‘It’s really good…why hasn’t it happened earlier?’ Professionals’ perspectives on the benefits of communication assistance in the New Zealand youth justice system
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online June, 2020
‘It’s really good…why hasn’t it happened earlier?’ Professionals’ perspectives on the benefits of communication assistance in the New Zealand youth justice system
Communication assistance is a form of specialist support for witnesses and defendants in justice settings who have been identified as having communication difficulties. This new role in New Zealand is modelled on the role of the intermediary in England and Wales. To date however, there has been no published review or evaluation on how communication assistance is functioning and being viewed by professionals in practice. This study provides a qualitative analysis of professionals’ perspectives (n = 28 participants) on the benefits of communication assistance for young people facing criminal charges in the New Zealand youth justice system. The main finding is that professionals are overwhelmingly in support of this new role. Professionals considered that communication assistance helps put the young person at the centre of youth justice, brings new knowledge and a fresh perspective, and helps the system to function as it ideally should.
BraunV.ClarkeV. (2006).
Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology,
3(2), 77–101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
3.
BryanK.GarvaniG.GregoryJ.KilnerK. (2015).
Language difficulties and criminal justice: The need for earlier identification. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders,
50(6), 763–775. doi:10.1111/1460-6984.12183
4.
BryanK.GregoryJ. (2013).
Perception of staff on embedding speech and language therapy within a youth offending team. Child Language Teaching and Therapy,
29(3), 359–371. doi:10.1177/0265659013482930
5.
CashmoreJ.KatzI.ShackelR.ValentineK. (2017). Evaluation of the child sexual offence evidence pilot: Process evaluation report.
Sydney, Australia:
Social Policy Research Centre, UNSW.
6.
CashmoreJ.ShackelR. (2018). Evaluation of the child sexual offence evidence pilot: Final outcome evaluation report.
Sydney, Australia:
University of New South Wales.
7.
CollinsK.HarkerN.AntonopoulosG. A. (2017).
The impact of the registered intermediary on adults’ perceptions of child witnesses: Evidence from a mock cross examination. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research,
23, 211–225. doi:10.1007/s10610-016-9314-1
8.
CooperP.MattisonM. (2017).
Intermediaries, vulnerable people and the quality of evidence: An international comparison of three versions of the English intermediary model. International Journal of Evidence and Proof,
21(4), 351–370. doi:10.1177/1365712717725534
9.
CooperP.WurtzelD. (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.
10.
DaviesE.HannaK.HendersonE.HandL. (2013).
Questioning child witnesses: Exploring the benefits and risks of intermediary models in New Zealand. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law,
20(4), 527–542. doi:10.1080/13218719.2012.726148
11.
Department of Justice (Northern Ireland). (2015). Northern Ireland registered intermediaries schemes pilot project: Post-project review.
Belfast, Northern Ireland:
Department of Justice (Northern Ireland).
GastonF. (2017). Young people’s comprehension of the rights caution in New Zealand (Unpublished master’s thesis). Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand.
14.
GluckmanP. (2018). It’s never too early, never too late: A discussion paper on preventing youth offending in New Zealand.
Auckland, New Zealand:
Office of the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor.
15.
GregoryJ.BryanK. (2011).
Speech and language therapy intervention with a group of persistent and prolific young offenders in a non-custodial setting with previously undiagnosed speech, language and communication difficulties. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders/Royal College of Speech & Language Therapists,
46(2), 202. doi:10.3109/13682822.2010.490573
16.
HendersonE. (2015).
A very valuable tool: Judges, advocates and intermediaries discuss the intermediary system in England and Wales. The International Journal of Evidence & Proof,
19(3), 154–171. doi:10.1177/1365712715580535
HenryL. A.CraneL.NashG.HobsonZ.Kirke-SmithM.WilcockR. (2017).
Verbal, visual, and intermediary support for child witnesses with autism during investigative interviews. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders,
47, 2348–2362. doi:10.1007/s10803-017-3142-0
19.
HenwoodC.StratfordS. (2014). New Zealand’s gift to the world: The youth justice family group conference.
Wellington, New Zealand:
The Henwood Trust.
20.
HopkinsT.CleggJ.StackhouseJ. (2015).
Youth offenders’ perspectives on their literacy and communication skills. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders,
51(1), 95–109. doi:10.1111/1460-6984.12188
21.
Howard, K., McCann, C., & Dudley, M. (2019a). “I was flying blind a wee bit”: Professionals’ perspectives on challenges facing communication assistance in the New Zealand youth justice system. The International Journal of Evidence and Proof, 1–17. doi:10.1177/1365712719877893
22.
Howard, K., McCann, C., & Dudley, M. (2019b). What is communication assistance? Describing a new and emerging profession in the New Zealand youth justice system. Manuscript Under Review.
23.
Howard, K., McCann, C., Ewing, A., Dudley, M., & Brookbanks, W. (in press). Two legal concepts collide: The intersection of unfitness to stand trial and communication assistance. New Zealand Universities Law Review.
24.
HoyanoL.RaffertyA. (2017).
Rationing defence intermediaries under the April 2016 criminal practice direction. Criminal Law Review,
2, 93–105.
25.
HughesN.WilliamsH.ChitsabesanP.DaviesR.MounceL. (2012). Nobody made the connection: The prevalence of neurodisability in young people who offend.
London, UK:
Office of the Children’s Commissioner for England.
26.
KippinN. R.LeitãoS.WatkinsR.Finlay-JonesA.CondonC.MarriottR., … BowerC. (2018).
Language diversity, language disorder, and fetal alcohol spectrum disorder among youth sentenced to detention in Western Australia. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry,
61, 40–49. doi:10.1016/j.ijlp.2018.09.004
27.
LawJ.BoyleJ.HarrisF.HarknessA.NyeC. (2000).
Prevalence and natural history of primary speech and language delay: Findings from a systematic review of the literature. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders,
35, 165–188.
28.
LountS. A.HandL.PurdyS.FranceA. (2018).
Tough talk: Youth offender’s perceptions of communicating in the youth justice system in New Zealand. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology,
51(4), 593–618. doi:10.1177/0004865817740404
29.
LountS. A.PurdyS. C.HandL. (2017).
Hearing, auditory processing, and language skills of male youth offenders and remandees in youth justice residences in New Zealand. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research,
60(1), 121. doi:10.1044/2016_JSLHR-L-15-0131
30.
LynchN. (2016). Neurodisability in the youth justice system in New Zealand: How vulnerability intersects with justice. Wellington, New Zealand: 2016 Neurodisabilities Forum.
McArdleS.LambieI. (2017).
Screening for mental health needs of New Zealand youth in secure care facilities using the MAYSI-2. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health,
28, 239–254. doi:10.1002/cbm.2067
33.
MergenthalerE.StinsonC. H. (1992).
Psychotherapy transcription standards. Psychotherapy Research,
2(2), 125–142.
34.
MetzgerN.SavaiiK.McKeeA.KedgeS. (2018). Youth voices about youth justice: Listening to young people’s experiences of communication within the youth justice sector.
Auckland, New Zealand:
Point Research Ltd, Tuilaepa Youth Mentoring Service, Talking Trouble Aotearoa NZ.
MoffittT. E.SilvaP. A. (1988).
Self-reported delinquency, neuropsychological deficit, and history of attention deficit disorder. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology,
16(5), 553–569. doi:10.1007/BF00914266
37.
MorseJ. M. (1995).
The significance of saturation. Qualitative Health Research,
5(2), 147–149. doi:10.1177/104973239500500201
38.
New Zealand Law Commission. (1999). Evidence: Reform of the law (report 55) (
Vol. 1).
Wellington:
New Zealand Law Commission.
39.
Office of the Public Advocate. (2012). Breaking the cycle: A summary report.
Melbourne, Australia:
Office of the Public Advocate.
40.
O’MahonyB. M. (2009).
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. doi:10.1111/j.1468-3156.2009.00600.x
41.
O’MahonyB. M.CreatonJ.SmithK.MilneR. (2016).
Developing a professional identity in a new work environment: The views of defendant intermediaries working in the criminal courts. Journal of Forensic Practice,
18(2), 155–166. doi:10.1108/JFP-08-2014-0024
42.
O’MahonyB. M.MilneB.SmithK. (2018).
Investigative interviewing, dissociate identity disorder and the role of the registered intermediary. Journal of Forensic Practice,
20(1), 10–19. doi:10.1108/JFP-05-2017-0018
43.
Peirse-O'Byrne, K. (2014). Identifying and responding to neurodisability in young offenders: Why, and how, this needs to be achieved in the youth justice sector (Unpublished Bachelor of Laws Honours dissertation). The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
44.
PlotnikoffJ.WoolfsonR. (2006). The ‘go between’: Evaluation of intermediary pathfinder projects.
Preston, UK:
Lexicon Limited.
45.
PlotnikoffJ.WoolfsonR. (2015). Intermediaries in the criminal justice system.
Bristol, UK:
Policy Press.
46.
PowellM. B.BowdenP.MattisonM. (2015).
Stakeholders’ perceptions of the benefit of introducing an Australian intermediary system for vulnerable witnesses. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology,
48(4), 498–512. doi:10.1177/0004865814543391
47.
ReeveR.McCauslandR.DowseL.TrofimovsJ. (2017). Economic evaluation of criminal justice support network.
Sydney, Australia:
Intellectual Disability Support Program, UNSW Sydney.
48.
RucklidgeJ. J.McLeanA. P.BateupP. (2013).
Criminal offending and learning disabilities in New Zealand youth: Does reading comprehension predict recidivism? Crime & Delinquency,
59(8), 1263–1286. doi:10.1177/0011128709336945
49.
SandelowskiM. (1995).
Sample size in qualitative research. Research in Nursing and Health,
18, 179–183.
50.
SnowP. C. (2019).
Speech-language pathology and the youth offender: Epidemiological overview and roadmap for future speech-language pathology research and scope of practice. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 50(2), 324–339. doi:10.1044/2018_LSHSS-CCJS-18-0027
51.
SnowP. C.WoodwardM. N. (2017).
Intervening to address communication difficulties in incarcerated youth: A phase 1 clinical trial. International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 19(4), 392–406. doi:10.1080/17549507.2016.1216600
52.
Wigzell, A., Kirby, A., & Jacobson, J. (2015). The youth proceedings review: Final report. London, England: Institute for Criminal Policy Research.
53.
WinstanleyM.WebbR. T.Conti-RamsdenG. (2018).
More or less likely to offend? Young adults with a history of identified developmental language disorders. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders,
53(2), 256–270. doi:10.1111/1460-6984.12339
