*/
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.
The Chair of the Bar reports back
Susie Griffin on the admin that keeps barristers from billable work
Clement Cowley, Partner at The Penny Group, explains how global events can influence the performance of pensions and ISAs, and why taking a long-term approach to investing is often the most effective strategy
Mário Barroso, Head of R&D and Method Development at AlphaBiolabs, discusses what family law professionals need to know about hallucinogens, from the main hallucinogenic drugs encountered in family proceedings, to their effects and the testing options available
Harmony Christian Ministries is the latest charity to benefit from a £500 donation from AlphaBiolabs via the company’s Giving Back initiative
By David Green
At the start of her term, Chair of the Bar 2026 Kirsty Brimelow KC set out a series of priorities for the year ahead. One of those priorities was children in the justice system
As the world becomes more digital, Barbara Vinagre Mota examines international research into the mental health consequences of judges’ exposure to graphic and immersive evidence, highlighting the importance of support systems
In an era of patient-centred care and growing concern over misconduct in medical settings, why do women still lack the right to choose women consultants for examination and treatment? Charles Davey investigates
Reviewed by Daniel Barnett
James McNeill Whistler at Tate Britain until 27 September Rothko in Florence at Palazzo Strozzi until 23 August Reviewed by Stephen Cragg KC
