“我不欠任何人的人情……我认为自己是法院的官员”:英格兰、威尔士和北爱尔兰的中介角色比较

IF 0.7 2区 社会学 Q2 LAW International Journal of Evidence & Proof Pub Date : 2021-02-03 DOI:10.1177/13657127211002291
John Taggart
{"title":"“我不欠任何人的人情……我认为自己是法院的官员”:英格兰、威尔士和北爱尔兰的中介角色比较","authors":"John Taggart","doi":"10.1177/13657127211002291","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Intermediaries were first introduced by the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act (1999) to facilitate communication between individuals with communication needs and the criminal justice system. Yet, despite increased academic attention into this new criminal justice actor, the content of the role remains unclear. Findings from 31 interviews with intermediaries in England and Wales and Northern Ireland as well as judges in Northern Ireland indicate that two distinct systems of intermediaries have emerged between the jurisdictions. The picture is complicated by an inequality in intermediary provision between witnesses and defendants. In England and Wales, the statutory intermediary scheme covers only witnesses whereas the ‘unitary’ system in Northern Ireland covers both witnesses and defendants. Drawing on the data collected, this article highlights key themes which underpin differences in intermediary practice and suggests that lessons can be learned in how we conceptualise the role and its work.","PeriodicalId":54168,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Evidence & Proof","volume":"25 1","pages":"141 - 162"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2021-02-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/13657127211002291","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"‘I am not beholden to anyone… I consider myself to be an officer of the court’: A comparison of the intermediary role in England and Wales and Northern Ireland\",\"authors\":\"John Taggart\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/13657127211002291\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Intermediaries were first introduced by the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act (1999) to facilitate communication between individuals with communication needs and the criminal justice system. Yet, despite increased academic attention into this new criminal justice actor, the content of the role remains unclear. Findings from 31 interviews with intermediaries in England and Wales and Northern Ireland as well as judges in Northern Ireland indicate that two distinct systems of intermediaries have emerged between the jurisdictions. The picture is complicated by an inequality in intermediary provision between witnesses and defendants. In England and Wales, the statutory intermediary scheme covers only witnesses whereas the ‘unitary’ system in Northern Ireland covers both witnesses and defendants. Drawing on the data collected, this article highlights key themes which underpin differences in intermediary practice and suggests that lessons can be learned in how we conceptualise the role and its work.\",\"PeriodicalId\":54168,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Evidence & Proof\",\"volume\":\"25 1\",\"pages\":\"141 - 162\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-02-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/13657127211002291\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Evidence & Proof\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/13657127211002291\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Evidence & Proof","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13657127211002291","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

《青少年司法和刑事证据法》(1999年)首先引入了中介机构,以促进有沟通需要的个人与刑事司法系统之间的沟通。然而,尽管学术界对这一新的刑事司法角色的关注越来越多,但这一角色的内容仍不清楚。对英格兰、威尔士和北爱尔兰的中介机构以及北爱尔兰的法官进行的31次访谈的结果表明,在司法管辖区之间出现了两种截然不同的中介系统。证人和被告之间中介条款的不平等使情况更加复杂。在英格兰和威尔士,法定中介制度只涉及证人,而北爱尔兰的“单一”制度既包括证人也包括被告。根据所收集的数据,本文强调了支撑中介实践差异的关键主题,并建议我们在如何概念化这一角色及其工作方面可以吸取教训。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
‘I am not beholden to anyone… I consider myself to be an officer of the court’: A comparison of the intermediary role in England and Wales and Northern Ireland
Intermediaries were first introduced by the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act (1999) to facilitate communication between individuals with communication needs and the criminal justice system. Yet, despite increased academic attention into this new criminal justice actor, the content of the role remains unclear. Findings from 31 interviews with intermediaries in England and Wales and Northern Ireland as well as judges in Northern Ireland indicate that two distinct systems of intermediaries have emerged between the jurisdictions. The picture is complicated by an inequality in intermediary provision between witnesses and defendants. In England and Wales, the statutory intermediary scheme covers only witnesses whereas the ‘unitary’ system in Northern Ireland covers both witnesses and defendants. Drawing on the data collected, this article highlights key themes which underpin differences in intermediary practice and suggests that lessons can be learned in how we conceptualise the role and its work.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
20.00%
发文量
15
期刊最新文献
Preponderance, proportionality, stepwise liability Stepwise liability: Between the preponderance rule and proportional liability The skewing effect of outcome evidence The economic case for conviction multiplicity What matters for assessing insider witnesses? Results of an experimental vignette study
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1