FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2042985551> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2042985551 endingPage "197" @default.
• W2042985551 startingPage "184" @default.
• W2042985551 abstract "Abstract In 1990, New Zealand became the first common law country to introduce a comprehensive legislative package of reforms for child witnesses, including provision for children to testify via alternative modes, namely, admitting video-recorded forensic interviews as the child's evidence-in-chief and testifying at trial via closed-circuit television (CCTV) or screened from the accused. Since the 1990s, there has been no empirical research examining child witnesses' access to these modes in New Zealand courts. The purpose of this article is to fill that gap by examining children's access to alternative modes of giving evidence and determining how many applications are contested by the defence. Attention then turns to the issues surrounding the impact of alternative modes on perceptions of children's testimony, before considering whether New Zealand might introduce a statutory presumption in favour of CCTV and pre-recorded testimony in the interests of enhancing children's ability to provide best evidence and improving efficiency in trial processes. Key words: CCTVchild witnesseschildren's testimonyscreens Acknowledgements This paper reports on part of a larger study on child witnesses in New Zealand courts (see Hanna et al., Citation2010). The study was funded by the New Zealand Law Foundation, Ministry of Social Development, Ministry of Justice, and New Zealand Police, and supported by AUT University. The authors are grateful to the administrators at the Offices of the Crown Solicitors who compiled the data reported on here and to the project's advisory group for their insightful comments on earlier drafts of the chapter that appears in the full report. We are also grateful to Clare Rotherham for data entry and assistance. Notes 1. While these modes became common practice, the Act contained provision for other alternative modes which did not, such as pre-recording children's cross- and re-examination (Pipe, Henaghan, Bidrose, & Egerton, Citation1996). 2. Pipe et al. sent questionnaires seeking views on the new provisions to High Court Judges (n = 24), District Court Judges (n = 22), Crown prosecutors (n = 51), members of police sexual abuse teams (n = 137), doctors for sexual abuse care (n = 112), social workers, forensic interviewers, and other professionals from New Zealand's child protection service (Children and Young Persons Service) (n = 120), and defence lawyers (n = 100). Response rates varied from 43% (social workers and forensic interviewers) to 88% (defence lawyers). 3. A similar point was made by barristers in Davies & Noon's Citation1991 study of two-way CCTV (live link) in Britain, although three of the 78 barristers surveyed noted that CCTV, “gave the jury the advantage of seeing the child ‘close-up’ which made it easier to ‘read the witness’” (Davies & Noon, Citation1991, p. 79). Similarly, in an Australian study on two-way CCTV, the point was made that, “There was, however, some concern that the impact of that evidence might be changed as a result of being viewed via a television screen, although magistrates, in particular, were impressed with the ability to see the witness more clearly than when the child is in court” (Cashmore & De Haas, Citation1992, p. xi). 4. Similar concerns were raised by Scottish lawyers in Murray's study of child witness trials involving two-way CCTV: “…there was concern among some prosecutors that if a child appeared very relaxed while recounting horrific events, the jury might have difficulty believing the story. They felt that a frightened child in the court room can be a more effective witness” (Murray, Citation1995, p. 113). 5. This information was based on a questionnaire circulated to defence counsel. The number of respondents is not noted, only that few completed the questionnaire. 6. The Pearson chi-square value is given in this paper unless otherwise stated. 7. There was no significant difference in age between those testifying against a family member and those testifying against a non-family member. 8. In this mock trial study, counsel sat with the child in the CCTV room and conducted the interview from there; the interview was broadcast in the courtroom presumably via one-way CCTV. This therefore differs from the New Zealand process whereby lawyers remain in the courtroom and question the child via two-way CCTV. 9. In the Orcutt et al. study, mock jurors were surveyed after the evidence was presented, but before the jury deliberated as a whole. At this pre-deliberation stage, there was a significant relationship between mode of evidence and convictions: jurors were more likely to convict the defendant after watching in-court testimony than after watching CCTV testimony. However, this relationship was mediated by jurors' perceptions of the child's accuracy; that is, “trial condition [e.g. in-court v CCTV] no longer had a significant effect on pre-deliberation verdict once jurors' ratings of Accuracy were controlled” (Orcutt et al., Citation2001, p. 363). Jurors were surveyed again after deliberations. At the post-deliberation stage, there were no significant main effects for the relationship between the mode of the child's evidence and verdicts. 10. In Goodman et al. (2006), jurors were surveyed before deliberations. In this pre-deliberation phase, the different modes of evidence (in-court and videotaped) affected jurors' perceptions of the children's credibility; this then contributed to jurors' perceptions of the defendant's guilt. Jurors were surveyed again after deliberations; in the post-deliberation phase, there were no significant effects of mode of evidence on jurors' confidence in the defendant's guilt or perceptions of trial fairness. Having said that, the authors acknowledge that, “… given the small number of juries included in the analyses, a lack of statistical power may have precluded detection of significant effects” (Goodman et al., Citation2006, p. 388). 11. This was the case when jurors deliberated after viewing all of the testimony. When jurors deliberated after viewing the child's testimony only, they were more likely to convict if the child testified in-court unscreened than when they testified in-court screened or via one-way CCTV. 12. This study was based on 137 sexual assault trials held across New Zealand in the mid-2000s; 98 (72%) involved complainants under the age of 17 at the time of trial and 18% involved adults testifying in relation to offences that had occurred when they were children. The nine variables were (1) complainant was 12 years or younger at the time of trial; (2) similar fact evidence given; (3) recent complaint evidence given; (4) assault included penile penetration; (5) multiple complainants (2 or more); (6) multiple charges (4 or more); (7) the accused admitted to some of the alleged offences but “not to the point of a guilty plea” (Blackwell, Citation2007, p. 231); (8) positive medical or DNA evidence; (9) a witness to the offending. The model was predictive for the whole sample, the child witness sample, and the adult witness sample (Blackwell, Citation2007, p. 250). 13. We refer here to Marsil et al., who write, “The legal system may need to recognize that, in the long run, using protective measures such as shielding or hearsay may not be as effective as more time-consuming and expensive methods like court preparation techniques and court schools, which have the potential to empower some child witnesses” (Marsil, Montoya, Ross, & Graham, Citation2002, p. 240). 14. For a discussion of jurors' responses to common myths about child sexual abuse, see (Blackwell, Citation2007; Cossins, Goodman-Delahunty, & O'Brien, Citation2009; Quas, Thompson, & Clarke-Stewart, Citation2005). 15. There are of course any number of reasons why children may not become tearful in court which have nothing to do with how they testify (see Blackwell, Citation2007, p. 62). 16. That is, under the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 (UK), as amended by the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 (UK). 17. As noted earlier, this provision has been available since the Evidence Amendment Act 1989 (NZ), but languished unused until recently: Applications for pre-recording children's evidence are now being made to some courts. 18. The average time that elapsed between children giving statements to police and appearing at trial was 18 months in a sample of 43 trials held in Auckland, Manukau, Wellington, and Christchurch in 2008 and 2009 (Hanna et al., Citation2010). 19. Information on age was not available for two Auckland children (both used CCTV); one Manukau child (who used a screen); and one Christchurch child (who used a screen)." @default.
• W2042985551 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2042985551 creator A5011427604 @default.
• W2042985551 creator A5065283995 @default.
• W2042985551 creator A5076598231 @default.
• W2042985551 creator A5081687476 @default.
• W2042985551 date "2012-04-01" @default.
• W2042985551 modified "2023-10-18" @default.
• W2042985551 title "Child Witnesses' Access to Alternative Modes of Testifying in New Zealand" @default.
• W2042985551 cites W1484798712 @default.
• W2042985551 cites W1514916337 @default.
• W2042985551 cites W1983417356 @default.
• W2042985551 cites W1989317476 @default.
• W2042985551 cites W1990475030 @default.
• W2042985551 cites W2006121548 @default.
• W2042985551 cites W2007012201 @default.
• W2042985551 cites W2013161975 @default.
• W2042985551 cites W2016912622 @default.
• W2042985551 cites W2042745386 @default.
• W2042985551 cites W2043175210 @default.
• W2042985551 cites W2056926191 @default.
• W2042985551 cites W2065372061 @default.
• W2042985551 cites W2073780439 @default.
• W2042985551 cites W2075059632 @default.
• W2042985551 cites W2078044985 @default.
• W2042985551 cites W2101730551 @default.
• W2042985551 cites W2123160322 @default.
• W2042985551 doi "https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2011.559153" @default.
• W2042985551 hasPublicationYear "2012" @default.
• W2042985551 type Work @default.
• W2042985551 sameAs 2042985551 @default.
• W2042985551 citedByCount "5" @default.
• W2042985551 countsByYear W20429855512013 @default.
• W2042985551 countsByYear W20429855512014 @default.
• W2042985551 countsByYear W20429855512017 @default.
• W2042985551 countsByYear W20429855512022 @default.
• W2042985551 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2042985551 hasAuthorship W2042985551A5011427604 @default.
• W2042985551 hasAuthorship W2042985551A5065283995 @default.
• W2042985551 hasAuthorship W2042985551A5076598231 @default.
• W2042985551 hasAuthorship W2042985551A5081687476 @default.
• W2042985551 hasConcept C53553401 @default.
• W2042985551 hasConcept C95457728 @default.
• W2042985551 hasConceptScore W2042985551C53553401 @default.
• W2042985551 hasConceptScore W2042985551C95457728 @default.
• W2042985551 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W2042985551 hasLocation W20429855511 @default.
• W2042985551 hasOpenAccess W2042985551 @default.
• W2042985551 hasPrimaryLocation W20429855511 @default.
• W2042985551 hasRelatedWork W1602919687 @default.
• W2042985551 hasRelatedWork W2313220861 @default.
• W2042985551 hasRelatedWork W2476482806 @default.
• W2042985551 hasRelatedWork W2496486279 @default.
• W2042985551 hasRelatedWork W2504814348 @default.
• W2042985551 hasRelatedWork W2504992174 @default.
• W2042985551 hasRelatedWork W2569018531 @default.
• W2042985551 hasRelatedWork W3155105767 @default.
• W2042985551 hasRelatedWork W4246735655 @default.
• W2042985551 hasRelatedWork W832350293 @default.
• W2042985551 hasVolume "19" @default.
• W2042985551 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2042985551 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2042985551 magId "2042985551" @default.
• W2042985551 workType "article" @default.