An examination of implementation of special measures in child sexual assault trials and the problems that arise

ABSTRACT

Giving evidence from the witness stand is often distressing for complainants of child sexual abuse. Technology-based special measures (eg, CCTV/AV link) enable complainants to give evidence from a location outside the courtroom, making the process less intimidating for complainants, which in turn enhances the quality of their evidence. Although the implementation of these measures has increased in prevalence over the preceding decades, little is known about the frequency and nature of problems that arise when special measures are utilised. In this study, we systematically coded transcripts from Australian child sexual assault trials to examine how (if at all) the implementation of special measures varied across child, adolescent and adult complainants. We also explored how often problems arose when special measures were used, and the nature of these problems. Our findings revealed that technology-based measures were regularly used for complainants in all age groups, but problems using these measures arose in the majority of trials. These results highlight the need for adequate training of professionals who are involved in operating special measures, as well as the need to outfit courts with appropriate equipment and facilities.

KEYWORDS:

• child sexual assault
• special measures
• technological complications

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge Dr Rhiannon Fogliati for her assistance with coding and preliminary data analysis.

Disclosure statement

The authors report there are no competing interests to declare.

Notes

2 Fisher’s exact test was used when the observed count in some cells was too low to use the Chi-square test of significant difference.

3 The way that child, adolescent and adult complainants gave evidence across jurisdictions was significantly different, during both evidence-in-chief and cross-examination (all ps < .001). These differences did not affect the conclusions of this study because no systematic pattern emerged. Analyses are collapsed across jurisdiction. Readers interested in jurisdictional differences can contact the authors to obtain a copy of these results.

4 The frequency of problems was similar across jurisdictions (all ps > .06), so analyses are collapsed across jurisdiction.

5 The exact date of the trial was missing for 10 of 108 complainants. Analyses were performed on data where the exact trial date was known.

6 The exact date of the trial was missing for 4 of 139 complainants. Analyses were performed on trials where the exact date was known.

7 The exact date of the trial was missing for 10 of 53 complainants. Analyses were performed on trials where the exact date was known.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by a grant ‘An Evaluation of How Evidence is Elicited from Complainants of Child Sexual Abuse’ from the Australian Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse . [Grant Number Grant awarded to Martine B. Powell, Jane Goodman-Delahunty and Nina Westera].