Special Measures for Vulnerable Witnesses: Use, Effectiveness, and Improvement

点击翻译按钮获取中文摘要

The use of special measures (i.e., provisions introduced by the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act, 1999) to support vulnerable witnesses giving evidence in court has recently increased dramatically. Best-practice use of special measures, such as giving evidence via a TV live- link from outside the court (S.24), pre-recording of examination-in-chief (S.27) and cross-examination (S.28) before trial, and using intermediaries (i.e., neutral specialists [often speech and language therapists] that facilitate communication between witnesses and practitioners, S.29) throughout the legal process are incredibly promising legal interventions. However, the use of special measures is not centrally monitored and their effectiveness in supporting vulnerable witnesses has not been quantitatively nor systematically assessed on a large scale. Indeed, existing findings (primarily staged experiments with limited validity) on the effectiveness of special measures are mixed, and there remains considerable resistance to their implementation due to concerns that jurors will not be able to properly evaluate witnesses' credibility and defendants' rights will not be adequately protected. The proposed research is therefore designed to investigate the use and effectiveness of current special measures used with vulnerable witnesses, specifically children, as well as to identify how improvements can be made, by adopting a multi-method, psychologically-informed approach. The first phase involves surveying practitioners (i.e., judges, lawyers, intermediaries, police) about their beliefs of and experiences with special measures, as well as their opinions about where improvements could be made. The second phase is field research, wherein systematic transcript analyses will take place, investigating the use and effectiveness of intermediary involvement with vulnerable witnesses from first assessments, through forensic interviews and/or courtroom questioning. Interviewers' questions and children's responses will be analysed and compared with control groups of similarly vulnerable children who were not afforded intermediary involvement. The final phase is a series of mock courtroom studies that will test both underlying physiological assumptions of special measures (e.g., lowered juror emotional arousal), as well as some of the current practical concerns associated with special measures (e.g., lowered juror attentiveness) that may affect decision-making. These studies also seek to test the effectiveness of technological manipulations (e.g., larger screens, better audio) to combat physiological and practical concerns (e.g., to increase juror emotional arousal/attentiveness). Overall, it is expected that special measures will facilitate communication between children and police/lawyers when used in line with best-practice, but that extraneous factors (e.g., attitudes towards procedures, failure to adhere to best-practice standards) will prevent special measures from being wholly effective. As such, this project further seeks to develop a theoretical understanding of the processes through which legal practitioners can continue to develop and implement psychologically informed best-practice approaches when dealing with vulnerable witnesses. As a result of this research, evidence-based guidance on how to maximise the effectiveness of special measures can be used to advance subsequent practitioner training practices and inform legal policy. Practitioners, legal experts, and world-leading academics will be involved in all phases of the project, primarily through participation on the advisory board, data collection methods, and dissemination activities. This collaborative participation in the projects' interpretation will not only enrich the research, but will ensure that the proposal will have meaningful and important effects on wide-reaching international policies and practices.