<p>The history of the treatment of child witnesses in the criminal courts is one of the least attractive aspects of the adversarial process. This volume of essays, edited by two highly regarded academics, provides a detailed analysis of the path towards reform in common law jurisdictions, as well as a valuable comparison of the way that child witnesses are managed in two civilian systems, those of Norway and Austria. The book is wholeheartedly critical of the approach and practices associated with the adversarial process. Its essential argument is that the “adversarial package”, as Spencer describes it, is not a suitable mechanism for obtaining accurate or reliable evidence, in particular from young children, and in the wrong hands, the examination method is potentially abusive.</p>
<p>John Spencer's introductory chapter sets the tone, with a highly critical and elegant analysis of the impact on children of the adversarial process. Importantly, the case he sets out focuses less on the emotionally damaging impact on children of certain adversarial practices, of which there are legion reports in the media and in the psychology literature, and more on the flawed outcomes in law that such practices tend to produce. Given the history of incremental reform which the contributors to this volume recount, and the critical stance they adopt to the status quo, the further changes which they advocate clearly require a persuasive intellectual argument that the current system simply does not achieve what it is intended to do.</p>
<p>Collectively the contributors expose the irony of a system that adopts methods which by their very nature defeat their own purpose. Thus they argue that cross-examination of children is more likely to introduce error, generate confusion and produce unreliable evidence, than it is to reveal the ‘truth’. A cynic might observe that was the intention. But assuming the goal of ABE (Achieving Best Evidence) is a policy all right-minded practitioners would accept, then we should have nothing to do with practices which tend to result in error, confusion and unreliability. There are however some success stories. For example, the use of CCTV has significantly reduced the number of trials that collapse because the child witnesses are unable to give their evidence coherently. Moreover, despite initial opposition, research suggests that most practitioners and judges now acknowledge that the introduction of intermediaries, to ensure the questions asked of children are...</p>
