|
Stuff
December 9, 2003
Child witnesses change story under cross examination: study
NZPA
The vast majority of child witnesses and young victims involved in court
cases change their testimony on the stand, university researchers have found.
Otago University
psychologists have concluded that questioning techniques used in New Zealand
courts are not suitable for children, after up to 85 per cent of children
involved in two separate studies changed their story when subjected to cross
examination.
Dunedin author Lynley Hood, whose book A City Possessed argues the testimony
of children in the Peter Ellis sexual abuse case was tainted in part by
methods used to question the child complainants, said the findings were not
surprising.
Psychology lecturer Dr Rachel Zajac said the researchers first studied the
court transcripts from the cross-examination of 21 children aged five to 13
involved in sexual abuse cases.
Of those, 75 per cent changed at least one aspect of their testimony under
cross-examination, compared with statements given when primary evidence was
gathered.
The researchers were unable, however, to gauge whether their testimony was
changed to become more accurate or less. This prompted the researchers to
undertake a second study in which a group of 45 five and six-year-olds from
the Dunedin
area were taken on a trip to a police station.
They were interviewed about the experience and then eight months later requestioned
using typical cross-examination techniques. The time gap was to simulate
actual delays between primary evidence gathering and trials.
During the cross-examination, 85 per cent of the children changed at least
one aspect of their testimony. About one-third changed all of their
responses.
"The biggest concerning finding was that they changed their responses
irrespective of accuracy," Dr Zajac said.
Under cross-examination, the children were just as likely to change a correct
response as an incorrect one and the questioning significantly reduced
children's accuracy.
During cross-examination, children were frequently asked leading or complex
questions, or ambiguous questions they did not understand, Dr Zajac said.
"Leading the witness is permitted and it's even actively
encouraged."
Dr Zajac said the researchers would like to see changes to the
cross-examination system to ensure judges more often intervened when
questioning was not appropriate and children were better prepared to cope
with cross-examination by defence lawyers.
Dr Zajac said the research was not prompted by the Peter Ellis sexual abuse
case, which was based on child testimony. However she said the Ellis case
highlighted how careful people had to be when interviewing children, she
said.
Hood said there was a growing body of evidence which showed how children's
evidence was vulnerable to pressure and manipulation.
"I think this research shows even more support for the argument the
children's evidence in the creche case was unreliable," the author said.
New Zealand Law Society criminal law committee convener Philip Morgan QC, of Hamilton, said he
accepted there was likely to be room for change in some aspects of the giving
of evidence, but this needed to be weighed against other aspects of justice.
"People accused of a serious crime need to be able to challenge the
accusations and defend themselves against them. . .the only effective way is
through cross-examination.
"If there is a suggestion children only ever tell the truth and that the
people accused of crimes against them should be stopped from challenging
that, I could not agree," he said.
|
