R v A1 (No. 2)

In the case of R v A1 (No. 2), the respondent was charged with the murder of his wife. The wife of the respondent, who was a potential witness for the prosecution, objected to giving evidence in the case on the basis of the risk of harm to her from third parties. The legal issues before the court included the interpretation of section 18 of the Evidence Act 1995, which pertains to the compellability of a spouse to give evidence in a criminal proceeding against their partner. The court was also required to determine whether a partial objection under section 18(2)(a) was permissible, given that the risk of harm related only to a specific area of the evidence. Furthermore, the court had to consider whether comments could be made to the jury concerning the ruling on the objection, as per section 20 of the Evidence Act 1995, and whether the witness could provide evidence via an audio-visual link.

The court found that section 18 did not mandate an all-or-nothing approach to objections by a spouse. It held that where the risk of harm was limited to a specific area of the evidence, a partial objection could be sustained without causing undue prejudice to the Crown or the accused. The court also determined that the trial judge could make comments to the jury concerning the ruling on the objection, provided that the comments did not prejudice the accused. Regarding the provision of evidence via an audio-visual link, the court concluded that this could be an appropriate measure to mitigate the risk to the witness while still allowing her to give evidence in the case.

The court partially overruled the objection, permitting the witness to give evidence concerning matters that did not pose a risk to her, while restricting her testimony on the areas where harm was a concern. The court also allowed the trial judge to make appropriate comments to the jury regarding the ruling on the objection. The court further ruled that the witness could give evidence via an audio-visual link to ensure her safety while testifying. No further orders were made in the case beyond these rulings.