Since the 1700s, lawyers have controlled interactions with witnesses in court. In England and Wales, witness familiarisation, endorsed in R v Momodou [2005],1 aimed to demystify the process and through practical guidance assist witnesses to give their best evidence in legal proceedings, with the result that they are less likely to be confused, misled or unduly influenced by the process of cross-examination. This paper outlines empirical research which indicates that familiarisation can be helpful; though it argues that justice systems should develop best practices for the elicitation of accurate evidence and not leave it to witnesses to combat the system’s shortcomings. Given that this is particularly acute for vulnerable witnesses (and familiarising witnesses to cross-examination is in its infancy), the paper draws attention to R v Lubemba [2014],2 which suggests that there is no right to put a case to a witness in child cases. The article also discusses witness approaches in the context of the right to challenge concept.
AngleHMalamSCareyC (2003) Witness Satisfaction: Findings from the Witness Satisfaction Survey 2002. Home Office Online Report 19/03. London: Home Office.
2.
BBC News (2015) Violinist Frances Andrade ‘failed’ by mental health services. Available at: www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-28489500 (accessed 29 May 2015).
3.
BrennanM (1995) The discourse of denial: Cross examining child victim witnesses. Journal of Pragmatics23: 71–91.
4.
BurtonMEvansRSandersA (2006a) Are Special Measures for Vulnerable and Intimidated Witnesses Working? Evidence from the Criminal Justice Agencies. Home Office Online Report 01/06. London: Home Office.
5.
BurtonMEvansRSandersA (2006b) An Evaluation of the Use of Special Measures for Vulnerable and Intimidated Witnesses. Home Office Research Findings 270. London: Home Office.
CooperPBackenPMarchantR (2015) Getting to grips with ground rules hearings: A checklist for judges, advocates and intermediaries to promote the fair treatment of vulnerable people in court. Crim LR6: 471–432.
8.
CotterillJ (2003) Language and Power in Court. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
9.
DennisI (2010) The right to confront witnesses: Meanings, myths and human rights. Criminal Law Review4: 255–274.
10.
DoddDBradshawJ (1980) Leading questions and memory: Pragmatic constraints. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior19: 695–704.
EllisonL (2007) Witness preparation and the prosecution of rape. Legal Studies27(2): 171–187.
13.
EllisonLWheatcroftJ (2010a) Exploring the Influence of Courtroom Questioning and Pre-Trial Preparation on Adult Witness Accuracy. Research Briefing Paper produced for the Arts & Humanities Research Council (AHRC), Universities of Leeds and Liverpool. Leeds: University of Leeds.
14.
EllisonLWheatcroftJM (2010b) Could you ask me that in a different way please? Exploring the impact of courtroom questioning and witness familiarisation on adult witness accuracy. Crim LR11: 823–839.
15.
EwinR (2016) The vulnerable and intimidated witness: a study of the special measure practitioner. Journal of Applied Psychology and Social Science2(1): 12–40.
16.
GudjonssonG (1995) Psychological evidence in court: Results from the BPS Survey. Bulletin of the British Psychological Society383(3): 327–330.
17.
GudjonssonG (1996) Psychological evidence in court: Results from the 1995 survey. The Psychologist52: 213–217.
18.
GudjonssonG (2007) Psychologists as expert witnesses: The 2007 BPS Survey. Forensic Update92: 23–29.
19.
HarrisS (1984) Questions as a mode of control in magistrates’ courts. International Journal of Society and Language49: 5–27.
20.
HendersonE (2014) ‘Did you see the broken headlight?’ Questioning the cross-examination of robust adult witnesses. Archbold Review10: 4–6.
21.
HendersonE (2014) Jewel in the crown?CounselNovember: 10–12.
22.
HendersonE (2015) Bigger fish to fry: Should the reform of cross-examination be expanded beyond vulnerable witnesses?The International Journal of Evidence and Proof19(2): 83–99.
23.
Herald Scotland (2015) Judge calls stop to prolonged questioning of rape victims in court after woman called ‘malicious, vindictive liar’ (2015). Available at: www.heraldscotland.com/news/13582843 (accessed 15 May 2016).
24.
HickeyL (1993) Presupposition under cross-examination. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law6(16): 89–109.
25.
Home Office (2011) Achieving Best Evidence in Criminal Proceedings: Guidance on Interviewing Victims and Witnesses, and Guidance on Using Special Measures. London: Home Office.
26.
KeaneAFortsonR (2011) Leading questions: A critical analysis. Crim LR4: 280.
27.
KebbellMGilesDC (2000) Lawyers’ questions and witness confidence: Some experimental influences of complicated lawyers’ questions on witness confidence and accuracy. The Journal of Psychology134(2): 129–139.
28.
LustyD (2002) Anonymous accusers: An historical and comparative analysis of secret witnesses in criminal trials. Sydney Law Review24: 361–426.
McEwanJ (2002) Special measures for witnesses and victims. In McConvilleMWilsonG (eds) The Handbook of the Criminal Justice Process. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.237–251.
TaylorSC (2004) Court Licensed Abuse: Patriarchal Lore and the Legal Response to Intra-Familial Sexual Abuse of Children. New York: Peter Lang Publishing.
39.
WagstaffG,WheatcroftJM. (2007) Some cognitive and neuropsychological aspects of social inhibition and facilitation. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology20(4): 828–846.
40.
WheatcroftJM (2016) Avoiding miscarriages of justice. In CooperPHuntingL (eds.) Addressing Vulnerability in Justice Systems. London: Wildy, Simmonds & Hill Publishing.
41.
WheatcroftJMEllisonL (2012) Evidence in court: Witness preparation and cross-examination style effects on adult witness accuracy. Behavioral Sciences and the Law30(6): 821–840.
42.
WheatcroftJMWagstaffG (2014) An example of a solution-focused academic-practitioner co-operation: How the iIIRG facilitated the development of the Liverpool Interview Protocol. Investigative Interviewing: Research and Practice6(1): 42–50.
43.
WheatcroftJMWalklateS (2014) Thinking differently about ‘false allegations’ in cases of rape: The search for truth. International Journal of Criminology and Sociology3: 239–248.
44.
WheatcroftJMWoodsS (2010) Effectiveness of witness preparation and cross-examination non-directive leading and directive leading question styles on witness accuracy and confidence. International Journal of Evidence & Proof14(3): 189–207.
45.
WheatcroftJMWagstaffGKebbellM (2004) The influence of courtroom questioning style on actual and perceived eyewitness confidence and accuracy. Legal and Criminological Psychology9: 8–101.
46.
WheatcroftJMWagstaffGMoranA (2009) Re-victimising the victim? How rape victims experience the UK legal system. Victims and Offenders4: 265–284.
WheatcroftJMWagstaffGManarinB (2015b) The influence of delay and item difficulty on eyewitness confidence and accuracy. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Research1: 1–9.
