Communication and cross-examination in court for children and adults with intellectual disabilities: A systematic review

Abstract

Courts in England, Wales and Northern Ireland have identified children and adults with intellectual disabilities (ID) as vulnerable witnesses. The call from the English Court of Appeal is for advocates to adjust questioning during cross-examination according to individual needs. This review systematically examined previous empirical studies with the aim of delineating the particular communication needs of children and adults with ID during cross-examination. Studies utilising experimental methodology similar to examination/cross-examination processes, or which assessed the communication of actual cross-examinations in court were included. A range of communication challenges were highlighted, including: suggestibility to leading questions and negative feedback; acquiescence; accuracy; memory and understanding of court language. In addition, a number of influencing factors were identified, including: age; IQ level; question styles used. This review highlights the need for further research using cross-examination methodology and live practice, that take into consideration the impact on communication of the unique environment and situation of the cross-examination process.

Model Komunikasi Pemeriksaan Dalam Sidang Agenda Pembuktian Perkara di Pengadilan

“…Sebagai bagian dari agenda persidangan dalam proses persidangan, sidang agenda pembuktian perkara dalam kegiatan dan proses komunikasi melibatkan penegak hukum, saksi dan terdakwa korban. Komunikasi yang terjadi pada persidangan agenda pembuktian ini oleh Matoesian (2017), Grażyna Anna Bednarek (2014) Joanne Morrison, Rachel Forrester-Jones, Jill Bradshaw, Glynis Murphy (2019) disebut komunikasi pemeriksaan (communication examination) (Bednarek, 2014;Matoesian, 2017;Morrison et al, 2019). Selain communication examination, konteks komunikasi pemeriksaan perkara dalam persidangan juga dikenal dengan istilah lain yakni komunikasi investigasi (investigations communication).…”

“…Komunikasi pemeriksaan berlangsung dengan teknik interview ataupun interogasi (Archer, 2011;Gabbert et al, 2015;Morrison et al, 2019;Setyo, 2013). Interview ataupun interogasi terjadi pada pemeriksaan terdakwa, korban, dan saksi (Brewer et al, 2018;Groome & Eysenck, 2016).…”

“…Komunikasi dalam sidang agenda pembuktian perkara yang oleh Matoesian (2017), Grażyna Anna Bednarek (2014) Joanne Morrison, Rachel Forrester-Jones, Jill Bradshaw, Glynis Murphy (2019) disebut komunikasi pemeriksaan (communication examination) (Bednarek, 2014;Matoesian, 2017;Morrison et al, 2019) melibatkan penegak hukum, terdakwa, korban, saksi, hingga pengunjung yang berkomunikasi baik secara verbal maupun nonverbal. Di Pengadilan Negeri Jakarta Pusat, komunikasi pemeriksaan tergambar dari proses komunikasi dalam sidang agenda pembuktian perkara, dimana dalam agenda tersebut terjadi komunikasi pemeriksaan terdakwa, komunikasi pemeriksaan korban, komunikasi pemeriksaan saksi oleh penegak hukum.…”

Interviewing alleged victims with mild and moderate intellectual disabilities and autism: A field study of police‐investigated cases of physical and sexual abuse in a Norwegian national sample

“…Research indicates that these groups of victims encounter barriers in their interaction with the criminal justice system, particularly during police investigation, owing to impairments according to their diagnosis (Petersilia 2001;Crane et al 2016;Beckene et al 2017;Carlin 2018;Olsen et al 2018). Scholars have therefore developed best-practice recommendations to safeguard the robust witness testimonies of PWID and PWA when entering the criminal justice system as alleged victims of abuse (Bull 2010;Wyman et al 2018;Lamb et al 2018b;Morrison et al 2019;Maras et al 2020).…”

“…The quality of the interview techniques used in investigative interviews of PWID and PWA is therefore frequently referred to as a challenge in discussions of witness credibility. Additionally, studies have shown a relationship between the question types used and the accuracy of the witness account, for both PWID (Agnew and Powell 2004;Ternes and Yuille 2008;Gudjonsson and Joyce 2011;Brown and Lamb 2015;Brown et al 2017;Lamb et al 2018b;Morrison et al 2019) and PWA (Maras and Bowler 2014;Almeida et al 2018). The majority of these studies have, however, been conducted with children with or without ID in experimental settings (e.g.…”