‘A very valuable tool’

Abstract

The intermediary is the first new, active role to be introduced into the criminal trial in two centuries, and could be seen as a potential threat to the principle of party control of the evidential process. The merits of the scheme are of considerable interest to jurisdictions such as New Zealand, Australia and even South Africa, where similar ideas are under discussion. This article reports on findings from a recent series of interviews with judges, advocates and Registered Intermediaries in England and Wales as to how the scheme is received by practitioners and as to whether it is in fact being experienced as a threat to the counsel's ability to examine witnesses. The findings suggest that there is in fact little to fear from the intermediary system.

Verbal, Visual, and Intermediary Support for Child Witnesses with Autism During Investigative Interviews

“…The role of RIs is wide-ranging, but includes an initial assessment of the witness, and preparation of reports that advise how best to communicate with the witness at all different stages of the criminal investigation (e.g., at interview, identification parade, and trial; Plotnikoff and Woolfson 2015). The use of RIs in England and Wales has steadily increased and there is considerable interest in implementing RI schemes in other countries (Henderson 2015; Plotnikoff and Woolfson 2015). The use of RIs is advised in the case of witnesses with ASD (The Advocate’s Gateway 2015, 2016), and legal professionals have responded favourably to their use with this vulnerable group (e.g., Henderson 2015; Plotnikoff and Woolfson 2007, 2015).…”

“…The use of RIs in England and Wales has steadily increased and there is considerable interest in implementing RI schemes in other countries (Henderson 2015; Plotnikoff and Woolfson 2015). The use of RIs is advised in the case of witnesses with ASD (The Advocate’s Gateway 2015, 2016), and legal professionals have responded favourably to their use with this vulnerable group (e.g., Henderson 2015; Plotnikoff and Woolfson 2007, 2015). However, there has been no empirical evaluation of the effect of RIs on witness performance in either TD or ASD children to date, which represents a significant gap in the literature.…”

Victim Care or Defendant Rights? Assessing Public Attitudes towards Special Measures Designed to Support Vulnerable Witnesses at Trial

“…Academics generally agree that vulnerable individuals are disproportionately disadvantaged by techniques employed in adversarial court systems (Doak et al 2021;Fairclough 2020;Henderson 2015;Keane 2012). Within the English and Welsh judicial system, definitions of 'vulnerable' and 'intimidated' are set out within sections 16 and 17 of The Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 (YJCEA) and include witnesses (including complainants) who are under 18 years of age, victims of serious or sexual crime, and those who have intellectual disabilities or other communicative impairments (CPS 2021a).…”

“…Those deemed 'vulnerable' by the CPS are not a homogenous group; vulnerability can be both endogenous (such as in cases of physical and mental impairments) and situational (including cases of serious and sexual crimes) (Civil Justice Council 2020). Diversity in the cause of vulnerability also gives rise to a range of difficulties experienced during trial varying from PTSD, anxiety, and re-victimisation, alongside communication and comprehension difficulties (Doak et al 2021;Fairclough 2020;Keane 2012;Kebbell et al 2004;Henderson 2015;Smith and Skinner 2012). For children and those with learning disabilities, the use of legal jargon and suggestive questioning can create confusion and erroneous testimony (Devine and Mojtahedi 2021;Doak et al 2021;Kebbell et al 2004;Richardson et al 2019).…”

What next for courtroom special measures? Embodying legal geographies through “appreciative‐assemblage” methodology

“…Academics across disciplines and (inter)national contexts have (in)directly examined special measures and the decisions, meanings, and practices involved in England and Wales (Smith, 2018); USA and Canada (Hoyano, 2001); Saudi Arabia (Alshammari, 2016); and the former Yugoslavia (Sharratt, 2016). Scholars have detailed contradictory and (un)intended effects of special measures for victims (Brookes‐Hay et al., 2018), juries (Ellison & Munro, 2014), intermediaries (Henderson, 2015), and lawyers and the vulnerable accused (Fairclough, 2019). Smith (2018) provides one of few ethnographies problematising screens and video links in rape trials.…”