title: Communication and Cross-examination with vulnerable witnesses who have intellectual disabilities: What are the challenges and how might these be overcome?
Creators: name: Morrison, Joanne
Publisher: name: University of Kent
Year: 2023

description: Challenges with both receptive and expressive communication are common for people with intellectual disabilities. The criminal justice system in England, Wales and Northern Ireland was slow to recognise this but now considers people with intellectual disabilities to be vulnerable witnesses and they can apply for special measures, such as, the services of a registered intermediary to assess and advise on communication to enhance best evidence of the vulnerable witness. This thesis consists of three key studies to examine communication challenges of vulnerable witnesses with intellectual disabilities when giving evidence in court, particularly when cross-examined, and how these may be overcome: a systematic review of current research; a qualitative analysis of 19 court reports to examine identified communication challenges of adult witnesses; and a quantitative analysis of the effectiveness of visual supports during cross-examination with adults with intellectual disabilities. The systematic review highlighted a range of communication challenges: suggestibility to leading questions and negative feedback; acquiescence; accuracy; limited recall; and understanding of court language. In addition, a number of influencing factors were identified, including: age; IQ level; and question styes used. However, the systematic review also highlighted that much of the existing research has been mainly lab-based research using methods from experimental psychology and focused on specific areas of communication challenges. There is a lack of research examining the communication challenges of actual witnesses. Therefore, the second study is a qualitative empirical study analysing 19 court reports, written by registered intermediaries in Northern Ireland for adult complainants and defendants with ID. A wide range of communication difficulties for the vulnerable witnesses were identified, including those resulting from communication used by their communication partner - the advocate. Existing research and study two identified communication challenges for people with intellectual disabilities in court, including challenges resulting from how they are questioned during cross-examination. However, the research also identified a lack of guidance on alternative methods for presenting questions during cross-examination. Finally, study three is a quantitative empirical study comparing two question styles for cross-examination, to allow the advocate to 'put the case': short and simple verbal leading questions and questions with a choice of four answers with visual aids. Results found no significant difference between the groups for accuracy, suggestibility, or likelihood of providing a 'don't know' or alternative 'something else' response. However, 1/3 of participants indicated difficulties understanding the words, victim, suspect and witness, even with explanations given. Other factors are highlighted which may have influenced the results including: use of communication rules to permit the participants to disagree with the questioner; a familiar environment; the presence of a familiar person sitting beside them; and factors relating to the experience of the questioner. This thesis discusses the internal factors of the advocate and witness with ID, along with external factors of the court environment within the context of a cross-examination model of communication and concludes that cross-examination within the adversarial system further empowers the communication skills of the advocate while disempowering the witness with ID. However, in concluding it is also highlighted that effective communication within cross-examination is not just a straightforward matter of simplifying language and sentence structure, rather it is much more complex, is impacted by multiple factors, and requires communication skills different from those which advocates have been trained to use during a typical cross-examination.