The court may issue such instructions for the measures referred to in Rule 3A.8. In addition, the court may exercise its general powers to deal with cases if it deems it appropriate to facilitate the participation of the party. For example, the court may decide to issue instructions on issues such as the structure and timing of the hearing, the formality of the language to be used in court, and whether (if facilities permit) the parties should be able to enter the courthouse in different ways and use different waiting rooms. 5.4 The court shall consider the best course of testifying, including whether the person`s oral testimony should be given at a time prior to the hearing, recorded and, if ordered by the court, transcribed or given at the hearing, with instructions to attend, if any. If instructions are required for proper treatment and interrogation, the court must establish basic rules (Code of Criminal Procedure (CrimPR), 3.9 (7) (b)). “The hearing as a general rule normally takes place shortly after the expiry of the time limit for service of the defence, and lawyers and judges should consider specific measures and other appropriate adaptations throughout the proceedings. It may therefore be necessary to review the basic rules established at the beginning of the procedure by means of a new HRM. “Discussion of ground rules is necessary in all intermediate trials where they must be discussed between practice guidelines, which must be adhered to in order to ensure that a vulnerable witness is able to participate fully. To assist the court, it is recommended that the representative give the court a brief overview of how to help the vulnerable person. Clause (1.4) and (Practice Direction 6). It will be for the Court (Rules 1.1 (2); 1.2 and 1.4 and Part 3A RPF) to decide and give instructions for the participation of the vulnerable witness, including the assistance to be provided; whether the witness is to be recorded before the hearing; the method of cross-examination (Practice Instruction 5 – Rule 3A.3(1) RPF. The approach has also extended beyond England and Wales to other jurisdictions such as Northern Ireland (see, for example, Galo v.

Bombardier Aerospace UK [2016] NICA 25) and New South Wales, Australia. .