The way in which children are questioned in forensic contexts can impact on the accuracy of their responses. Past studies have shown that children were often questioned in the New Zealand courts in ways that profoundly contradict best practice. This study analyses the questions posed to 18 child witnesses by forensic interviewers, prosecutors, and defence lawyers during criminal trials held in New Zealand courts in 2008. The results suggest that, as was found in earlier studies, many of the questions posed to children during cross-examination in particular were inconsistent with best practice in terms of eliciting full and accurate information from children. Indeed, the heavy reliance on closed, leading and complex questions, along with other common practices, casts doubt on the forensic safety of cross-examination, calling into question its fairness for children. The implications of these results for policy and practice are explored.

No abstract

This paper reports on lawyers’ and victim advisors’ experiences with nine pre-recorded hearings involving young people as witnesses in criminal court cases in Auckland. Focus groups, interviews and a questionnaire were used to elicit perceived advantages and disadvantages, issues in the preparation for hearings, conducting the hearings and showing the pre-recordings at trial. Although the sample is not large enough to generate definitive conclusions, 21 of 24 participants described pre-recorded hearings positively with only two prosecutors and one defence counsel expressing concern about increasing the use of pre-recording in the future. Participants raised a series of practice issues which could readily be addressed. Presuming provision to recall the child if necessary, late or incomplete disclosure from third parties is the only significant challenge to these pre-recorded hearings. The logistical challenge of accessing timely relevant information from child protection records was overcome in Auckland through the development of an inter-agency protocol. Pre-recording children’s and young people’s entire evidence appeared to be a constructive contribution to the criminal justice system.

No abstract

As part of its 2012 Youth Service package, the Government has introduced compulsory income management for recipients of the new Youth Payment and Young Parent Payment benefits. The scheme involves dividing beneficiaries’ payments between automatic redirections for rent and other bills, an electronic payment card that can only be used for food and groceries and a cash payment of no more than $50 per week The only other country to operate comparable programmes is Australia which introduced income management in 2007 as part of the Northern Territory Emergency Response. This paper presents a preliminary assessment of the income management scheme introduced in the Youth Service package. We examine the design of, and apparent rationale for, the policy and consider some of its implications. We also compare the New Zealand policy with the way income management operates in Australia. We conclude that there is no evidence of widespread poor expenditure patterns amongst the two target groups that might justify the blanket application of the policy; that the design of the scheme inhibits people’s ability to budget optimally; and risks a number of negative and perverse outcomes. It appears that the rationale underlying the use of income management is to deter benefit receipt rather than to assist with financial management. In our view, this is not an appropriate use of the policy, especially if in doing so the scheme also risks negative outcomes.