Following the implementation of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 for England and Wales, Registered Intermediaries have been available to assist child witness communication in legal proceedings since 2004. Registered Intermediaries are given training to fulfil this role. However, their assessments and practices are conducted independently. This study examined Registered Intermediaries’ perceptions and experiences of this independent practice, and the impact this had on the quality of the legal process in terms of evidential quality, child witness experiences and engagement. Seventeen experienced and currently active Registered Intermediaries with a range of communication specialisms took part in semi-structured interviews, which were analysed thematically. Six main themes emerged from the data: assessment constraints and requirements, essential elements of the assessment process, why the assessment process is effective, ensuring recommendations are followed through, pressures and barriers, and practice development. The Registered Intermediaries stressed the need for further training for themselves as well as for legal professionals, and emphasised the benefits of working as a team throughout the assessment and legal process.
AlaggiaR (2010) An ecological analysis of child sexual disclosure: Considerations for child and adolescent mental health. Journal of the Canadian Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry19(1): 32–39.
2.
BarlowCMJolleyRPHallamJL (2011) Drawing as memory aids: Optimising the drawing method to facilitate young children’s recall. Applied Cognitive Psychology25(3): 480–487.
3.
BraunVClarkeV (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology, Qualitative Research in Psychology3(2): 77–101.
4.
BrownDA (2011) The use of supplementary techniques in forensic interviews with children. In LambMELaRooyDKatzCMalloyL (eds) Children’s Testimony: A Handbook of Psychological Research and Forensic Practice. 2nd ed. Chichester: Wiley, 217–249.
5.
BruckMCeciSJFrancoeurE (2000) Children’s use of anatomically detailed dolls to report genital touching in a medical examination: Developmental and gender comparisons. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied6(1): 74–83.
6.
BruckMKelleyKPooleDA (2016) Children’s reports of body touching in medical examinations: The benefits and risks of using body diagrams. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law22(1): 1–11.
7.
BullR (2010) The investigative interviewing of children and other vulnerable witnesses: Psychological research and working/professional practice. Legal and Criminological Psychology15(1): 5–23.
8.
CollinsKHarkerNAntonopoulosGA (2016) The impact of registered intermediary presence on adults’ perceptions of child witnesses: Evidence from a mock cross-examination. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research23: 211–225.
CooperPBackenPMarchantR (2015Getting 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 Review6: 420–435.
11.
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 & Proof21(4): 351–370.
12.
CooperPWurtzelD (2013) A day late and a dollar short: In search of an intermediary scheme for vulnerable defendants in England and Wales. Criminal Law Review1: 4–22.
13.
DandoCJOmerodTCCooperPMarchantRMattisonMMilneRBullR (2018) No evidence against sketch reinstatement of context, verbal labels or the use of Registered Intermediaries for children with autistic spectrum disorder: Response to Henry et al. (2017)Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. 48(7): 2593–2596.
14.
DickinsonJJPooleDA (2017) The influence of disclosure history and body diagrams on children’s reports of inappropriate touching: Evidence from a new analog paradigm. Law and Human Behavior41(1): 1–12.
15.
GudjonssonGH (2006) The psychological vulnerabilities of witnesses and the risk of false accusations and false confessions. In Heaton-ArmstrongAShepherdEGudjonssonGWolchoverD (eds) Witness Testimony: Psychological, Investigative and Evidential Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 61–75.
16.
GudjonssonGH (2010) Psychological vulnerabilities during police interviews. Why are they important?Legal and Criminological Psychology15(2): 161–175.
17.
HammersleyM (1997) The relationship between qualitative and quantitative research: Paradigm loyalty versus methodological eclecticism. In RichardsonJTE (ed) Handbook of Qualitative Research Methods. Leicester: BPS Books, 159–175.
18.
HendersonE (2015) ‘A very valuable tool’: Judges, advocates and intermediaries discuss the intermediary system in England and Wales. International Journal of Evidence & Proof19(3): 154–171.
19.
HenryLACraneLNashGHobsonZKirke-SmithMWilcockR (2017) Verbal, visual, and Intermediary support for child witnesses with autism during investigative interviews. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders47(8): 2348–2362.
20.
HollowayIWheelerS (2002) Qualitative Research In Nursing and Healthcare. Chichester: Wiley.
21.
KatzCHershkowitzI (2010) The effects of drawing on children’s accounts of sexual abuse. Child Maltreatment15(2): 171–179.
22.
KrahenbuhlS (2019) Mock jurors’ perceptions of child witnesses: The impact of the presence and/or intervention of a Registered Intermediary during cross-examination. Psychology, Crime & Law25(7): 713–728.
23.
LambMEBrownDA (2006) Conversational apprentices: Helping children become competent informants about their own experiences. British Journal of Developmental Psychology24(1): 215–234.
24.
LambMEMalloyLCHershkowitzILaRooyD (2015) Children and the law. In LernerRMLambME (eds) Handbook of Child Psychology and Developmental Science. 7th ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 464–512.
25.
LytleNLondonKBruckM (2015) Young children’s ability to use two-dimensional and three-dimensional symbols to show placements of body touches and hidden objects. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology134: 30–42.
26.
MacleodEGrossJHayneH (2013) The clinical and forensic value of information that children report while drawing. Applied Cognitive Psychology27(5): 564–573.
27.
MalloyLCBrubacherSPLambME (2011) Expected consequences of disclosure revealed in investigative interviews with suspected victims of child sexual abuse. Applied Developmental Science (15): 8–19.
28.
McElvaneyR (2015) Disclosure of child sexual abuse: Delays, non-disclosure and partial disclosure. What the research tells us and implications for practice. Child Abuse Review24(3): 159–169.
29.
MarchantR (2013) How young is too young? The evidence of children under five in the English criminal justice system. Child Abuse Review22(6): 432–445.
30.
MattisonMDandoCJOrmerodTC (2015) Sketching to remember: Episodic free recall task support for child witnesses and victims with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders45(6): 1751–1765.
31.
MattisonMDandoCJOrmerodTC (2018) Drawing the answers: Sketching to support free and probed recall by child witnesses and victims with autism spectrum disorder. Autism22(2): 181–194.
32.
Ministry of Justice (2011) Achieving Best Evidence in Criminal Proceedings: Guidance on Interviewing Victims and Witnesses, and Guidance on Using Special Measures. London: Ministry of Justice.
33.
Ministry of Justice (2019a) The Witness Intermediary Scheme: Annual Report 2018/19. London: Ministry of Justice.
34.
Ministry of Justice (2019b) Registered Intermediary Procedural Guidance. London: Ministry of Justice.
35.
O’MahonyBM (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 Disabilities38(3): 232–237.
36.
O’MahonyBMSmithKMilneB (2011) The early identification of vulnerable witnesses prior to an investigative interview. British Journal of Forensic Practice13(2): 114–123.
37.
OwenRS (2016) Impact on law but what about practice? Intermediaries and how they aid vulnerable people to access the criminal justice system. Master’s Thesis. University of Chester, UK.
38.
PlotnikoffJWoolfsonR (2007) The ‘Go-Between’: Evaluation of Intermediary Pathfinder Projects. London: Ministry of Justice.
39.
PooleDABruckM (2012) Divining testimony? The impact of interviewing props on children’s reports of touching. Developmental Review32(3): 165–180.
40.
PooleDABruckMPipeM (2011) Forensic interviewing aids: Do props help children answer questions about touching?Current Directions in Psychological Science20(1): 11–15.
41.
PowellMBEarhartB (2018) Principles to enhance communication with child witnesses. Judicial Officers Bulletin30(9): 85–90.
42.
PowellMBWrightRClarkS (2010) Improving the competency of police officers in conducting investigative interviews with children. Police Practice and Research11(3): 211–226.
43.
SanttilaPKorkmanJSandnabbaKN (2004) Effects of interview phase, repeated interviewing, presence of a support person, and anatomically detailed dolls on child sexual abuse interviews. Psychology, Crime & Law10(1): 21–35.
44.
SpencerJRLambME (eds) (2012) Children And Cross-Examination: Time to Change the Rules?Oxford: Hart.
45.
The Advocate’s Gateway (2015) Using Communication Aids in the Criminal Justice System: Toolkit 14. The Advocate’s Gateway.
WilligC (2013) Introducing Qualitative Research in Psychology. 3rd ed. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
48.
WoolfordJPattersonTMacleodEHobbsLHayneH (2015) Drawing helps children to talk about their presenting problems during a mental health assessment. Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry20(1): 68–83.
