You all seem to agree (and I don't dissent basically) and everyone including me has at least one bad case in mind in which the victim was victimised again by a brutal questioning in court. But the very title of this thread and Nigel's post makes me wanting to disagree a little and to tell you why this is not always such an easy question.

In some cases, it is not clear at the onset whether there is a victim at all (when the defendant claims false accusation).

Another example: In a famous and very controversial case in Germany it was not clear who the co-victim was. Two children had been murdered and from the circumstances it was clear that definitely either the father or the mother was the acting alone murderer. They both accused each other. The dead children were victims, but also the innocent of the two spouses. The police decided on the evidence to prosecute the mother with the father being the coopted accuser at the court. Her only defense was to claim that the father was the murderer and her lawyer's task was to question him as hard as possible and to dig into weak parts of his character. Terrible and additional hurt, if he was the co-victim, only option for the defense if he was the murderer. (BTW, she was sentenced claiming her innocence, he became insane) Would victim's rights have made her only line of defense impossible?

The very name 'victim's rights' could be wrong in cases in which the question who was victim and if there was a victim at all has not been answered before the sentence. I guess you would like a concept like victim's rights to work also before the sentence. Then you either have to exclude cases in which the victim status is a matter of dispute or you have to use another name.

In most cases, however, the question who was the victim is uncontroversial, but who was the perpetrator is. If the prosecution didn't think that there was a good chance that the defendant was the perpetrator they wouldn't start the case, but they can be wrong and have been.

So if you mean, Nigel, that victim's rights have to come before perpetrators rights I'm with you. If you mean before defendant's rights I'm less sure. We should never forget that the defendant may not be the perpetrator and we should remember that the explicit rights of a defendant are a good legacy from the French and other revolutions at that time.

After the case has been finished, there is no dissens from me at all. Before or during the court case, I'd like to look at the details of a victims' right law/amendment before I agree.

Wolfgang