|
The Bar Tender
Daily Newspaper of the N.Z. Law Conference.
Dunedin.
1996.
Issue 3. Thursday, 11 April,
1996. Page 9.
New Research on Children’s Evidence
by Rob Harrison
During I995 Hamilton clinical psychologist Dr Jane Rawls pursued her research
interest in children’s testimony with a project supported by the New Zealand Law Foundation. Last week she
reported on her results at an Auckland District Law Society seminar.
The aim of the research was to determine what type of questions elicited the
most accurate responses about past events from young children. Thirty
five-year olds were questioned individually about the dress-up games they had
played when alone in a room with a man called Trevor. the games consisted of
the child and Trevor selecting two items of clothing from a box and putting
one item of clothing on themselves and one on the other. The clothing used -
hats, scarves, umbrellas, flippers and so on - did not require either Trevor
or the child to remove any of their own clothes (except for shoes} before
putting the other clothing on.
After a one-week delay each child received three follow-up interviews, and a
fourth interview after a further week had elapsed. Ten children were questioned
using only open questions (questions that do not suggest an answer, such as
`how come the boat was rocking?'). ten were questioned using open and closed
questions and ten were questioned using only closed questions (questions that
limit the response, such as `did you rock the boat?'). The closed questions
included some of the binary (`did he touch you under your clothes or on top
of your clothes?') variety.
The interviews incorporated elements usually found in evidential interviews.
At the first interview Dr Rawls discussed truth and lies with the child and
obtained a promise from the child to tell the truth. At the second interview
she invited the child to indicate on a body-outline where he or she had been
touched by, or had touched, Trevor.
During the interviews involving only closed questions, or a mixture of open
and closed questions, three children reported genital touching (e.g., by
penis between legs front bottom), two reported that their bottoms had been
touched and two reported other forms of touching under their clothes (e.g.,
tickling tummy, touching titties).
In my opinion Dr Rawls' results are particularly significant because her
questioning was not designed to elicit information about inappropriate
touching by Trevor. (Before beginning her research Dr Rawls asked the parents
if any of the children had been involved in a sexual abuse allegation. None
had.) It is interesting to note that when similar reports were made in
evidential in interviews during the Christchurch Civic Creche investigation,
the children involved were said to have 'disclosed abuse'.
Fortunately for Trevor the only contact he had with the children were the
staged games, which were videotaped. Given the fact that it is not uncommon
for people to be convicted of sexual abuse on the uncorroborated evidence of
young children obtained in evidential interviews, Dr Rawls’ findings must
raise the issue of how safe some of these convictions are. Her research, coupled with research overseas,
suggests that a comprehensive review of interviewing techniques needs to be
undertaken in New Zealand.
For Peter Ellis, and all those implicated in the Christchurch Civic Crèche
case, such a review cannot come soon enough.
* Rob Harrison was counsel for Peter Ellis in the Christchurch Civic Creche
case.
|
