Child Abuse Review Vol. 5 : 137-140 (1996)

‘Children’s Evidence in Criminal Cases’- a Computer Assisted Learning Pack, Version 2.0 February 1995 (incorpor- ating the latest changes to the Rules of Evidence). The University of Nottingham, Law Department, 1995. Available from: The Office for Professional and Industrial Training, The University of Nottingham, University Park, Nottingham NG7 2RD, UK. Tel: (01 15) 951 3702. Fax: (01 15) 951 3722. A single-user licence costs f360.00; a multiple licence for up to five users costs f720.00. For each additional user add an extra f45 per user.

‘Recent changes to the law mean that many professionals interviewing children who may be witnesses in criminal cases will be required to have a basic working knowledge of the rules of evidence. This programme is designed to teach those rules in a straightforward and non-technical way’-thus this pack is introduced in the accompanying flyer.

The intended audience for the pack is described as ‘profes- sionals in different disciplines working with children in criminal cases’, but could loosely be divided into a legal group for whom the references to authorities, i.e. cases and statutes, would be useful and a non-legal group for whom the explanations of rules of evidence backed up by reference to research would be more relevant. Within the non-legal group of professionals, i t would be of most value to those directly involved in the interviewing and preparation of child witnesses in child protection cases, such as social workers, police officers and others, for example those who may be involved in interviewing children with disabilities. In this respect it is aimed at those with a specialist role and who therefore have basic knowledge and understanding of the child protection system and the courtroom and legal system pertaining to the interviewing and presentation of evidence of child witnesses. The material in this pack relates only to the law in England and Wales.

The stated aim and purpose of the pack is to ‘familiarise the learner with recent changes made to two sets of legal rules:

(i) the rules regarding the competence of children as witnesses (ii) the rules regarding the manner in which the evidence of

children is presented to court.’

As the rules have changed so significantly as a result of the Criminal Justice Acts of 1988, 1991, 1994, the pack seeks to explain the changes simply and concisely as well as to enable the learner to make comparisons with the former requirements regarding child evidence in criminal proceedings.

Three subjects are covered:

(i) the competence of child witnesses (ii) the admissibility of video-recorded interviews (iii) the Home Office Memorandum of Good Practice

Structure, Format and Methods of Learning

The pack is computer based and comprises an AS-sized, triple ring-binder manual of support text, which is described as ‘free

Review of Training Materials

‘The intended audience is professionals in dtxerent disciplines working with children in criminal cases’

‘The pack seeks to explain the changes simply and concisely’

@ 1996 by John Wiley 8 Sons, Ltd

138

I

Review of Training Materials

standing’, and four installation disks with accompanying loading instructions. I found the disk instructions simple and easy to follow and was ready to start the programme within 20 minutes. Visually, the text and graphics are pleasing to the eye and extremely clear. There is direct access to support appendices such as Glossary, Research, the Memorandum and Authorities (cases and statutes) and I found these enormously helpful in providing instant back-up information.

There is an opportunity for review of the material at the end of each section and a daunting set of questions to test your learning at the end of each module. These have the desired effect of immediately focusing the mind on the previous module and applying the learning to different scenarios, followed by either feeling ridiculously pleased with oneself or shamefaced at one’s ignorance. However, I was shocked at the end of the programme to be faced with my score, followed by the information that my score was being filed and ‘saved to disc’!

A case study was used in order to give meaning and relevance to the complexity of the legal terminology and concepts and this, plus other examples, helped to bring the material to life and place it in a familiar context. Some of the more confusing rules such as the distinction between ‘hearsay’ and ‘prompt complaints’ were explained extremely well, as was the ‘competence rule’. Occa- sionally current dilemmas posed by the system as it stands were explained and there were helpful hints about the pros and cons of video-presented evidence to judges and juries, such as the loss of the visual impact of a child’s vulnerability by displaying only the head and shoulders during interview. This, and other aspects of the process, could be usefully heeded by those planning an interview in order to take account of possible disadvantages to the child.

The material on the Memorandum was easily digestible, although I wanted a copy of the Guidance alongside the pro- gramme. It tended to assume a familiarity with the Memorandum that I was comfortable with, but others may be less familiar and some advice of preparation would have helped.

My main disappointment was the scant attention paid to interviewing children without speech, with physical or mental impairments or with other linguistic differences. The important work that has been done to help disabled children gain access to the child protection process (Marchant and Page, 1994; Cross, Gordon, Kennedy and Marchant, 1994), while working within the constraints of a Memorandum designed for non-disabled children, has mostly been ignored in this material other than by pointing out that on occasions a leading question can be used where a child has, for example, learning difficulties. Some expansion on ‘com- municating in a way that the child can understand’ may have given professional workers the confidence to go ahead and try to enable disabled children to tell their story in the same way they are encouraged to interview non-disabled children. The examples given of a form of words that might be used in interviewing which would be acceptable to a court were good and I would have liked more of this helpful material.

Addressing issues of equal opportunity for children going through this process was largely ignored. It may be this pack is

‘A daunting set of questions to test your learning at the end of each module’

‘Constraints of a Memorandum designed for non- disabled children, has mostly been ignored’

Review of Training Materials 139

not the place to examine some of the cultural or gender obstacles that can face children during the interview process; nevertheless, I felt that some prompts or triggers to good practice did have a place in this pack, particularly as it excelled in reducing potentially confusing and complicated material to an accessible and digestible form, without becoming lengthy or tautological.

The actual computer program took me about 3 hours to complete bearing in mind that I was examining it for review purposes and exploring most of the support material. I under- stand that the expected average learning time is about half a day, depending on individual needs and individual styles and pace. The support booklet is an excellent reference document and condenses this complex area of learning into a clear and under- standable reader. It would be useful for individuals or teams as a free-standing reader, although enormous benefit would be gained by having the computer program as well.

Summary and Recommendations

To summarize, I found that the pack lived up to its promise of teaching the relevant rules of evidence in a straightforward and non-technical way. While I am less qualified to comment on its relevance for legal professionals, I do believe that social workers, police officers and others involved in the process of interviewing and/or preparing children and young people who may be witnesses in criminal cases would find this material extremely useful and informative. Obviously it cannot stand alone, and the necessary knowledge and skill required in this area should also be supported by live training opportunities that would address the other important areas such as joint working, working with interpreters, interviewing a child with speech or linguistic differences and the barriers to ‘telling’ associated with race, gender and culture. The pack would be an excellent adjunct to joint police and social worker training.

It would also be a invaluable resource for child protection workers from a variety of disciplines who may be involved in preparing a child as a witness and would be a further resource to the Child Witness Pack (Plomikoff, 1994). I would recommend this pack to both trainers and practitioners. The price may be prohibitive and obviously also requires the appropriate hardware. However, the single-user licence would mean that a joint interviewing team, or separate police/social worker teams, would have an up-to-date, accessible and informative resource to hand. In improving our own knowledge and practice, we will surely prepare children more carefully and sensitively.

Rosemary Gordon N S P C C National Training

Cj Deuelopmenr Oficer- Child Protection Leicester

‘The support booklet is an excellent reference document’

‘ The pack would be an excellent adjunct to joint police and social worker training’

140 Review of Training Materials

I References Cross, Gordon, Kennedy and Marchant (1994). ABCD-Abuse and

Children who are Disabled. DOH and ABCD Consortium, London.

Marchant and Page (1994). Bridging the Gap. Ptotnikoff, J. (1995). The Chifd Witness Pack. NSPCC/Childline,

London.