*/
The current system of cross-examining young witnesses was the subject of a seminar chaired by Lord Justice Hooper at the Nuffield Foundation on 10 June, writes Joyce Plotnikoff.
The seminar was following up Measuring Up? (2009) (Joyce Plotnikoff and Richard Woolfson) published by Nuffield and the NSPCC. This found that half of young witnesses – across age groups – did not understand some questions at court. Seminar participants included judges, magistrates, barristers, solicitors, intermediaries, child psychiatrists, academics and advocacy trainers.
Discussion focused on whether advocates are hindered from putting the defendant’s case if they cannot lead the witness. It was agreed that change was needed in light of the Court of Appeal decision in R v Barker ([2010] EWCA Crim 4, para 42). This said that when the issue is whether the child is lying or mistaken, the advocate should ask “short, simple” questions which put the essential elements of the defendant”s case, and “fully to ventilate before the jury” evidence bearing on the child’s credibility but which may not necessarily be appropriate to form the subject matter of detailed cross- examination of the child. The seminar noted that children are particularly susceptible to suggestion. Leading questions with tag endings – the most suggestive – are routinely used even though they take at least seven stages of reasoning to answer.
The conduct of training in developmentally appropriate questioning was also addressed. A survey conducted for the seminar revealed an uneven approach across training bodies, with some doing nothing because it is not required or recommended. An Advocacy Training Council working group is due to report shortly on how best to train barristers to handle vulnerable witnesses and defendants in court.
The seminar also considered alternatives to the current system, including the 1989 Pigot Committee recommendation that courts should have discretion to take children’s evidence at pre-trial hearings, possibly with advocates” questions relayed through a specialist child examiner.
Joyce Plotnikoff, Lexicon Ltd
The seminar was following up Measuring Up? (2009) (Joyce Plotnikoff and Richard Woolfson) published by Nuffield and the NSPCC. This found that half of young witnesses – across age groups – did not understand some questions at court. Seminar participants included judges, magistrates, barristers, solicitors, intermediaries, child psychiatrists, academics and advocacy trainers.
Discussion focused on whether advocates are hindered from putting the defendant’s case if they cannot lead the witness. It was agreed that change was needed in light of the Court of Appeal decision in R v Barker ([2010] EWCA Crim 4, para 42). This said that when the issue is whether the child is lying or mistaken, the advocate should ask “short, simple” questions which put the essential elements of the defendant”s case, and “fully to ventilate before the jury” evidence bearing on the child’s credibility but which may not necessarily be appropriate to form the subject matter of detailed cross- examination of the child. The seminar noted that children are particularly susceptible to suggestion. Leading questions with tag endings – the most suggestive – are routinely used even though they take at least seven stages of reasoning to answer.
The conduct of training in developmentally appropriate questioning was also addressed. A survey conducted for the seminar revealed an uneven approach across training bodies, with some doing nothing because it is not required or recommended. An Advocacy Training Council working group is due to report shortly on how best to train barristers to handle vulnerable witnesses and defendants in court.
The seminar also considered alternatives to the current system, including the 1989 Pigot Committee recommendation that courts should have discretion to take children’s evidence at pre-trial hearings, possibly with advocates” questions relayed through a specialist child examiner.
Joyce Plotnikoff, Lexicon Ltd
The current system of cross-examining young witnesses was the subject of a seminar chaired by Lord Justice Hooper at the Nuffield Foundation on 10 June, writes Joyce Plotnikoff.
Chair of the Bar reports back
Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs
A £500 donation from AlphaBiolabs has been made to the leading UK charity tackling international parental child abduction and the movement of children across international borders
Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs, outlines the drug and alcohol testing options available for family law professionals, and how a new, free guide can help identify the most appropriate testing method for each specific case
By Louise Crush of Westgate Wealth Management
Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs, examines the latest ONS data on drug misuse and its implications for toxicology testing in family law cases
Responding to criticism on the narrow profile of government-instructed counsel, Mel Nebhrajani CB describes the system-wide change at GLD to drive fairer distribution of work and broader development of talent
The odds of success are as unforgiving as ever, but ambition clearly isn’t in short supply. David Wurtzel’s annual deep‑dive into the competition cohort shows who’s entering, who’s thriving and the trends that will define the next wave
Where to start and where to find help? Monisha Shah, Chair of the King’s Counsel Selection Panel, provides an overview of the silk selection process, debunking some myths along the way
Do chatbot providers owe a duty of care for negligent misstatements? Jasper Wong suggests that the principles applicable to humans should apply equally to machines
There is no typical day in the life as a Supreme Court judicial assistant, says Josephine Gillingwater, and that’s what makes the role so enjoyably diverse
