Normal view MARC view ISBD view

Questioning child complainants in sexual abuse cases : is justice served? Davies, Emma; Seymour, Fred

By: Davies, Emma.
Contributor(s): Seymour, Fred.
Material type: materialTypeLabelArticleSeries: Social Work Now.Publisher: Wellington Child, Youth and Family 1998Description: 52 p. ; computer file : PDF format (265Kb).ISSN: 1173-4906.Subject(s): ADOLESCENTS | CHILDREN | EVIDENCE | INTERVIEWING TECHNIQUES | JUSTICE | LEGISLATION | NEGLECT | NEW ZEALAND | PREVENTION | CHILD ABUSE | CHILD SEXUAL ABUSEOnline resources: Click here to access online In: Social Work Now (10) August 1998 : 23-27Summary: This article reports on research conducted by the authors to determine the types of questions being used by evidential interviewers, prosecutors and defence lawyers, where child sexual abuse has been alleged. Twelve evidential interviews and 26 transcripts of examinations and cross-examinations of child complainants in 16 child sexual abuse trials held in 1994 were examined. The average age of children in the evidential interviews was 9 years, and for the children and young people questioned in court it was 12 years. The authors looked at the use of open and closed questions, the sentence structure of the questions asked, the order and focus of questions asked in cross-examination and the number of times judges intervened. The results show that evidential interviewers asked fewer non-leading closed questions about the specifics of an incident (19%) than either prosecutors (41%) or defence lawyers (63%). The authors contend that it is ironic that defence lawyers often attack evidential interviewers for using leading questions, while placing enormous reliance on this form of questioning themselves. Multifaceted questions, and those with negatives or complex sentence structures were rarely used by evidential interviewers but were commonplace in the cross-examination of child complaints by defence lawyers; prosecutors used them less than defence lawyers. The authors suggest that, usually, either a defence lawyer deliberately uses them to confuse young complainants, or it reflects a lack of training on how to effectively communicate with children. In terms of the 26 analysed cross-examination questions, 65% used this technique more than once, a particularly concerning finding given that this technique is used for confusing witnesses. In the cases researched, neither the judges nor prosecution intervened to protect a child complainant even though the law allows this where intimidation or overbearing questions are asked with respect to the age of the witness. The authors concluded that unless children are asked questions in a straightforward manner in which they can understand, and unless adults are sufficiently informed to understand what children are saying and to intervene appropriately, then the concept of justice cannot be served. Recommendations are made on how to best meet the needs of young witnesses.
Item type Current location Call number Status Date due Barcode
Access online Access online Family Violence library
Online Available ON13080471

Social Work Now (10) August 1998 : 23-27

This article reports on research conducted by the authors to determine the types of questions being used by evidential interviewers, prosecutors and defence lawyers, where child sexual abuse has been alleged. Twelve evidential interviews and 26 transcripts of examinations and cross-examinations of child complainants in 16 child sexual abuse trials held in 1994 were examined. The average age of children in the evidential interviews was 9 years, and for the children and young people questioned in court it was 12 years. The authors looked at the use of open and closed questions, the sentence structure of the questions asked, the order and focus of questions asked in cross-examination and the number of times judges intervened. The results show that evidential interviewers asked fewer non-leading closed questions about the specifics of an incident (19%) than either prosecutors (41%) or defence lawyers (63%). The authors contend that it is ironic that defence lawyers often attack evidential interviewers for using leading questions, while placing enormous reliance on this form of questioning themselves. Multifaceted questions, and those with negatives or complex sentence structures were rarely used by evidential interviewers but were commonplace in the cross-examination of child complaints by defence lawyers; prosecutors used them less than defence lawyers. The authors suggest that, usually, either a defence lawyer deliberately uses them to confuse young complainants, or it reflects a lack of training on how to effectively communicate with children. In terms of the 26 analysed cross-examination questions, 65% used this technique more than once, a particularly concerning finding given that this technique is used for confusing witnesses. In the cases researched, neither the judges nor prosecution intervened to protect a child complainant even though the law allows this where intimidation or overbearing questions are asked with respect to the age of the witness. The authors concluded that unless children are asked questions in a straightforward manner in which they can understand, and unless adults are sufficiently informed to understand what children are saying and to intervene appropriately, then the concept of justice cannot be served. Recommendations are made on how to best meet the needs of young witnesses.

nz