Abstract
Registered intermediaries are communication specialists appointed to facilitate the communication of vulnerable witnesses participating in the criminal justice system in England and Wales. Intermediaries assess the vulnerable individual’s communication and provide recommendations to practitioners for how to obtain the individual’s ‘best evidence’ during police interviews and in court. The scheme was implemented nationally in 2008, but has not been subject to rigorous research. The aim of the current article is to provide an account on adults’ perceptions of the vulnerable individual when an intermediary assists their communication in court. In the present study 100 participants viewed a mock cross examination of a child witness either with or without an intermediary present. Participants rated the child’s behaviour and communication, and the quality of the cross examination, across a number of different variables. The age of the child was also manipulated with participants viewing a cross examination of a four or a 13 year old child. The results showed the children’s behaviour and the quality of the cross-examination were more highly rated when the intermediary was involved during cross-examination. The older child’s cross-examination was rated as more developmentally appropriate, however no other age differences or interactions emerged. The findings have positive implications for jury perceptions of children’s testimony when they are assisted by an intermediary in court, regardless of the age of the child witness. The success of the intermediary scheme in England and Wales may encourage the implementation of intermediaries internationally.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Almerigogna, J., Ost, J., Bull, R., & Akehurst, L. (2007). A state of high anxiety: how non-supportive interviewers can increase the suggestibility of child witnesses. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21, 963–974. doi:10.1002/acp.1311.
Berman, G. L., & Cutler, B. L. (1996). Effects of inconsistencies in eyewitness testimony on mock-juror decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 170–177. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.81.2.170.
Cooper, P., & Wurzel, D. (2013). A day late and a dollar short: in search of an intermediary scheme for vulnerable defendants in England and Wales. Criminal Law Review, 1, 4–22.
Cossins, A. (2006). Prosecuting child sexual assault cases: are vulnerable witness protections enough? Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 18, 299–317.
Criminal Procedure Act. (1977). (South Africa) s170A.
Davies, E., Devere, H., & Verbitsky, J. (2004). Court education for young witnesses: evaluation of the pilot service in Aotearoa, New Zealand. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 11, 226–235. doi:10.1375/pplt.2004.11.2.226.
Davies, E., Henderson, E., & Hanna, K. (2010). Facilitating children to give best evidence: are there better ways to challenge children’s testimony. Criminal Law Journal, 34, 347–362.
Doherty-Sneddon, G., & McAuley, S. (2000). Influence of video-mediation on adult-child interviews: implications for the use of the live link with child witnesses. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 14, 379–392.
Eaton, T. E., Ball, P. J., & O’Callaghan, G. (2001). Child-witness and defendant credibility: child evidence presentation mode and judicial instructions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 31, 1845–1858. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2001.tb00207.x.
Goodman, G. S., Tobey, A. E., Batterman-Faunce, J. M., Orcutt, H., Thomas, S., Shapiro, C., & Sachsenmaier, T. (1998). Face-to-face confrontation: effects of closed-circuit technology on children’s eyewitness testimony and jurors’ decisions. Law and Human Behavior, 22, 165–203.
Hamlyn, B., Phelps, A., Turtle, J., & Sattar, G. (2004). Are special measures working? Evidence from surveys of vulnerable and intimidated witnesses (Home Office Research Study 283). London: Home Office.
Hanna, K., Davies, E., Henderson, E., & Hand, L. (2013). Questioning child witnesses: exploring the benefits and risks of intermediary models in New Zealand. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 20, 527–542. doi:10.1080/13218719.2012.726148.
Henry, L., Ridley, A., Perry, J., & Crane, L. (2011). Perceived credibility and eyewitness testimony of children with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 55, 385–391. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2788.2011.01383.x.
Hepner, I., Woodward, M. N., & Stewart, J. (2015). Giving the vulnerable a voice in the criminal justice system: the use of intermediaries with individuals with intellectual disability. Psychiatry, Psychology, & Law, 22, 453–464. doi:10.1080/13218719.2014.960032.
Holcomb, M. J., & Jacquin, K. M. (2007). Juror perceptions of child eyewitness testimony in a sexual abuse trial. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 16, 79–95.
Judicial Studies Board. (2010). Crown Court Bench Book. Available online at: https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/JCO/Documents/Training/benchbook_criminal_2010.pdf.
Lamb, M. E., La Rooy, D. J., Malloy, L. C., & Katz, C. (2011). Children’s testimony: A handbook of psychological research and forensic practice (2nd ed.). West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.
Landstrom, S., & Granhag, P. A. (2010). In-court versus out-of-court testimonies: children’s experiences and adults’ assessments. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 24, 941–955. doi:10.1002/acp.1606.
Landstrom, S., Granhag, P. A., & Hartwig, M. (2007). Children’s live and videotapes testimonies: how presentation mode affects observers’ perception, assessment and memory. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 12, 333–347.
Matthias, C. R., & Zaal, F. N. (2011). Intermediaries for child witnesses: old problems, new solutions and judicial differences in South Africa. International Journal of Children’s Rights, 19, 251–269. doi:10.1163/157181810x527987.
McAuliff, B. D., & Kovera, M. B. (2012). Do jurors get what they expect? Traditional versus alternative forms of children’s testimony. Psychology, Crime & Law, 18(1), 27–47. doi:10.1080/1068316x.2011.613391.
Ministry of Justice. (2011). Achieving best evidence in criminal proceedings. London: Ministry of Justice.
Ministry of Justice. (2015). The registered intermediary procedural guidance manual. London: Ministry of Justice.
Nikonova, O., & Ogloff, J. R. P. (2005). Mock jurors’ perceptions of child witnesses: the impact of judicial warning. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 37, 1–19. doi:10.1037/hoo87241.
O’Mahony, B. M. (2010). The emerging role of the Registered Intermediary with the vulnerable witness and offender: facilitating communication with the police and members of the judiciary. British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 232–237.
Orcutt, H. K., Goodman, G. S., Tobey, A. E., Batterman-Faunce, J. M., & Thomas, S. (2001). Detecting deception in children’s testimony: fact finders’ abilities to reach the truth in open court and closed-circuit trials. Law and Human Behavior, 25, 339–372. doi:10.1023/A:1010603618330.
Plotnikoff, J., & Woolfson, R. (2007). The ‘go-between’: Evaluation of intermediary pathfinder projects. London: Ministry of Justice.
Powell, M. (2005). Improving the reliability of child witness testimony in court: the importance of focusing on questioning techniques. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 17, 137–143.
Powell, M. B., Bowden, P., & Mattison, M. (2014). Stakeholder’s perceptions of the benefit of introducing an Australian intermediary system for vulnerable witnesses. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 0, 1–15. doi:10.1177/00048658/4543391.
Pozzulo, J. D., Lemieux, J. M. T., Wells, E., & McCuaig, H. J. (2006). The influence of eyewitness identification decisions and age of witness on jurors’ verdicts and perceptions of reliability. Psychology, Crime & Law, 12, 641–652. doi:10.1080/10683160500415539.
Quas, J. A., Thompson, W. C., & Clarke-Stewart, K. A. (2005). Do jurors “know” what isn’t so about child witnesses? Law and Human Behavior, 29, 425–456.
Ridley, A. M., van Rheede, V., & Wilcock, R. (2015). Interviews, intermediaries and interventions: mock jurors’, police officers’ and barristers’ perceptions of a child witness interview. Investigative Interviewing: Research and Practice, 7, 21–35.
Righarts, S., Jack, F., Zajac, R., & Hayne, H. (2015). Young children’s responses to cross-examination style questioning: the effects of delay and subsequent questioning. Psychology, Crime & Law, 21, 274–296. doi:10.1080/1068316x.2014.951650.
Ross, D. F., Hopkins, S., Hanson, E., Lindsay, R. C. L., Hazen, K., & Eslinger, T. (1994). The impact of protective shields and videotape testimony on conviction rates in a simulated trial of child sexual abuse. Law and Human Behavior, 18, 553–566.
Smith, K. (2015, January 7–8). Special measures professional training & development seminar. Paper presented at The Special Measures Seminar, National Crime Agency, Wyboston Lakes, England.
Spencer, J., & Lamb, M. (2012). Children and cross-examination: Time to change the rules? United Kingdom: Hart Publishing.
Sumner-Armstrong, C., & Newcombe, P. A. (2007). The education of jury members: influences on the determinations of child witnesses. Psychology, Crime & Law, 13, 229–244. doi:10.1080/10683160600821925.
Wilson, J. C., & Davies, G. M. (1999). An evaluation of the use of videotaped evidence for juvenile witnesses in criminal courts in England and Wales. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 7, 81–96. doi:10.1023/A:1008740231642.
Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act. (1999). (UK) s. 29.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Collins, K., Harker, N. & Antonopoulos, G.A. The Impact of the Registered Intermediary on Adults’ Perceptions of Child Witnesses: Evidence from a Mock Cross Examination. Eur J Crim Policy Res 23, 211–225 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10610-016-9314-1
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10610-016-9314-1