Rachel Wilcock Laura Crane and Lucy Henry 1 Todays Talk What is Autism Our project Implications for the Criminal Justice System Prevalence of autism No longer a rare condition Latest estimates are that it affects 1 in 100 people over 700000 people in the UK ID: 1038047
Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "The Performance of Child Witnesses With ..." is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
1. The Performance of Child Witnesses With and Without AutismRachel Wilcock, Laura Crane and Lucy Henry 1
2. Today’s TalkWhat is AutismOur projectImplications for the Criminal Justice System
3. Prevalence of autismNo longer a rare conditionLatest estimates are that it affects 1 in 100 people – over 700,000 people in the UK
4. Detecting autismHow do we know if someone is on the autism spectrum?Unfortunately, this is not that easy!
5. Detecting autism…not that easy!No characteristic appearance (a hidden condition)No definite diagnostic test (diagnosis based on clinical judgement)Unlike other conditions such as Downs syndrome
6. How do you know someone is on the autism spectrum?Someone needs to disclose the conditionNot always willing to do so
7. How do we talk about autism?Autistic child/adult?Child/adult with autism?Child/adult on the autism spectrum?Condition/Disorder?NAS guidelines recommend that you ask the individual how they prefer to talk about their autism.
8. What are the key symptoms?Problems with social reciprocityPoor behavioural flexibilityProblems with language and communicationThe social symptomsThe non-socialsymptoms
9. Problems with social reciprocityAtypical use of eye gaze and gestureDifficulties developing relationshipsLimited social/emotional understanding
10. Problems with communicationLanguage delayLiteral understandingRepetitive language (echolalia)Conversation often one-sided and awkward
11. Poor behavioural flexibilityPreoccupations and obsessional interestsPreferences for routinesMotor mannerismsSelf-harming behavioursUnusual sensory sensitivities
12. Autism spectrum conditionWide variability in the presentation of autismSymptom severityBehavioural problemsComorbidityAssociated language/intellectual impairments
13. Asperger syndromeRemoved from DSM-5Often described as ‘mild autism’Actually, the key distinction between ‘high-functioning autism’ and ‘Asperger syndrome’ is to do with language
14. Autism spectrum conditionThere is wide variability in how autism presents itself in each person“Once you’ve met one person with autism…you’ve met one person with autism”
15. Access to Justice for Children with Autismwww.childwitnesses.com
16. Aims of the projectHow do children (6-11 years) with and without autism fare across all different stages of a criminal investigation?Initial statementInvestigative (ABE) interviewIdentifying perpetratorsCross-examination
17. Structure of the projectWe 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 or upsetting, so the event was very mild). 17
18. Structure of the projectSamples of 199 typically developing children (and 71 children with an autism diagnosis).All children had IQs in the borderline to typical range (70 and above). All were age 6-11 years when recruited.We were very careful to control or match the samples on key variables (IQ, age, language, memory, attention).18
19. Stage 1Event and evidence gathering statementsChildren watched a live event (during school assembly) or a video (presented on a laptop) of two people (both young males) 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 ‘open-ended’ questioning about what they saw (as per a response police officer taking an initial statement).19
20. Stage 2Investigative InterviewsAim: Could we improve volume of 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 were semi-randomly allocated to each interview condition. 20
21. Stage 2 Types of interviews: 1/ Best-practice 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 according to usual best-practice. 21
22. 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). PeopleSettingActions/ObjectsConversations22
23. 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, and we based this interview on a method adapted from Dando et al. (2009). 23
24. Stage 2 4/ Registered Intermediary interview: Intermediaries (we had a team of two experienced intermediaries, plus a panel of four intermediaries to develop the study protocols) 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. The intermediaries were present for all interviews and aided the child in understanding and responding to all 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. 24
25. Stage 3Identification paradeImmediately following the investigative interview, children were asked to identify the two actors that appeared in the ‘scene’ from 9-person video line-ups, 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 intermediary interviewIn the intermediary adapted the instructions [e.g., using simultaneous (following the sequential) lineup presentation, plus the simplification of the instructions and procedures (e.g., the option of visual responding)]. 25
26. Stage 4Cross-examinationApproximately one year later, an experienced barrister questioned many of the children about what they saw during the talk. We simulated the live television link by having barristers communicate with the children via Skype. A member of our team was with the child while the barrister cross-examined their evidence. In the intermediary condition, all children were reassessed prior to cross-examinations, recommendations were given to the barristers and questions vetted. The intermediary was also present to assist communication during cross-examination. 26
27. Stage 5Jurors’ perceptions of child witnessesA group of ‘jurors’ (adults 18-69 years eligible for jury service) evaluated some of the videos of the children 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.
28. Results
29. Stage 1: Giving an initial statement…Autistic children recalled less total information than their typically developing peers, but the information they provided was no less accurate.Problem = free recallSolution = non-leading cued recall
30. Stage 2: At investigative interview…Autistic children were as accurate in what they recalled as their typically developing peers.For non-autistic children, two interview interventions improved recall (particularly, provision of a Registered Intermediary and to a lesser extent Verbal Labels). For autistic children, results were not as clear cut regarding the effectiveness of interview interventions.
31. Stage 2: At investigative interview…When we compared autistic and non-autistic children’s performance on three of our interview types (best practice ABE police interview, Verbal Labels, Sketch Plan), there were no differences in the amount remembered. However, autistic children did not show the boost to recall in the RI interview that typical children did. Similar evidence in the adult literature - interventions that work well for typical individuals do not always ‘work’ for those with autism (Maras & Bowler, 2010; Maras, Mulcahy, Memon, Picariello & Bowler 2014)
32. Stage 3: Identification performance…Results showed equivalent performance levels between children with and without autismFor non-autistic children in the Intermediary condition were more accurate on perpetrator present lineups and somewhat more accurate on perpetrator absent lineups compared to those children viewing a best practice lineup.
33. Stage 4: Cross-examination…A high percentage of all children (95%) ceded to barrister challenges.However, children with autism performed equivalently to typically developing children.Children in the Intermediary condition were much less likely to cede to barrister challenges than children in the Best-Practice condition.
34. Barrister: Okay. And can you remember where you were sitting when you watched the talk?Child: Um…I think I was in the middle. Middle to the front.Barrister: Okay. Do you know how many people were in front of you, how many rows?Child: Um…four or five. Barrister: Four or five. And are you sitting on the floor or on the chair or something else?Child: We sit on the floors.Barrister: Okay. And were you sitting with people from your class?Child: Yeah, um, on assemblies and things, all of the class sit together, so my class will sit together and then another class will sit together in front.
35. Barrister: Okay. And could you see the two men clearly when they were in your hall? Child: Um, it was a little bit hard and you had to sit up straight but if you sat up straight you could see them okay. Barrister: Okay. So are they on the floor or are they on a stage? Child: Um, they were on the floor. Barrister: Oh, okay. So you have to sit up really tall to see them clearly, is that right? Child: Yes. Barrister: Okay, so sometimes if you slouch down with shoulders down it’s not quite as easy to see them? Child: No.
36. Stage 5: Juror perceptions…We showed mock jurors a video of one of two children with autism in an investigative interview. Perceptions of credibility changed depending on the types of information jurors were told about autism and whether the witness had autism.Suggests that care needs to be taken re: the information juries are told about autism.Need to personalise information to the witness/defendant, rather than give generic information about autism.
37. Implications for CJSChildren with autism can be considered reliable witnesses – they performed as well as typical children (of the same age and cognitive ability) in most phases of our mock criminal investigation. However, autistic children, unlike typical children, did not – in this study – benefit from registered intermediaries. They also recalled less information in the ‘initial statement’ phase of the study. We do not yet know how to elicit ‘best evidence’ from autistic witnesses. Need to take care not to generalise (e.g. , applying ‘what works’ for non-autistic witnesses to autistic witnesses)
38. Applying the findings…
39. Applying the findings…www.theadvocatesgateway.org
40. Thank you for listening!rachel.wilcock@winchester.ac.ukHenry, L.A., Crane, L., Nash, G., Hobson, Z., Kirke-Smith, M., & Wilcock, R. (In press). Verbal, visual, and intermediary support for child witnesses with autism during investigative interviews. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders.