000 03622nab a2200385Ia 4500
001 112755
005 20250625151200.0
008 110331s1998 eng
022 _a1173-4906
040 _aWSS
_dAFV
100 _91025
_aDavies, Emma
245 _aQuestioning child complainants in sexual abuse cases :
_bis justice served?
_cDavies, Emma; Seymour, Fred
260 _aWellington
_bChild, Youth and Family
_c1998
300 _a52 p. ; computer file : PDF format (265Kb)
365 _a00
_b0
500 _aSocial Work Now (10) August 1998 : 23-27
520 _aThis 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.
522 _anz
650 2 7 _2FVC
_aADOLESCENTS
_943
650 2 7 _2FVC
_aCHILDREN
_9127
650 2 7 _aEVIDENCE
_9237
650 2 7 _aINTERVIEWING TECHNIQUES
_9328
650 2 7 _2FVC
_aJUSTICE
_9333
650 2 7 _2FVC
_aLEGISLATION
_9346
650 2 7 _2FVC
_aNEGLECT
_9401
651 4 _aNEW ZEALAND
_92588
650 2 7 _9458
_aPREVENTION
_2FVC
650 2 7 _9103
_aCHILD ABUSE
_2FVC
650 2 7 _9121
_aCHILD SEXUAL ABUSE
700 1 _aSeymour, Fred
_92089
773 0 _tSocial Work Now (10) August 1998 : 23-27
830 _aSocial Work Now
_94770
856 4 _uhttp://ndhadeliver.natlib.govt.nz/delivery/DeliveryManagerServlet?dps_pid=IE1430769&dps_custom_att_1=ilsdb
942 _2ddc
_cARTICLE
999 _c2272
_d2272