Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Judicial intervention in court cases involving ...
View graph of relations

Judicial intervention in court cases involving witnesses with and without learning disabilities

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articlepeer-review

Published

Standard

Judicial intervention in court cases involving witnesses with and without learning disabilities. / O'Kelly, C M E ; Kebbell, M R ; Hatton, C ; Johnson, S D .

In: Legal and Criminological Psychology, Vol. 8, 09.2003, p. 229-240.

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articlepeer-review

Harvard

O'Kelly, CME, Kebbell, MR, Hatton, C & Johnson, SD 2003, 'Judicial intervention in court cases involving witnesses with and without learning disabilities', Legal and Criminological Psychology, vol. 8, pp. 229-240.

APA

O'Kelly, C. M. E., Kebbell, M. R., Hatton, C., & Johnson, S. D. (2003). Judicial intervention in court cases involving witnesses with and without learning disabilities. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 8, 229-240.

Vancouver

O'Kelly CME, Kebbell MR, Hatton C, Johnson SD. Judicial intervention in court cases involving witnesses with and without learning disabilities. Legal and Criminological Psychology. 2003 Sep;8:229-240.

Author

O'Kelly, C M E ; Kebbell, M R ; Hatton, C ; Johnson, S D . / Judicial intervention in court cases involving witnesses with and without learning disabilities. In: Legal and Criminological Psychology. 2003 ; Vol. 8. pp. 229-240.

Bibtex

@article{8816ed8a432b4075b3739ef0930bcea1,
title = "Judicial intervention in court cases involving witnesses with and without learning disabilities",
abstract = "Purpose. This paper outlines the extent and nature of judicial interventions in court cases involving witnesses with learning disabilities and from the general population.Method. Court transcripts, mainly concerning serious sexual crime, were obtained from a total of 32 witnesses, 16 involving people with learning disabilities and 16 involving people from the general population. Each intervention made by a judge was documented and coded into one of three categories: interactions with witnesses, interactions with lawyers, and interactions with the jury.Results. No significant differences were found between the judicial treatment of witnesses with learning disabilities and those from the general population. In particular, judges did not intervene more frequently to simplify lawyers' questions, call breaks, suggest methods by which a witness could reply, ask lawyers to simplify their questions, prevent oppression of the witness and move the lawyer on, and ensure the witness could understand the question.Conclusions. The implications of the findings are that judges should intervene, as they are legally entitled, to ensure that witnesses with and without learning disabilities give the most complete and accurate evidence possible.",
keywords = "MENTAL-RETARDATION, CONFIDENCE, QUESTIONS, ACCURACY, PEOPLE, ADULTS",
author = "O'Kelly, {C M E} and Kebbell, {M R} and C Hatton and Johnson, {S D}",
year = "2003",
month = sep,
language = "English",
volume = "8",
pages = "229--240",
journal = "Legal and Criminological Psychology",
issn = "1355-3259",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Judicial intervention in court cases involving witnesses with and without learning disabilities

AU - O'Kelly, C M E

AU - Kebbell, M R

AU - Hatton, C

AU - Johnson, S D

PY - 2003/9

Y1 - 2003/9

N2 - Purpose. This paper outlines the extent and nature of judicial interventions in court cases involving witnesses with learning disabilities and from the general population.Method. Court transcripts, mainly concerning serious sexual crime, were obtained from a total of 32 witnesses, 16 involving people with learning disabilities and 16 involving people from the general population. Each intervention made by a judge was documented and coded into one of three categories: interactions with witnesses, interactions with lawyers, and interactions with the jury.Results. No significant differences were found between the judicial treatment of witnesses with learning disabilities and those from the general population. In particular, judges did not intervene more frequently to simplify lawyers' questions, call breaks, suggest methods by which a witness could reply, ask lawyers to simplify their questions, prevent oppression of the witness and move the lawyer on, and ensure the witness could understand the question.Conclusions. The implications of the findings are that judges should intervene, as they are legally entitled, to ensure that witnesses with and without learning disabilities give the most complete and accurate evidence possible.

AB - Purpose. This paper outlines the extent and nature of judicial interventions in court cases involving witnesses with learning disabilities and from the general population.Method. Court transcripts, mainly concerning serious sexual crime, were obtained from a total of 32 witnesses, 16 involving people with learning disabilities and 16 involving people from the general population. Each intervention made by a judge was documented and coded into one of three categories: interactions with witnesses, interactions with lawyers, and interactions with the jury.Results. No significant differences were found between the judicial treatment of witnesses with learning disabilities and those from the general population. In particular, judges did not intervene more frequently to simplify lawyers' questions, call breaks, suggest methods by which a witness could reply, ask lawyers to simplify their questions, prevent oppression of the witness and move the lawyer on, and ensure the witness could understand the question.Conclusions. The implications of the findings are that judges should intervene, as they are legally entitled, to ensure that witnesses with and without learning disabilities give the most complete and accurate evidence possible.

KW - MENTAL-RETARDATION

KW - CONFIDENCE

KW - QUESTIONS

KW - ACCURACY

KW - PEOPLE

KW - ADULTS

M3 - Journal article

VL - 8

SP - 229

EP - 240

JO - Legal and Criminological Psychology

JF - Legal and Criminological Psychology

SN - 1355-3259

ER -