{"id":1375,"date":"2010-02-02T02:46:30","date_gmt":"2010-02-02T02:46:30","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.sixthform.info\/lawblog\/?p=1375"},"modified":"2010-02-02T02:46:30","modified_gmt":"2010-02-02T02:46:30","slug":"competence-of-witnesses-a-4-year-old","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.sixthform.info\/lawblog\/?p=1375","title":{"rendered":"Competence of witnesses, a 4-year-old"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"img alignleft size-thumbnail wp-image-858\" style=\"width:150px;\">\r\n\t<a href=\"http:\/\/www.sixthform.info\/lawblog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2009\/04\/children_playing_street.jpg\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"http:\/\/www.sixthform.info\/lawblog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2009\/04\/children_playing_street-150x150.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"150\" height=\"150\" \/><\/a>\r\n\t<div>Children - compentent witnesses<\/div>\r\n<\/div>R v BARKER [2010] CA<\/p>\n<p>The competence of a 4 year old child to give evidence was not in question.<\/p>\n<p>The question of competence is now entirely \u201cwitness specific\u201d and must be taken on an ad hoc basis. In the event that a child could not provide intelligible answers to questions in cross-examination or it was impossible to conduct a meaningful cross-examination, the evidence could reasonably be excluded under section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.<\/p>\n<p>There was no basis to justify interfering with the judge&#8217;s conclusion in this appeal that the competence of the child as a witness was established and remained established after her evidence was concluded. Appeal dismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Children &#8211; compentent witnesses R v BARKER [2010] CA The competence of a 4 year old child to give evidence was not in question. The question of competence is now entirely \u201cwitness specific\u201d and must be taken on an ad hoc basis. In the event that a child could not provide intelligible answers to questions [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1375","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-news"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.sixthform.info\/lawblog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1375","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.sixthform.info\/lawblog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.sixthform.info\/lawblog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.sixthform.info\/lawblog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.sixthform.info\/lawblog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1375"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.sixthform.info\/lawblog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1375\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1382,"href":"https:\/\/www.sixthform.info\/lawblog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1375\/revisions\/1382"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.sixthform.info\/lawblog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1375"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.sixthform.info\/lawblog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1375"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.sixthform.info\/lawblog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1375"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}