| Home | Overview | Disability | Employment | Services | Education | Benefits | Business | Advice | Links | More... |
|
This page does not apply outside the United Kingdom.
|
| Home | Overview | Disability | Employment | Services | Education | Benefits | Business | Advice | Links | More... |
|
This page does not apply outside the United Kingdom.
|
This page looks at some issues and possible adjustments for people who stammer appearing in court, particularly as witnesses. There is also a section on jury service. The page largely does not consider the law, but rather raises points to be considered. Note that there is a Court Service Disability helpline on 0800 358 3506.
Firstly bear in mind that if you do stammer in court, that's fine. The court should be patient and let you say what needs to be said.
However, if you would really have significant difficulty speaking and want to look at whether this could be avoided or made easier, see below Alternative ways to give evidence.
Where a person who stammers is giving evidence orally, it may be useful for the judge/magistrates and legal representatives to be briefed in advance on stammering, and/or for evidence about the person's stammer and its effects to be given in court (see Coombe v Bessell).
In conversation with a person who stammers (BSA website) gives general guidance on speaking with someone who stammers. The BSA Information and Support Service may be able to provide further help - for this and other resources see below Sources of advice and support.
|
Court misinterpreting stammering
In the Australian case of Coombe v Bessell (1994) a speech impediment was mistaken for dishonesty. Mr Coombe was convicted of assaulting his wife. The magistrate did not believe his evidence, but was unaware of Mr Coombe's stammer. The conviction was overturned and the case sent for re-hearing. |
In appreciating why a witness who stammers says what he does, it may possibly also help for them to be aware that people who stammer often alter words and phrases to something they can say more fluently. So a person who stammers who feels they are going to block on what they were intending to say may switch to another word or phrase. Of course people who stammer should bear in mind the importance of giving accurate evidence, and should not let word avoidance etc stop them from doing that, even if it means they are less fluent.
It may be possible for both sides in a case to agree your evidence, so that you don't have to be called as a witness.
These are some alternative ways in which evidence might be given, at least in some cases. It needs to be discussed with the lawyers or court involved what would be possible in the relevant type of case:
Below is a brief outline - and links - on some specific rules applying in some UK courts.
The Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 allows 'special measures' to be used for certain witnesses in criminal cases in England and Wales. The measures include, for example:
This legislation does not apply to the accused, but the court may have a discretion to allow him to give evidence in such a way that he has a fair trial - see R v Camberwell Green Youth Court (external link), particularly Baroness Hale at paragraphs 59 & 63.
For more, see
Courts such as the High Court and county courts in England and Wales have discretion to allow evidence to be given through a video link or some other remote method - Civil Procedure Rules rule 32.3 (external link).
One suggestion that could help is this: when a juror or witness who stammers takes the oath, the person adminstering the oath could first say each part of the oath on their own and then repeat it together with the person who stammers.
This uses the 'choral effect' - a person who stammers can often speak fluently if speaking along with someone else. There is an example of this being used for wedding vows at www.mnsu.edu/comdis/isad5/papers/weddingvows.html#badmington
There is a place on the jury summons form ('Disability') where you can mention you have a stammer and ask for any adjustments.
You could discuss the stammer and any possible arrangements for it with the Court Service Disability helpline (see below), and/or with the court staff.
A juror will need to take an oath (or affirmation) in open court. For one possible way of dealing with this, see above Taking an oath.
A juror will also take part in the discussions after the jury retire to deliberate their verdict. I discuss in the context of employment some possible reasonable adjustments for meetings.
On jury service generally, see www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/infoabout/jury_service/index.htm and www.cjsonline.gov.uk/juror/.
If you really feel it will be too much for you to do jury service with the stammer, you might apply to be excused from it. There is a place on the jury summons form to do this.
I heard of one instance where the person who stammers did not apply on the form to be excused, but having looked at the online guide/videos etc became very apprehensive about giving the oath and having his say in the meeting to deliberate the verdict. He talked about this to the jury officer in advance. She consulted with others and it was decided to excuse him from jury service as they didn't want to put him through undue stress.
Alternatively an individual might want to take the opportunty of jury service to expand their comfort zones. This is a personal choice.
This page largely does not deal with what is or is not legally required of courts under the DDA or otherwise. Very briefly, however, the DDA rules on 'services to the public' will apply to some aspects of a court's functions, and the rules on public authority functions to others.
Note that the following are excluded from the rules on public authority functions, and so are likely not to be within the DDA:
There is more on these exclusions in para 11.9 of the (Revised) Code of Practice - Rights of Access: services to the public, public authority functions, private clubs and premises (pdf file on EHRC website), 2006.
Police activities such as arrest and interviews are likely to fall within the DDA rules on public authority functions.
There may be more general rights which are helpful quite apart from disability legislation, such as the right to a fair hearing. For example, in CDLA 936 2004 (external link), a welfare benefit case, the tribunal said:
"The DDA requires "service providers", of which the Appeals Service is no doubt one, not without justification to treat a disabled person less favourably than others without his disability. Its purpose is to enable disabled people to participate effectively in (for present purposes) tribunal hearings. If the Appeals Service failed to make a tribunal accessible to a disabled person (for example by holding a hearing for a wheelchair user in an upstairs room without a lift, or failing to provide facilities for a deaf person to participate in the hearing), that might well without any question of justification amount to a breach of natural ("procedural") justice or of article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights [right to fair hearing] as now applied by s3 of the Human Rights Act 1998. If it did, I might set aside the decision reached by the tribunal; but I would do this without recourse to the DDA."
The Court Service Disability helpline on 0800 358 3506 (dealing with both criminal and civil courts) may help on problems giving evidence, taking the oath with a stammer, and other things to do with the courts.
Run by Victim Support, but aimed at witnesses - www.victimsupport.org.
You can ask, talk about and explore any issues of concern about stammering - www.stammering.org/helpline.html.
Homepage | DDA in outline | Meaning of "disability" | Employment | Goods and services | Education | Human Rights Act | Proposed changes | Social security | Advice | Links | What's new | Site index | Privacy (cookies) | Disclaimer
© Allan Tyrer 1999-2010
Last updated 8th January, 2010
Services
Services FAQs
Examples on stammering
Which rules apply?
Services to the public
Justification
Cost of taking longer
Disputes
Public authority functions
