecutor.
The prosecutor.
What about hearings in camera?
Judges rarely consider the use of handcuffs necessary for those hearings which are conducted in private, without the public or jury.
No comments:
Post a Comment