Abstract
Adjustments to criminal trial processes, called special measures, are available to vulnerable and/or intimidated witnesses giving evidence. Findings from interviews with 13 criminal practitioners suggest that there are notable variations in the uptake of special measures between prosecution witnesses, defence witnesses, and the accused in Crown Court trials. These extend beyond any inequality in their legal provision. This paper uses Keith Hawkins’ conceptual framework of surround, field, and frames as a heuristic device to understand this differential uptake. The framework delineates the various factors—including the socio-political, organisational and attitudinal—which can influence decision-making practices in relation to special measures. In doing so, this paper demonstrates two things. First, that changing the legal provision is unlikely to effect much change in practice, absent specific complementary changes to the field. Second, that Hawkins’ framework has potential as an explanatory device in decision-making contexts outside of his own health and safety setting.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 457-485 |
| Number of pages | 29 |
| Journal | Journal of Law and Society |
| Volume | 45 |
| Issue number | 3 |
| Early online date | 21 Aug 2018 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - Sept 2018 |
UN SDGs
This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
-
SDG 10 Reduced Inequalities
-
SDG 16 Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'Using Hawkins’s surround, field and frames concepts to understand the complexities of special measures decision making in Crown Court trials'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver