IX Recommendations for the system: How to obtain good evidence from children

Developmental training and education for legal professionals who interact with children

In the original report (Sas, 2002), Louise Sas recommended professional training of forensic interviewers and the development of appropriate language protocols and training for legal professionals. We strongly echo this recommendation, with a now even more robust body of work to support the need for educated, trained, experienced, and skilled child forensic interviewers. We extend this recommendation to all players in an investigation involving children who may interact with or make decisions about the child. The damage to a child’s evidence that can be done without knowledge and training, as well as the benefit to children of a knowledgeable and skilled professional cannot be overstated. Awareness of children’s capabilities, and alignment of adult behaviour and expectations with these capabilities, will enhance the quality of children’s evidence. Such education can take multiple forms including online courses, workshops, written and video materials, and some organizations within Canada have moved to having experts engage in direct interactions with children (e.g., professional child forensic interviewers) who can engage with children in an age-appropriate manner. All options for furthering knowledge should be considered.

Expand access to Child Advocacy Centres and their services

We also strongly agree with Sas on the creation and maintenance of structures within the justice system that assist children with what is often a foreign and scary process. While Sas focused on court preparation programs, the evidence now suggests that the wrap-around services, like those often provided by Child Advocacy Centres, including court preparation programs, contribute to children’s quality evidence provision, and to their recovery after justice experiences. We recommend the expansion of CAC access to all children in Canada, and continued expansion of their services (e.g., remote testimony, training of interviewers, support dogs) and the research base for the work that they do. Universal access to CACs would increase equity for child-accommodated services and increase the likelihood that provisions legally available to children are also practically available to them.

Consider and investigate alternatives to traditional cross-examination of child witnesses

Finally, as discussed extensively earlier, the current system of cross-examination is inherently damaging to children because of its goal to discredit child victims’ and witnesses’ evidence (i.e., introduce reasonable doubt) in order to support the defence’s case. Alternatives (e.g., use of intermediaries, timing of cross-examination, educating those who conduct cross-examination about the importance of non-suggestive questioning, structural changes to the court process for young people) are available for study and consideration in the Canadian context, and Canada is currently behind more forward-thinking countries in implementation of such accommodations. While we are making progress in many other domains, this remains an area that would benefit from more concentrated exploration.