|
|
The |
|
Video Interviews in child abuse cases defended The use of videotapes for interviewing children in cases of
sexual abuse is an international success, says a
Groups, whose members include
convicted child abusers and suspects, have slammed the present system of
basing a prosecution on a videotaped interview with a child victim. Detective Sergeant Roy Mitchell
says the vested interest of such groups in damning a system held up as a
model in other countries should be exposed. "Of course they don't like
it; it's effective," he says. "The taped interview is the best
thing that has ever happened in the interests of justice for children in "While some may feel the
system is against their interests, it's a matter of common sense as to how
much credibility you can attach to organisations which include convicted
child abusers as members. It's unlikely they would agree that any system that
is successful is acceptable." He accuses the vested interest
groups - including Pain (parents against injustice) - of churning out an
inaccurate portrayal of the process. "Of course some of this group
feel aggrieved with procedures including matters arising from family and
criminal courts," he says. He is angry that by attacking the
investigation system groups are attempting in a "thinly disguised
way" to undermine children's credibility. A comment from a lawyer overhead
recently in court was the "final straw" in prompting him to speak
out in defence of the investigating procedure. "It was along the lines of
'fancy so and so being convicted on the word of a child'," says Roy
Mitchell. "If that level of ignorance
about the nature of children and the changes to the legislation prevails
among someone in the legal fraternity, then it is little wonder that the
general public is confused." As head of investigations into
numerous sex and child abuse cases during the last 13 years, Roy Mitchell has
faith in children's honesty. His investigations have also left him with no
doubts that sexual abuse of children in "Before the antagonists start
bleating, I don't mean that every utterance from a child should be accepted
as gospel or that it will result in an arrest," he says. Children may lie about breaking a
window to get out of trouble. They are less inclined to lie about sexual
abuse where they see that disclosure will get them into trouble. It would
appear that most children blame themselves for having been abused, and feel
guilty. Critics of the system who accuse
children of prejudice, motive, and conspiracy are projecting adult values on
children, says Mr Mitchell. "It is hypocritical. When one
child is the victim, it is often argued their evidence cannot be
substantiated. "In every instance where
there is more than one child - and particularly if they are known to each
other - it is alleged by the suspect, his supporters, or his lawyer that the
children must have conspired to be untruthful. "That response is commonly
heard from a suspect. In the end it is the credibility of each individual
child that is taken into account." He questions the motivation that
children would have to conspire to give false evidence. Roy Mitchell says recent attacks
on the investigation system are unbalanced and need redress. He is not
surprised that specialist interviewers and the children themselves have been
singled out in the latest round of attacks. He acknowledges that it might
"simply not be possible to have a perfect system". "The interview of the child
forms the basis of a prosecution system that is vastly more effective than
that of the past," he says. Critics have presented a distorted
view of the procedures, he says, and misrepresented the role of people
working in the field. Most had faced the barrage of
criticism in silence, unable to breach court sub-judice requirements or
client confidentiality. "Professionals who work with
sexually abused children, including their parents, feel hurt and angry at the
one-sided portrayal of child abuse," says Roy Mitchell. He is confident that the
investigation system is a "vast improvement" on the one operating
before 1990-91. "All that the new way of dealing with child abuse does
is that it allows the young victims to have their credibility tested in a
court of law," he says. "It does no more than that. "Before the videotape
regulations, children were not served very well by the system. The rules that
applied to adults applied equally to children. Yet their needs and
perceptions of the world are different." The greatest hurdle for a child
was confronting the accused - someone they feared - in an
"overwhelming" courtroom situation. Some became so nervous they were
incapable of recounting possibly the most traumatic event in their lives. Video interviews introduced three
years ago were a' breakthrough, says Mr Mitchell. A SPECIALIST interviewer speaks to
a child about past experiences on a one-to-one basis in a closed room. The Crown later applies to have
the tape played in court as part of the child's account of what happened. The
child must be available to be cross-examined. Expert witnesses can be called to
interpret aspects of the child's evidence. Roy Mitchell says police preparing
the prosecution case are at pains to ensure that the child's evidence meets
the requirements prescribed by law. The investigating officer and Gown
Prosecutor vet the tape before it goes before the final arbiter, a Judge. "If it appears a child has
been led in an interview, the tape will be inadmissable," says Mr
Mitchell, who is aware of the misconceptions about leading questions. A
question taken in isolation might appear leading, but not when considered in
light of information gained beforehand. "The interviewers are bound
by strict rules on how to elicit information from a child. No group of
individuals is more aware of the issue of leading questions and its
effect." The task is difficult. Children
perceive events differently. For example, they expect to be led. They may
also withdraw part of their statement, dissociate from the abuse by
attributing it to someone else, or disclose more to a parent or friend after
the taped interview. Interviewers develop a number of
skills and are always mindful of factors such as the coaching of a child by
another person, such as a parent. "The interviewer accepts that
procedural constraints placed on them and other factors mean they will only
get disclosures in about half their interviews, even though it is likely most
of the children they speak to have been abused," says Roy Mitchell. The interview is not the sole determinant
of whether- there is a case to answer, he says. 'It seems that the public
might fear that once we get a disclosure from a child, it will inevitably
lead to an arrest. We use the interview in the context of other evidence to
determine charging a person with abuse.” The police determine whether there
is sufficient evidence to lay charges. However, the decision to proceed with
the prosecution rests with the family. Their consent is aJso required for a
taped interview and a medical examination of the child by a specialist. Roy Mitchell denounces allegations
that the interviewers are "feminists on a crusade to lead children to
disclose abuse. You only have to know these people to realize that these
allegations are without foundation and untrue. "The interviewers are
intelligent, balanced professionals who have no hidden agenda. Their aim is
to protect children and give them access to the court system. "In The effectiveness of the
investigation process should be measured by the hundreds of children and
their families who have been through and are, happy with the system. The
views of a dissatisfied minority should be considered in context. Checks and balances in the system
ensure people with a normal healthy, non-sexual relationship with children
have nothing to fear from the investigation process, he says. "In my view those checks and
balances effectively cancel any argument put forward that the system works unfairly
against the accused." Such things include the
presumption of innocence, the burden and standard of proof, and the rights to
remain silent, consult a lawyer, and defend the charge. The "Sometimes we agonise over
the decision to prosecute," says Roy Mitchell. "The police are
caught between a rock and a hard place. The victim and the supporting family
might be unhappy if we don't proceed, and the accused unhappy if we do."
In most cases where police do not
proceed, the child’s credibility has not been in question. Police throughout the country have
experienced an upsurge in complaints of historical- abuse - cases where
adults report they have been abused as children - after the move to the new
system. "These people have suffered
for years with devastating repercussions" says Mr Mitchell. "In
many cases they did not report the events when they occurred because the
previous investigative and judicial procedures did not give them a fair
opportunity to have their credibility assessed. There was also a tendency for
adults not to accept allegations of abuse by a child or speak of it." Roy Mitchell takes issue with
claims that the investigating procedure victimises the child and causes
confusion. "Saying children's evidence
is confused may be an insidious way of saying they are not credible," he
says. "The interview allows
children to, recount the experience. It may not come out in a sequence
considered logical to adults, but that does not mean the children are
confused." Roy Mitchell says it is inevitable
that any investigative procedure is going to be painful to the child. He wishes more offenders would
acknowledge their crime — if not to the people affected, then to the court. "We are not out "to
hang" these people. In all but the most extreme cases there is a
pressing need for offenders to undergo therapy and rehabilitation for which
an admission of guilt may be necessary." Offenders react in a variety of
ways when questioned about child abuse. "Some readily admit to the
offence and show genuine remorse. Others admit with gentle persuasion, while
the third group deny no matter how strong the evidence is against them. "Part of this may fee that
sexually abusing children is the ultimate taboo. I believe some people would
rather admit to a homicide than this offence." Offenders
not sterotypes It is a misconception for someone
to say he or she can tell a child abuser by appearance, says Detective
Sergeant Roy Mitchell. "It has struck me that with
some exceptions offenders are very ordinary people." Many male offenders are married
men with their own children, he says. "In fact many describe their
feeling to the children they abuse as a kind of love, albeit distorted."
Offenders, says Mr Mitchell, have
ranged in age from teenagers to people in their 80s. They come from many
walks of life, and there is also a range of personalities. In preying on children, they often
plan their activities to ease their access to them. Offenders have included bastions
of the church, school teachers, martial arts Instructors and leaders of youth
groups. "These men do a lot to bring
discredit on some groups," says Roy Mitchell. "However, the public
should not accuse the Instigation or organisation. It's the individual." Some
prosecutions have been brought against women. |
