Using item response theory modelling to understand criminal justice professionals’ perceptions of cross-examination in child sexual abuse trials

Abstract

The need to educate criminal justice professionals about best practices to cross-examine complainants of child sexual abuse is widely acknowledged. Yet, a dearth of empirical information about their perceptions has hindered development of targeted professional education programmes. The present study compared perceptions of the quality of cross-examination of a child and an adolescent complainant between judges, prosecutors, defence lawyers, police officers and witness support staff. Questioning type (appropriate/inappropriate) and judicial intervention (present/absent) were varied. Results of two-parameter Item Response Theory modelling showed that defence lawyers perceived significantly less unfairness to the complainant than the other professional groups. Judges’ views of unfairness were driven by the potential for confusion more than the age-inappropriate questioning. Police officers and witness support staff more likely rated the cross-examination as deleterious to the credibility and reliability of the complainant. Topics to include in professional development programmes around eliciting best evidence from vulnerable witnesses are discussed.