A ‘Special’ Delivery? Exploring the Impact of Screens, Live-Links and Video-Recorded Evidence on Mock Juror Deliberation in Rape Trials
| Author | Louise Ellison,Vanessa E Munro |
| Date | 01 March 2014 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0964663913496676 |
| Published date | 01 March 2014 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Article
A ‘Special’ Delivery?
Exploring the Impact
of Screens, Live-Links
and Video-Recorded
Evidence on Mock
Juror Deliberation
in Rape Trials
Louise Ellison
University of Leeds, UK
Vanessa E Munro
University of Nottingham, UK
Abstract
This article discusses the findings ofa study in which 160 volunteer membersof the public
observed one of four mini rape trial reconstructions and were asked to deliberate as a
group towardsa verdict. In a context in which research into the substantive content of the
deliberations of real jurors is prohibited by the Contempt of Court Act 1981, these dis-
cussions were analysed to assess whether, and in what ways, perceptions of adult rape
testimony are influenced by different modes of presentation. While lawyers and other
observers have speculated about the possible undue effects of alternative trial arrange-
ments on juror perceptions and the evaluation of evidence in rape trials, the issue has
received scant empirical attention. In an effort to bridge this knowledge gap, this study
investigated the influence upon mock jurors of three special measures currently made
available in England and W ales to adult sexual offence complainants b y the YouthJustice and
Criminal Evidence Act 1999, namely (1) live-links; (2) video-recorded evidence-in-chief
followed by live-link cross-examination and (3) protective screens. Followinga careful and
contextual exploration of the content of the mock juries’ deliberations, the researchers
Corresponding author:
Vanessa E Munro, School of Law, University of Nottingham, Nottingham NG7 2RD, UK.
Email: vanessa.munro@nottingham.ac.uk
Social & Legal Studies
2014, Vol. 23(1) 3–29
ªThe Author(s) 2013
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0964663913496676
sls.sagepub.com
conclude that there was no clear or consistent impact as a result of these divergent
presentation modes, suggesting that concerns over the use of special measures by adult
rape complainants (at least in terms of juror influence) may be overstated.
Keywords
Evidence, juries, rape trials, special measures, vulnerable witnesses
In England and Wales, in accordance with the adversarial principle of orality, witnesses
in criminal proceedings are generally required to give evidence ‘live’ in open court. It is,
nevertheless, now widely accepted that this obligation can place onerous demands on
witnesses and is a source of considerable stress for many, and militates against receipt
of the best evidence potentially available in some cases (see Ellison, 2001; Spencer and
Flin, 1993). For rape complainants, the process of testifying can be a particularly harrow-
ing ordeal, given the intimate nature of the offence and the consequent need to recount
explicit sexual details in a public arena in the presence of an alleged assailant. Indeed, in
a context in which there is long-standing and ongoing concern about the levels of report-
ing of, and successful prosecution in, rape cases (HMCPSI/HMIC, 2007; Stern, 2010),
some rape complainants have described their experiences in court as being tantamount
to a ‘second assault’ (Lees, 1996; Victim Support, 1996).
The special measures provisions of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999
were introduced to ameliorate some of the difficulties associated with giving oral evi-
dence by granting ‘vulnerable’ and ‘intimidated’ witnesses (including adult sexual
offence complainants) the use of alternative trial arrangements, in situations where
courts are satisfied that this will maximise the quality of a witness’s testimony. Previ-
ously reserved for child witnesses, there are a wide variety of modifying measures that
can be invoked to insulate witnesses from recognised court-related stressors. These range
from the removal of wigs and gowns by legal counsel and judges to the erection of
temporary screens around the witness box to shield witnesses from the potentially
intimidating gaze of the defendant, or the use of live-links to allow a witness to give evi-
dence from a room remote from the main courtroom in a comparatively informal, relaxed
environment (whilst remaining visible and audible to those in court). Special measures
can also be used, in appropriate cases, to mitigate the known deleterious effects of
lengthy trial delays on the ability of witnesses to provide effective and reliable testimony
in criminal proceedings, for example, through the admission of video-recordings of
pre-trial witness interviews in place of evidence-in-chief at trial.
Previous research has identified a generally high level of appreciation of the protec-
tion afforded by these alternative trial arrangements amongst victims and witnesses.
Hamlyn et al. (2004), for example, found that vast proportions of witnesses (including
sexual offence complainants) who had used special measures found them helpful.
Indeed, one third of those surveyed indicated that special measures had enabled them
to give evidence that they would not otherwise have been willing or able to give, with
this figure rising to 44%for sexual offence complainants (Burton et al., 2007; Hamlyn
et al., 2004). At the same time, however, substantial concerns have been raised regarding
4Social & Legal Studies 23(1)
To continue reading
Request your trial