CHILDREN SHOULD BE SEEN AND HEARD

As I watched the documentary on Baby P last week I could not help but think again of how we as a society had failed him.  Children inevitably rely on others to protect them and yet in the middle of what we pride ourselves in calling civilised society he suffered such brutal injuries and an untimely death.  While the debate rumbles on about who exactly was to blame it occurred to me that we all are.  At least everyone knows about Baby P now.  We know that he was Peter Connolly with blonde hair and piercing blue eyes, who was so young that he could never have done anything wrong in the world and yet so many wrongs were visited upon him.  As a result of his story things have changed.  How social workers and courts approach these cases has been under scrutiny and we hope that the system that failed him so badly has improved. 

Baby P was not alone however.  In fact he had siblings and what people are not perhaps so aware of is that the same man who was accused of causing or allowing the death of Baby P was also convicted of the rape of a child – Peter’s little sister who was only three years old at the time.  It made me think about how that conviction came about because the complainant had to give evidence when just over four years of age.  I suppose you could argue that communication is key to what I do on a daily basis and I wondered how she managed to communicate in that often frightening, formal and adult world of court.

Perhaps that case was not so prominent because when Mr. Barker was tried he was tried under a pseudonym to protect him against bias.  He appealed his first conviction arguing that the evidence of a child so young was not good enough.  However, the right for a child to be heard in judicial proceedings has been recognised internationally.  Indeed it used to be thought that it was ridiculous to rely on the evidence of such a young child but that trend has changed.  Mr. Barker failed in his appeal with the former Lord Chief Justice for England and Wales describing the four and a half year old as a “competent and compelling” witness.    Just as her brother’s case brought about change so did her case in terms of how a vulnerable child should be questioned in court.  It must be borne in mind that for many vulnerable people that are in the court process it can be extremely overwhelming with support and protection being needed.

Of course children and young people are not the only vulnerable people to come into contact with the court process.  There are people with different vulnerabilities for whom going to court is extremely difficult.  A recent survey carried out by Queen’s University found that 80% of people were aware of autism and that over 50% knew someone well who had been diagnosed with autism.   People attend court with various challenges, hearing, speech and language difficulties, autism, mental health issues and learning disabilities on a daily basis.  All of them are expected to cope in this sophisticated world where so much turns on the interpretation of language.  It was therefore with interest that I read that the Department of Justice has launched a “registered intermediary” scheme. (A similar scheme has been running in England and Wales for a decade.)   The function of an intermediary is to communicate - (a) to the witness, questions put to the witness, and (b) to any person asking such questions, the answers given by the witness in reply to them and to explain such questions or answers so far as necessary to enable them to be understood by the witness or person in question.  They are to facilitate two-way communication in a neutral way. They are to ensure that the communication is as complete, coherent and accurate as possible and their duty is to the court.  They are not expert witnesses, investigators, advocates, appropriate adults, interpreters or supporters. 

It is a pilot scheme which I presume will be reviewed to measure its success.  There are bound to be teething problems not least for the lawyers who have now an additional layer of communication to deal with.  The process previously involved asking questions of a witness for the benefit of the judge but now those questions may have to be filtered through a registered intermediary.  It seems that lawyers are acutely aware of the importance of balancing the needs of the vulnerable witness and the right to a fair trial.  A significant event is taking place on 12 November at Queens University entitled the Vulnerable Witness Conference vulnerablewitnessconference@qub.ac.uk which will be addressed by, amongst others, the Lord Chief Justice and a Senior Government official and has representation from prosecutors, defence lawyers, family lawyers, child specialists,  judiciary, mental health agencies, government, registered intermediaries, academics, autism society, speech and learning experts, hearing charities and many more.

There has been much written and said about the budget in recent weeks and we all know cuts are coming.  However, wouldn’t it be a shame that just as we are about to provide more support within the court system for the vulnerable in our society, be they children or adults, that this opportunity is taken away.  For the sake of all our children and in the memory of Baby P, his little sister and others let’s hope it is not.

Claire Aiken is Managing Director of Belfast and Dublin based public relations and public affairs agency, Aiken PR.