Search

It is widely assumed in adversarial legal systems that cross-examination is the most effective method to ascertain the truth. However, a growing body of literature demonstrates the efficacy of cross-examination can be negatively impacted by individual differences such as age, and case factors including the delay between witnessing the event in question and testifying at trial. Moreover, the process of cross-examination can be a distressing experience for young witnesses. The introduction of ‘Section 28’ pre-trial cross-examination in courts throughout England and Wales is an attempt to improve the experiences and evidence quality of young witnesses in light of these concerns. This paper presents the views of seven police officers and six charity workers (commissioned through the local Police and Crime Commissioner to provide emotional support to young people affected by crime) who were interviewed prior to the national implementation of the Section 28 scheme for pre-trial cross-examination. It remains the only work that draws on insights from those from the charitable sector who support young witnesses through trial. It also provides more recent insights from police officers on their perspectives of the, then prospective, scheme. Two superordinate themes were identified: (a) the need for careful application, and (b) the impact of Section 28 on defendants. The findings are discussed considering the current literature, and context of the implementation of Section 28 since the study was conducted. Limitations of the research and suggestions for future practice are discussed.

This article examines the purpose behind the provision of special measures—adaptations to courtroom formalities—to vulnerable or intimidated people giving evidence in criminal trials. It shows that fostering the principle of humane treatment and improving evidence quality were the initial motivations underpinning the introduction of special measures. The focus in this article is on the principle of humane treatment, and whether the current provision of special measures successfully fosters it. The article conceptualises the principle of humane treatment so that it can be used as the normative measure against which to evaluate the current provision of special measures to vulnerable witnesses and the accused. It concludes that the solely instrumental legal basis on which special measures are currently available risks insufficiently protecting vulnerable or intimidated participants from the harm and distress that the criminal trial often causes, and that this can amount to inhumane treatment.

This article explores the consequences of unenthusiastic criminal justice reform through the case study of special measures provision in England and Wales. These measures provide assistance to vulnerable people giving evidence in criminal trials. For witnesses other than the accused, the law’s development followed a standard process: public concern; governmental inquiries; legislation; and a period of inception to prepare for its implementation. The development of special measures for the accused did not follow this same pattern. Instead, it was gradual, ad hoc and somewhat reluctant. This article argues that the way and the context in which special measures developed for the accused has had a negative impact on the extent to which they are embedded within the criminal justice system. This, in turn, has negatively affected their uptake in practice. It is concluded that the way in which the law is reformed is important to its success in practice.

Drawing on complementary theoretical perspectives, we investigate whether and to what extent family-influenced firms differ from their nonfamily counterparts in terms of the relationship between managerial attention to natural environmental issues and concomitant environmental actions. Using data from letters to shareholders and the KLD database, we investigate 97 firms in five polluting industries. Our findings indicate that family firms positively moderate the relationship between top managers’ attention to natural environmental issues and proactive environmental action. Conversely, nonfamily firms demonstrate less proactive environmental action as their attention to environmental issues increases, suggesting greenwashing. We argue that attention and action behaviors in family firms are intimately connected with their desire to preserve socioemotional wealth and indicate a lower propensity to greenwash, whereas nonfamily firms’ short-term financial objectives may motivate a different response pattern.

Witnesses and defendants are able to give evidence by live link provided that they meet the vulnerability criteria set out in the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act (1999). The vulnerability criteria include, in brief, the defendant or witness being young and/or suffering from a physical, mental or learning disability. Findings from interviews undertaken with 18 criminal practitioners indicate that, even when a defendant is sufficiently vulnerable to qualify for the use of live link, the provision is rarely invoked. Drawing on this data, this article identifies a series of barriers which contribute heavily to the inaccessibility of the live link provision to vulnerable defendants giving evidence in their trials.

The theory of entrainment suggests that positive benefits, such as enhanced competiveness and above-normal levels of performance, can be achieved by creating temporal alignment and coordination between and among an organization's internal processes and external environment. We investigate the effect of external and internal entrainments on firm innovativeness, and hypothesize that the interaction between external and internal entrainment serves to enhance the effect of external entrainment on firm innovativeness. Using survey responses from the owners, CEOs, and top managers of 217 organizations in a range of industries, we establish evidence of (1) a positive link between external entrainment and firm innovativeness, and (2) the moderating effect of internal entrainment on the external entrainment-firm innovativeness relationship. The results provide insight into the performance benefits of managing the temporal elements of an organization's environment.

This chapter primarily concerns by those who are officially deemed to be victims of crime; that is where the person's victimhood has been accepted by state authorities and this has formed the basis of a prosecution. It discusses the experiences of victims when they are giving evidence in court, concentrating on legislative attempts to overcome, or at least to alleviate, the difficulties that they may experience. The chapter also discusses the attempts by legislators to restrict the ability of the defence to cross-examine sexual offence victims about their sexual history, the routine revelation of which has deterred victims from coming forward and negatively impacted jury perceptions of victim credibility. The failure to recognise victims as parties is particularly problematic in relation to the 'mass production' of guilty pleas, perhaps the most striking characteristic of adversarial systems. In adversarial systems, there are just two parties to criminal disputes: the prosecution and the defence.