Joanne Morrison, PhD Candidate Tizard Centre, University of Kent and Registered Intermediary (Northern Ireland).
Within England and Wales and Northern Ireland a Registered Intermediary (RI) is a person who facilitates two-way communication between a vulnerable witness and any other participants in the criminal justice process in order to ensure that communication with the individual is as complete, coherent and accurate as possible (Department of Justice, 2016b).
The role was first considered in England and Wales in 1998 in the Speaking up for Justice report which led to their introduction into special measure legislation in England, Wales and Northern Ireland in 1999 (Cooper & Mattison, 2017). The first pilot scheme in Northern Ireland started in 2013.
The Northern Ireland Registered Intermediary scheme differs from England and Wales. In England and Wales, suspects and defendants are not eligible for registered intermediary assistance, while in Northern Ireland the legal provision is extended to vulnerable suspects and defendants (Department of Justice, 2015). They are eligible under Articles 21BA and BB of the 1999 Criminal Evidence (NI) Order. They can avail of this service during police questioning and to give oral evidence in court, where it is deemed necessary to ensure that the accused receives a fair trial and if they meet the eligibility criteria, which is:
- If under 18 years old and their ability to give oral evidence is compromised by level of intellectual ability or social functioning.
- If over the age of 18 and have a mental disorder, within the meaning of the Mental Health (NI) Order 1986 or a significant impairment of intelligence or social functioning that would make them unable to participate effectively to give oral evidence in court.
The process of providing communication assistance and advice for the vulnerable accused is the same as for the vulnerable victim or witness. It involves the RI carrying out a communication assessment, providing a verbal or written preliminary report (or a court report for suspects or defendants) to highlight communication difficulties, and advising on the best methods for enhancing communication. The RI is then present during interviews to advise and intervene as necessary.
The following example provides an insight into the functions of the RI role for a vulnerable suspect. To ensure anonymity the suspect is fictional but the interventions of the RI are based on the collective experiences of five RIs.
John is a 28 year old male arrested in the early hours of a Saturday morning under suspicion of causing grevious bodily harm. On arrival at the police station, John was assessed by the Forensic Medical Officer as being under the influence of alcohol and not fit for interview. A number of hours later he was seen again and considered fit for interview. John had met with his solicitor who noticed some confusion with John’s understanding of legal language. An interview commenced. Although willing to talk John was providing very limited responses to questions, the responses given did not seem to fit with each question and sequencing of his account of events was described by the Interviewing Officer (IO) as “all over the place”. The solicitor requested a RI assessment be carried out.
An hour later the RI arrived and an assessment was carried out in the presence of the solicitor. Although not known to the social services learning disability team, John informed the RI that he had struggled in school and left without any qualifications. When asked what school he had attended the RI knew this to be a school for children with learning difficulties and mild learning disabilities. John has two children whom he sees regularly. John has struggled throughout his life to hold down jobs and had not worked for some time due to mental health difficulties. John explains this to be anxiety and depression and he is on medication. He also finds it hard to focus for any length of time. The RI assessment revealed that John has difficulties retaining information and if a question is too long he will only ‘hear’ the first part. He needs extra time to process information, has limited concentration skills, and struggles to verbally sequence events. John can read short sentences of simple vocabulary he is familiar with. John also demonstrated suggestibility to leading questions and an over-compliant willingness to please the questioner.
Following assessment John demonstrated signs of heightened anxiety and a bouncy ball was suggested for his use when waiting in the cell to keep him calm. A short tickbox written timetable was used with John to help explain the process and alleviate anxiety and a stress gauge completed to inform of physical signs when John’s anxiety was reaching a heightened stage when communication ‘shuts down.’
The RI gave oral feedback to the interviewing officers and guidance for best communication with John, which included using short questions and counting to six after a question before repeating, to allow John time to process and respond . The RI also suggested regular breaks from questioning. At the start of the interview, John was given a fidget item to stop him from tapping on the table and enhance concentration.
Following the RI guidance, the IO commenced questioning with “Tell me what happened last night,” then waited, without saying anything more. John gave an account of events. The RI wrote down the key points or main stages of the event John provided, with each point on a separate post-it. Once finished, these were checked with John for accuracy, and he was asked to place each key point along a red line, representing a visual timeline, in the order of how he remembered events happened. When completed John was asked to read each post it and make any changes to the order he wished to make. He added further key points and information when doing so. To ask questions about a key point or to present information to John the IO pointed to the relevant post it and introduced the line of questioning “Now I want to ask you about…”, then continued with more specific and focused questions.
The RI intervened when overtly leading questions were used. When asked “So did he fall forward onto the step then?” John agreed. Following RI intervention this was reworded to “What way did he fall?” John explained that the victim fell sideways against the wall.” Intervention was also required for questions of multiple parts or when complex language was used, and the IO reworded the question or John was asked to give his understanding of the question.
Finally, John was shown CCTV footage where he could clearly be seen on the screen. The IO asked “Can you identify anyone you know here?” John replied “No”. The RI suggested rewording. “Do you recognise anyone in this video?” “No” replied John. The RI suggested “Can you see yourself in this video?” “Oh yes” stated John “There I am there.”
John provided a clear and concise account of his version of events on the night in question.
This account demonstrates the vital difference that an assessment by a RI can make to a vulnerable suspect’s ability to participate in a police interview. Through simple changes to the phrasing of questions and the use of techniques to help a suspect like John to organise his thoughts and accurately convey the events, the police are able to more efficiently conduct interviews in the police station. The absence of statutory provision for RIs in England and Wales to vulnerable suspects and defendants leaves such individuals especially vulnerable in the criminal justice system while also impinging the State’s ability to properly investigate and prosecute alleged criminal acts.
Cooper, P., & Mattison, M. (2017). Intermediaries, vulnerable people and the quality of evidence: An international comparison of three versions of the English intermediary model. International Journal of Evidence & Proof, 21(4), 351–370. Retrieved from http://10.0.4.153/1365712717725534
Department of Justice. (2015). Northern Ireland Registered Intermediaries Scheme Pilot Project. Belfast: Department of Justice.
Department of Justice. (2016). The Registered Intermediaries Procedural Guidance Manual (Northern Ireland) (Vol. 5). Belfast: Department of Justice.
