Intermediaries, vulnerable people and the quality of evidence

Abstract

Since 2004, witness intermediaries have been utilised across the justice system in England and Wales. Two witness intermediary schemes based on the English model have also been introduced in Northern Ireland (2013), and more recently, in New South Wales, Australia (2016). The purpose of the intermediary in these jurisdictions is to facilitate the questioning of vulnerable witnesses, but there are clear differences in the application of the role. This paper presents the first comparative review of the three related intermediary models, and highlights the pressing need for further research into the efficacy and development of the role in practice.

Taking Oral Evidence in Chile from Child Victims in Priority Groups: Challenges for the Practice and Training of Justice Professionals

“…This prevents professionals from properly preparing for these instances and may impair their interactions with the child/adolescent or the quality of the testimony. Similar results have been found in the UK and South Africa, with respect to the intermediary system, including the lack of protocols to assess the vulnerability, communication competencies, and cultural needs of victims in order to plan and execute interviews and cross-examinations in a better way (Bekink 2016;Cooper and Mattison 2017;Coughlan and Jarman 2002;Victims Commissioner 2018).…”

“…Regarding the criminal investigation of cases, one of the most important measures that have been implemented by several countries is the use of interviewing protocols such as the NICHD (from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Orbach et al 2000) or the ABE (Achieving Best Evidence -Children (CJJI) 2014). Some countries, such as Australia, England and Wales, Northern Ireland, South Africa, New Zealand, and Taiwan, have also established the figure of the intermediary or communicative assistant in order to help especially vulnerable witnesses to provide their evidence during an investigative interview and/or the trial (Cooper and Mattison 2017;Department of Justice Northern Ireland 2016;New Zealand Law Commission 1999; NSW Department of Justice 2016).…”

Mock Juror Perceptions of Child Witnesses on the Autism Spectrum: The Impact of Providing Diagnostic Labels and Information About Autism

“…An RI would, therefore, be in an excellent position to prepare individualised information about a witness for a jury, which the current research suggests is urgently needed. There is growing international interest in implementing RI schemes outside of England and Wales (Cooper and Mattison 2017;Plotnikoff and Woolfson 2015), with schemes being successfully implemented in other jurisdictions (Cooper 2016;Cooper and Wurtzel 2014). Until such a procedure exists in other countries, expert witnesses (or similar) may be able to provide such information to juries, in collaboration with the vulnerable individual (if possible) and those who know them well (e.g., family members, teachers, support workers).…”

Hate crime based on disability in South Africa. Lessons for law reform

“…Barriers in communication negatively affect not only the witness's experience, but also 'the fairness of the outcome and other people's perceptions of the fairness of the system'. 88 Msipa argues that in criminal proceedings 'the question should not be whether a person is competent to testify; rather it should be what types of accommodations are required to enable the person to give effective testimony'. 89 Measures used in other jurisdictions may offer potential in South Africa, such as developing appropriate questioning techniques for adults who experience communication difficulties, and training personnel to use them.…”