The most typical case of witness misconduct is when a witness appears at a trial intoxicated. In such cases, it is for the court to judge whether the person summoned is in a fit state to be questioned. If this cannot be established by visual examination, a forensic expert must be called immediately or, if this is not possible, the witness must be summoned to a new trial date, with a fine and the fact of appearance recorded. However, it may also happen that a witness appears against summons in a fit state to be heard, but refuses to give evidence without justification. In such cases, the statement made during the investigation should preferably be read out. The basic problem may arise if there is no investigative statement either, since in such cases the court has no other possibility to compel a confession than to impose a fine.2

When questioning a witness, the court must pay attention to two factors: (1) it must filter out any testimony that does not fall into the category of perjury but is undoubtedly biased; (2) it must obtain as many testimonies with similar content as possible.9 If it is clear from the case file that the witness has a poor recollection of an event, the court must ask him about it (but not point it out, as this would be prejudicial). The questioning technique of following the sequence of events from one memory to the next can be very helpful in this respect. It is useful to ask about the direct interpretation of the events at the time of the perception and to find out what the witness thought at the time about what he saw or heard.10

The rules of trial ethics must of course also apply to the examination of witnesses. For this reason, “a witness cannot be treated as an object of the proceedings, from whom the facts and data relevant to the proceedings are simply extracted, not always by the most regular means, but left alone and, even if unwittingly, handed over to the criminal against whom he has testified.”11 Kabódi writes: “Listening to the torrent of questions bouncing imperiously from the judge’s lips, and encountering the judicial impatience that is the hallmark of the judge’s interruption of witnesses and his intolerance of contradictions, I always have the feeling that this is how he is trying to compensate himself for the sometimes perceptible loss of prestige of his profession.”12

Preserving the human dignity of the witness is a fundamental (ethical) obligation not only for the court, but also for the prosecution counsel and the defence.13 However, this fundamental right can become very vulnerable in the midst of cross-examination, as both the prosecution and the defence may expect the same witness to confirm their own legal position. And if the testimony tips the scales to one side or the other, the only option is to challenge the credibility of the witness. Continuous, targeted (often violent) questioning effectively puts the interrogated person in a “vise grip” and makes him lose even the minimal confidence he had before the interrogation. In these circumstances, it is primarily for the court to monitor the legality and ethical aspects of questioning by the parties, in particular to prevent questions being asked which are intended to discredit the witness (e.g. criminal record, alcoholism). According to Varga, it is also important for the court to be able to establish a more personal relationship with the witness. This is necessary in order to create a confidential atmosphere and thus to achieve the sincerity of the person being questioned.14

Moreover, practical experience shows that the more times a witness is questioned on the same case, or the more questions he or she is asked about the same fact, the more uncertain and open to challenge his or her testimony becomes as time passes. For this reason, “it is a very important question whether the persons who are questioning witnesses are adequately prepared for this difficult task.”17

The examination of a child witness is only possible through a seconded or requested judge, an investigating judge or a closed telecommunications network.

The basic rules of interrogation include that (1) such witnesses do not need to be warned of the consequences of perjury, (2) they may be confronted only if this does not cause them fear, and (3) the legal representative may be present during the interrogation even if he or she is later to be called as a witness.25