Courts in England, Wales and Northern Ireland have identified children and adults with intellectual disabilities (ID) as vulnerable witnesses. The call from the English Court of Appeal is for advocates to adjust questioning during cross-examination according to individual needs. This review systematically examined previous empirical studies with the aim of delineating the particular communication needs of children and adults with ID during cross-examination. Studies utilising experimental methodology similar to examination/cross-examination processes, or which assessed the communication of actual cross-examinations in court were included. A range of communication challenges were highlighted, including: suggestibility to leading questions and negative feedback; acquiescence; accuracy; memory and understanding of court language. In addition, a number of influencing factors were identified, including: age; IQ level; question styles used. This review highlights the need for further research using cross-examination methodology and live practice, that take into consideration the impact on communication of the unique environment and situation of the cross-examination process.
AgnewSPowellM (2004) The effect of intellectual disability on children’s recall of an event across different question types. Law and Human Behavior28(3): 273–294.
2.
American Psychiatric Association (2013) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders: DSM-5. Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing, Inc.
3.
Arstein-KerslakeA (2017) The right to legal agency: Domination, disability and the protections of Article 12 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. International Journal of Law in Context13(1): 22–38.
4.
BaverstockJ (2016) Process Evaluation of Pre-recorded Cross-examination Pilot (Section 28). London: Ministry of Justice.
5.
BettenayCRidleyAHenryLACraneL (2014) Cross-examination: The testimony of children with and without intellectual disabilities. Applied Cognitive Psychology28(2): 204–214.
6.
BowdenPHenningTPlaterD (2014) Balancing fairness to victims, society and defendants in the cross-examination of vulnerable witnesses: An impossible triangulation?Melbourne University Law Review37(3): 539–584.
7.
BowlesPVSharmanSJ (2014a) A review of the impact of different types of leading interview questions on child and adult witnesses with intellectual disabilities. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law21(2): 205–217.
8.
BowlesPVSharmanSJ (2014b) The effect of different types of leading questions on adult witnesses with mild intellectual disabilities. Applied Cognitive Psychology28(1): 129–134.
9.
BraunVClarkeV (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology3(2): 77–101.
10.
BrownDALewisCNLambMEStephensE (2012) The influences of delay and severity of intellectual disability on event memory in children. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology80(5): 829–841.
11.
BurtonMEvansRSandersA (2006) Are Special Measures for Vulnerable and Intimidated Witnesses Working? Evidence from the Criminal Justice Agencies. London: Home Office).
12.
CardoneDDentH (1996) Memory and interrogative suggestibility: The effects of modality of information presentation and retrieval conditions upon the suggestibility scores of people with learning disabilities. Legal and Criminological Psychology1(Part 2): 165–177. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8333.1996.tb00316.x
13.
ClareIGudjonssonG (1993) Interrogative suggestibility, confabulation, and acquiescence in people with mild learning disabilities (mental handicap): Implications for reliability during police interrogations. British Journal of Clinical Psychology32(3): 295–301.
14.
ClareIMurphyG (2001) Witnesses with learning disabilities. British Journal of Learning Disabilities29(3): 79–80.
15.
ClarkSF (2011) The art of cross-examination. FDCC Quarterly61(2): 103–148.
16.
CollinsDHenryL (2016) Eyewitness recall and suggestibility in individuals with Down syndrome. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research60(12): 1227–1231.
17.
CooperPMattisonM (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 Proof21(4): 351–370.
18.
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. Criminal Law Review (6): 420–435.
19.
CooperPDandoCOrmerodTMattisonMMarchantRMilneRBullR (2018) One step forward and two steps back? The ‘20 Principles’ for questioning vulnerable witnesses and the lack of an evidence-based approach: The International Journal of Evidence and Proof22(4): 392–410.
20.
CooperS-A.SmileyEMorrisonJWilliamsonAAllanL (2007) Mental ill-health in adults with intellectual disabilities: prevalence and associated factors. British Journal of Psychiatry190(1): 27–35.
21.
DentH (1986) An experimental study of the effectiveness of different techniques of questioning mentally handicapped child witnesses. British Journal of Clinical Psychology25(1): 13–17.
22.
DonnellyKJ (2018) Speeding Up Justice: Avoidable Delay in the Criminal Justice System. Belfast: Northern Ireland Audit Office.
23.
EmersonEHattonC (2007) Mental health of children and adolescents with intellectual disabilities in Britain. British Journal of Psychiatry191(Dec): 493–499.
24.
EricsonKIPerlmanNB (2001) Knowledge of legal terminology and court proceedings in adults with developmental disabilities. Law and Human Behavior25(5): 529–545.
25.
EveringtonCFuleroSM (1999) Competence to confess: Measuring understanding and suggestibility of defendants with mental. Mental Retardation37(3): 212–220.
26.
FaircloughS (2016) ‘It doesn’t happen…and I’ve never thought it was necessary for it to happen’: Barriers to vulnerable defendants giving evidence by live link in crown court trials. The International Journal of Evidence and Proof2(3): 209–229.
27.
FaircloughS (2018) Speaking up for injustice: Reconsidering the provision of special measures through the lens of equality. Criminal Law Review (1): 4–19.
28.
GeddesG (2016) The price of justice: can you hear me at the back?Family Law46(7): 833–840.
29.
GerryFCooperP (2017) Effective participation of vulnerable accused persons: Case management, court adaptation and rethinking criminal responsibility. Journal of Judicial Administration26(4): 265–274.
30.
GibbsP (2017) Defendants on Video—Conveyor Belt Justice or a Revolution in Access?London: Transform Justice.
31.
GoneRHattonCCaneA (2012) Service provision. In EmersonE, et al. (eds) Clinical Psychology and People with Intellectual Disabilities. 2nd ed. Malden, MA: John Wiley & Sons, 23–50.
32.
GordonBNJensKG (1994) Remembering activities performed versus those imagined: Implications for testimony of children. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology23(3): 239.
33.
GoughDOliverSThomasJ (2012) An Introduction to Systematic Reviews. An Introduction to Systematic Reviews. London: SAGE.
34.
GreenhalaghGBrownT (2014) Quality assessment: Where do I begin? In BolandACherryGDicksonR (eds) Doing A Systematic Review: A Student’s Guide. 1st ed. London: SAGE, 61–84.
35.
GudjonssonGH (1990) The relationship of intellectual skills to suggestibility, compliance and acquiescence. Personality and Individual Differences11(3): 227–231.
36.
GudjonssonGH (1984) A new scale of interrogative suggestibility. Personality and Individual Differences5(3): 313–314.
37.
GudjonssonGH (1987) A parallel form of the Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scale. British Journal of Clinical Psychology26(3): 215–221.
38.
GudjonssonGH (1992) The Psychology of Interrogations, Confessions and Testimony. Oxford: John Wiley & Sons.
39.
GudjonssonGHClareICH (1995) The relationship between confabulation and intellectual ability, memory, interrogative suggestibility and acquiescence. Personality and Individual Differences19(3): 333–338.
40.
GudjonssonGHClarkNK (1986) Suggestibility in police interrogation: A social psychological model. Social Behaviour1(2): 83–104.
41.
GudjonssonGHHenryL (2003) Child and adult witnesses with intellectual disability: The importance of suggestibility. Legal and Criminological Psychology8(2): 241–252.
42.
GudjonssonGHMurphyGHClareICH (2000) Assessing the capacity of people with intellectual disabilities to be witnesses in court. Psychological Medicine30(2): 307–314.
43.
GudjonssonGJoyceT (2011) Interviewing adults with intellectual disabilities. Advances in Mental Health and Intellectual Disabilities5(2): 16–21.
44.
HendersonE (2014) All the proper protections—The court of appeal rewrites the rules for the cross-examination of vulnerable witnesses. Criminal Law Review2014(1): 93–108.
45.
HenryLGudjonssonG (1999) Eyewitness memory and suggestibility in children with mental retardation. American Journal on Mental Retardation104(6): 491–508.
46.
HenryLGudjonssonG (2003) Eyewitness memory, suggestibility, and repeated recall sessions in children with mild and moderate intellectual disabilities. Law and Human Behavior27(5): 481–505.
47.
HenryLGudjonssonG (2007) Individual and developmental differences in eyewitness recall and suggestibility in children with intellectual disabilities. Applied Cognitive Psychology21(3): 361–381.
48.
HenryLWilcockR (2013) Witnesses with intellectual disabilities. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education60(1): 1–2.
49.
HigginsJPTGreenS (2011) Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Available at: http://handbook-5-1.cochrane.org/(accessed 8 May 2019).
50.
HoyanoL (2015) Reforming the adversarial trial for vulnerable witnesses and defendants. Criminal Law Review2: 107–129.
51.
JacobsonJHunterGKirbyA (2015) Inside Crown Court: Personal Experiences and Questions of Legitimacy. Inside Crown Court. Bristol: Bristol University Press.
52.
JacolaLMByarsAWHickeyFVannestJHollandSKSchapiroMB (2014) Functional magnetic resonance imaging of story listening in adolescents and young adults with Down syndrome: Evidence for atypical neurodevelopment. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research58(10): 892–902.
53.
JensKGGordonNBShaddockAJ (1990) Remembering activities performed versus imagined: A comparison of children with mental retardation and children with normal intelligence. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education37(3): 201–213.
54.
KeaneA (2012) Cross-examination of vulnerable witnesses–towards a blueprint for re-professionalisation. International Journal of Evidence and Proof16(2): 175–198.
55.
KeaneAFortsonR (2011) Leading questions: A critical analysis. Criminal Law Review (4): 280–295.
56.
KeaneAGriffithsJMcKeownP (2010) The Modern Law of Evidence. 8th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
57.
KebbellMRHattonC (1999) People with mental retardation as witnesses in court: A review. Mental Retardation37(3): 179–187.
58.
KebbellMRHattonCJohnsonSD (2004) Witnesses with intellectual disabilities in court: What questions are asked and what influence do they have?Legal and Criminological Psychology9(1): 23–35.
59.
MarasKBowlerD (2014) Eyewitness testimony in autism spectrum disorder: A review. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders44(11): 2682–2697.
60.
MattisonML (2016) Putting theory into practice: A comparison of the guidance available to investigative interviewers and advocates when using communication aids in the criminal justice system. In CooperPHuntingL (eds) Addressing Vulnerability in Justice Systems. London: Wildy, Simmonds & Hall, 119–142.
61.
MichelMKGordonBNOrnsteinPASimpsonMA (2000) The abilities of children with mental retardation to remember personal experiences: Implications for testimony. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology29(3): 453–463.
62.
MilneRBullR (2001) Interviewing witnesses with learning disabilities for legal purposes. British Journal of Learning Disabilities29(3): 93–97.
63.
MilneRClareICHBullR (2002) Interrogative suggestibility among witnesses with mild intellectual disabilities: The use of an adaptation of the GSS. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities15(1): 8–17.
64.
MoherDLiberatiATetzlaffJAltmanDG (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Medicine6(7): 1–6.
65.
MurphyGMasonJ (2014) Forensic and offending behaviours. In: TsakanikosEMcCarthyJ (eds) Handbook of Psychopathology in Intellectual Disability. Springer, 281–303.
66.
MyersJEB (2017) Cross-examination: A defense. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 23(4): 472–477.
67.
NeeceCLBakerBLBlacherJCrnicKA (2011) Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder among children with and without intellectual disability: An examination across time. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research55(7): 623–635.
68.
NijmanEEScheirsJGMPrinsenMJHAbbinkCDBlokJB (2010) Exploring the Flynn effect in mentally retarded adults by using a nonverbal intelligence test for children. Research in Developmental Disabilities31(6): 1404–1411.
69.
PerlmanNBEricsonKIEssesVMIsaacsBJ (1994) The developmentally handicapped witness: Competency as a function of question format. Law and Human Behavior18(2): 171–187.
70.
PetticrewMRobertsH (2006) Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide. 1st ed. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
71.
PrattTA (2003) The Ten Commandments of Cross-examination. FDCC Quarterly53(3): 257.
72.
RingenbachSDBalp-RieraA (2006) Adults with down syndrome benefit from visual instructions for spatial-temporal aspects of drumming. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly23(1): 78–93.
73.
RobertsLRichmondJL (2018) Using learning flexibly and remembering after a delay: Understanding cognitive dysfunction in adults with Down syndrome. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research62(6): 521–531.
74.
RutterDFrancisJCorecEFisherM (2010) SCIE Systematic Research Review: guidelinesVol. 1. 2nd ed. London: Social Care Institute of Excellence.
75.
SchalockRLBorthwick-DuffySABradleyVJBuntinxWHECoulterDLCraigEM, et al. (2010) Intellectual Disability: Definition, Classification, and Systems of Supports. 11th ed. Washington, DC: American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities.
76.
SharmanSJPowellMB (2012) A comparison of adult witnesses’ suggestibility across various types of leading questions. Applied Cognitive Psychology26(1): 48–53.
77.
SigelmanCSpahhelCSchoenrockC (1981) When in doubt, say yes: Acquiescence in Interviews with Mentally Retarded Persons. Mental Retardation19(2): 53–58.
78.
SigelmanCKWinerJLSchoenrockCJ (1982) The responsiveness of mentally retarded persons to questions. Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded17(2): 120–124.
79.
StrømmePDisethTH (2000) Prevalence of psychiatric diagnoses in children with mental retardation: Data from a population-based study. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology42(4): 266–270.
80.
TasséMJ (2013) What’s in a name?Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities51(2): 113–116.
81.
ValentineTMarasK (2011) The effect of cross-examination on the accuracy of adult eyewitness testimony. Applied Cognitive Psychology25(4): 554–561.
82.
WheatcroftJMWagstaffGFKebbellMR (2004) The influence of courtroom questioning style on actual and perceived eyewitness confidence and accuracy. Legal and Criminological Psychology9(1): 83–101.
83.
WheatcroftJMWoodsS (2010) Effectiveness of witness preparation and cross-examination non-directive and directive leading question styles on witness accuracy and confidence. The International Journal of Evidence and Proof14(3): 187–207.
84.
WhiteRWillnerP (2005) Suggestibility and salience in people with intellectual disabilities: An experimental critique of the Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scale. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology16(4): 638–650.
85.
WolfensbergerW (2000) A Brief Overview of Social Role Valorization. Mental Retardation38(2): 105–123.
86.
WormaldREvansJ (2018) What makes systematic reviews systematic and why are they the highest level of evidence?Ophthalmic Epidemiology25(1): 27–30.
87.
YoungKPowellMBDudgeonP (2003) Individual differences in children’s suggestibility: A comparison between intellectually disabled and mainstream samples. Personality and Individual Differences35(1): 31–49.
88.
ZajacRO’NeillSHayneH (2012) Disorder in the courtroom? Child witnesses under cross-examination. Developmental Review32(3): 268–286.
