Access to justice for child witnesses on the autism spectrum. Lucy Henry, Laura Crane and Rachel Wilcock

Transcription

1 Access to justice for child witnesses on the autism spectrum Lucy Henry, Laura Crane and Rachel Wilcock 1

2 Background to the project A small but growing literature indicates that children on the autism spectrum remember less about witnessed events (e.g., Bruck, London, Landa, & Goodman, 2007; Goddard, Dritschel, Robinson, & Howlin, 2014; Mattison, Dando, & Ormerod, 2015, 2016; McCrory, Henry, & Happé, 2007; Millward, Powell, Messer, & Jordan, 2000). These findings, coupled with general difficulties in social interaction and communication (American Psychiatric Association, 2013), may lead to concerns about their reliability as eyewitnesses. However, children on the autism spectrum are not more suggestible or less accurate compared to typical children (Bruck et al., 2007; McCrory et al., 2007), although accuracy can vary with interview type (Mattison et al., 2015, 2016). 2

3 Aims of the project This project assessed how children (6-11 years) with and without autism fared across all the different stages of a criminal investigation. We also assessed whether we could improve witness performance using varying interview techniques. Phases of the study: Initial statement Investigative (ABE) interview Identifying perpetrators Cross-examination Juror perceptions of credibility 3

4 Structure of the project We attempted to replicate a real criminal investigation as closely as possible, but, importantly, used an experimental method. This has advantages (e.g., we could control exactly what the children witnessed, we knew the truth ) and disadvantages (e.g., ethically, we could not ask them to do anything stressful, upsetting or unfamiliar, so the event was very mild and took place in familiar surroundings). 4

5 Structure of the project Samples of 199 typically developing children; and 71 children with an autism diagnosis from a clinical professional confirmed by school and/or parents. All had IQs in the borderline to typical range (70 and above). Age 6-11 years when recruited. We were very careful to control or match the samples on key variables (IQ, age) and to note differences on other variables and match where possible (language, memory, attention). 5

6 Stage 1 Event and evidence gathering statements Children watched a live event (during school assembly) or a video (presented on a laptop) of two people giving a talk about what school was like a long time ago (educational content, but included a minor crime involving a phone/keys). Immediately after viewing the talk, the children were given brief openended questioning about what they saw (as per a first response police officer taking an initial statement). 6

7 Stage 2 Investigative Interviews Aim: Could we increase recall without increasing errors using variations on a best practice police interview? One week later, children were given a full investigative interview using one of four different techniques. All interviewers were fully trained (Met Police training). One quarter (approx.) of children from each sample were semi-randomly allocated to each interview condition. 7

8 Stage 2 Types of interviews: 1/ Best-practice Achieving Best Evidence (ABE) police interview. After introductions, rapport building and a truth and lies exercise, this interview focused on free recall and follow up open-ended questions. 8

9 Stage 2 2/ Verbal labels interview: This was the best-practice ABE interview plus four additional open prompts for further recall about different aspects of the event (e.g., the people, the setting, actions and objects, conversations). The method was adapted from previous research by Brown and Pipe (2003). People Setting Actions/Objects Conversations 9

10 Stage 2 3/ Sketch reinstatement of context (Sketch-RC) interview: This was the best-practice ABE interview however, before the interview, children drew a detailed sketch of the event, including as much detail as they wished, describing each element as they drew it. The sketch remained visible to the child throughout the interview. We based this interview on a method of context reinstatement adapted from Dando et al. (2009) and shown to improve accuracy in children with autism (Mattison et al., 2015, 2016). 10

11 Stage 2 4/ Registered Intermediary (RI) interview: One of two RIs conducted assessments of each child (mainly language and communication based) before the interview/s and advised interviewers (and later barristers) how best to elicit evidence. We had a panel of four RIs to develop the study protocols. The RIs were present for all interviews and aided the child in understanding and responding to questions posed at each different stage of our study. We tried to make the procedure as similar to a real case as possible within the constraints of an experimental study. 11

12 Stage 3 Identification parade Immediately following the investigative interview, children were asked to identify the actors that appeared in the scene from 9- person video lineups, akin to those used by Police forces in England and Wales (produced by the Metropolitan Police). We used the standard PACE Code D police method in all interview conditions except the RI interview here the RI adapted the instructions to make them easier for children. 12

13 Stage 4 Cross-examination Approximately one year later, an experienced barrister questioned many of the children about what they saw during the talk (typical n = 176; autism n = 29 for a preliminary exploration of performance). Simulated live television link - barristers communicated with the children via Skype. A member of our team was with the child while the barrister cross-examined their evidence. In the RI condition, all children were reassessed prior to cross-examinations, recommendations were given to the barristers and questions vetted. The RI was also present to support communication during cross-examination. 13

14 Stage 5 Jurors perceptions of child witnesses A group of 120 mock jurors (adults years eligible for jury service) evaluated two videos of children on the autism spectrum and rated how credible they thought the children s testimony was. This is important as, irrespective of whether the child s testimony is highly accurate and comprehensive, if the jury do not find the child credible, there will be no conviction.

15 Results An overview of the findings 15

16 Stage 1: Giving an initial statement Children with autism provided less information than their typically developing peers, but the information they recalled was just as accurate. This replicates previous research where difficulties with volume (but not necessarily accuracy) of recall have been noted (Bruck et al., 2007; Mattison et al., 2016; McCrory et al., 2007). 16

17 Stage 2: At investigative interview (Henry et al., 2017, JADD) For typical children, two interview interventions significantly improved volume of correct recall (provision of a Registered Intermediary and Verbal Labels). These improvements were largest for the RI interviews - on average a 60% increase in number of correct items recalled in RI interviews compared to Best-Practice interviews. There were no increases in errors for RI interviews, but a small increase in errors (confabulations) occurred for Verbal Labels interviews 17

18 Stage 2: At investigative interview (Henry et al., 2017, JADD) For children with autism, results were not clear cut regarding the effectiveness of the interview interventions. We could not determine the most effective interview intervention. When we compared children with and without autism directly, there were no differences in the volume or accuracy of information remembered for three types of interviews (Best-Practice, Verbal Labels, Sketch-RC). However, in RI interviews, typical children recalled significantly more information than autistic children. Note that interview interventions that work well for typical adults are not always effective for those on the autism spectrum (e.g., Maras & Bowler, 2010; Maras et al., 2014). 18

19 Stage 3: Identification performance Typical children in our RI interviews were significantly better at identifying the actors than those in the Best-Practice interview. This was most striking in perpetrator present lineups: there was 92% identification accuracy in RI adapted interviews; versus 52% identification accuracy in Best-Practice interviews. Results showed equivalent performance levels between children with and without autism (matched on age and IQ) in some lineups but not others (but these are preliminary results). 19

20 Stage 4: Cross-examination A high percentage of all children (~95%) ceded at least once (from 7 attempts) to barrister challenges about their evidence. Typical children ceded less to barrister challenges in the RI condition. Children with autism did not appear to cede more than typically developing children of equivalent age and IQ. But these are very preliminary findings! 20

21 Stage 5: Juror perceptions We showed mock jurors videos of two autistic children in an investigative interview. Perceptions of credibility changed for one child depending on the type of information jurors were told (higher ratings if: told the child had autism + given information about autism). Perceptions did not change for the other child. Suggests that care needs to be taken re: the information juries are told about autism. Need to personalise information to the specific witness/defendant, rather than give generic information about autism.

22 Implications for the CJS Children on the autism spectrum can be considered reliable witnesses they performed as well as typical children (of the same age and cognitive ability) in several phases of our mock criminal investigation. However, autistic children recalled less information in the initial statement phase of the study. Further, unlike typical children, they did not in this study benefit in terms of volume of recall from RIs. It is very important to emphasise that child witnesses with autism are unlikely to give evidence at all in real cases without RI support (we were unable to test the wider supportive role of RIs in our study). We need more work on how to elicit best evidence from child witnesses with autism. Do we also need to vary the witnessed events (e.g., prominence of verbal versus visual/spatial detail), and the level of RI input? For typical children, RI interviews improved volume of recall, identification performance and resistance to cross-examination challenges. Supports the use of RIs in the CJS.

23 For further information see our website 23