*/
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.
Update from the Chair of the Bar
By Clement Cowley, Partner at The Penny Group
Modernising communication and collaboration at a leading Chancery set. A Zexi case study
How to build profile without compromising professional duties. By Naumaan Farooq, Co-Founder of Inked PR
Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs, examines the role of cut-off levels, and the wider range of factors that must be considered when interpreting results for family court proceedings
Endometriosis Awareness North, a charity raising awareness of endometriosis and supporting those affected across the North of England, has received a £500 boost from AlphaBiolabs via the company’s Giving Back initiative
A decade of reviews and research has disrupted accepted thinking in the search for causality. Suicides following abuse have overtaken domestic homicides. Is the law keeping up? Professor Susan Edwards KC (Hon) examines recent cases and the obstacles to successful prosecution
The case against judge-only justice – and why efficiency is not enough. By Professor Leslie Thomas KC
Heritage as an anchor and a compass, finding our common humanity and embracing the power of the outsider – Melina Antoniadis’s lessons learnt
Seeing the full picture – Baljit Ubhey OBE outlines the CPS action plan to tackle violence against women and girls, offering insights directly relevant to courtroom practice
Lauren Fullerton examines the how, what and why of setting up a second chambers base
