| Home | Overview | Disability | Discrimination | Employment | Services | Education | PSED | Benefits | Business | Advice | Links | More... |
|
This page does not apply outside the United Kingdom.
|
| Home | Overview | Disability | Discrimination | Employment | Services | Education | PSED | 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, plus a separate short page on prisons and the youth justice system. 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.
|
"EqA" or "Equality Act" means the Equality Act 2010 (link to legislation.gov.uk)
The "Services Code" means the 2011 Equality Act Code of Practice on services, public functions and assocations (pdf, link to EHRC website), which came into force on 6th April, 2011. |
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.
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.
One characteristic which may affect evidence in court is that a person who stammers may give less full answers, trying to say less. This may be because of the effort of stammering, or it might be to try and avoid stammering openly in which case the person may sound quite fluent. Advocates may need to ask supplemental questions to draw out fuller details.
A particularly important danger in court is viewing stammering or effects of a stammer as signs of lying...
|
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. |
Blocking, 'eh'-ing, or substituting one word for another word, may be interpreted as fabricating the truth - unless the listener realises that these are common effects of a stammer. Other effects of a stammer (non-exhaustive) can include 'filler' words and phrases such as "well", "you see"; wording which may sound convoluted; not answering a question directly if a direct answer is difficult to say; and hesitations, thinking etc which may not look like stammering but are perhaps actually behaviours the person is accustomed to using if they cannot just say what they want. Tension and nervousness related to a stammer may also be seen as signs of lying. So may avoiding eye contact which is common amongst people who stammer. Generally, a key feature of stammering is that the person will often try to hide the condition.
As a minimum, it seems very desirable that a witness who stammers should expressly say that they have a stammer, or that the court should be told this in some other way. (This may be very difficult though for some people who stammer.) As well as explaining the situation to listeners, disclosing a stammer may help the person who stammers feel more comfortable.
It needs to be born in mind that the other side's lawyer will often seek to discredit the witness. Some may use rapid fire questioning which could be particularly difficult for a person who stammers to cope with. It will be much harder for a lawyer to take advantage (wittingly or unwittingly) of a person's speech difficulties if the court has been told about the stammer.
In StutterTalk podcast Episode 131 (from 20:22 to 25:20 in audio file, or from 1:20 in the video), a United States police officer talks about importance of advertising his stammer when he is giving evidence in court. Various of the points I make under this heading are drawn from that interview.
As well as the court being told that the person has a stammer, it should be considered whether the court ought also to be told something about stammering so far as relevant to the person - e.g. that people who stammer often avoid eye contact, and often alter words and phrases to something they can say more fluently.
Of course ideally a person who stammers 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. However, this may not be practicable. Avoidance is often part of a stammer, and something to be worked on in speech and language therapy.
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 (link to legislation.gov.uk) allows 'special measures' to be used for certain witnesses in criminal cases in England and Wales. The measures include, for example:
For more about 'special measures' (in England and Wales) , see
This legislation does not apply to the accused. For more limited legislation applying to the accused, including use of a video link, see from paragraph 1.14 (also paras 1.2-1.3) in The registered intermediary procedural guidance manual (2011) (pdf). However, the court may have a discretion to allow the accused to give evidence in such a way that he has a fair trial - see R v Camberwell Green Youth Court, 2005 (external link), particularly Baroness Hale at paragraphs 59 & 63. On use of intermediaries and cases subsequent to Camberwell, see C v Sevenoaks, 2009, (link to bailii.org) .
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. Annex 3 of Practice Direction 32 is guidance on Video Conferencing Guidance: www.justice.gov.uk/guidance/courts-and-tribunals/courts/procedure-rules/civil/.
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. Criminal law does not permit there to be an 'extra' person in the jury room for any reason, so having a non-jury member in to help would not be a reasonable adjustment (Services Code para 11.32).
On jury service generally, see direct.gov.uk: Jury Service. This includes Going to court if you have a 'hidden' impairment.
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 Equality Act 2010 or otherwise. Very briefly, however, the Equality Act 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 Equality Act:
Police activities such as arrest and interviews are likely to fall within the Equality Act rules on public authority functions.
From the Equality Act 2010 Explanatory notes (pdf, link to legislation.gov.uk), para 683:
A decision of a judge on the merits of a case would be within the exceptions in [Schedule 3]. An administrative decision of court staff, about which contractor to use to carry out maintenance jobs or which supplier to use when ordering stationery would not be.
There are more general rights which may be relevant, such as the Human Rights Act, and rules of natural justice (see the tribunal quote below). These other rights could apply even where the Equality Act is excluded. For example, though a judicial act is not unlawful discrimination under the Equality Act, it might be challenged under the Human Rights Act as breaching the right to a fair hearing under ECHR article 6, and/or the right to equality under article 14. These other rights could also be relevant to decisions and actions of court staff which are not judicial acts.
In CDLA 936 2004 (external link), a welfare benefit case, the tribunal said:
"The DDA [now Equality Act 2010] 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 1999-2012
Last updated 15th January, 2012
Services
Services FAQs
Examples on stammering
Right to be heard
Transport
Appearing in court
Prisons
Which rules apply?
Services to the public
Disputes
Public authority functions
Connection with Britain
