The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

Chapter 8: Comparative Analysis of Professional Witness Questionnaires

8.1 This section of the report presents findings from the two questionnaire surveys of professional witnesses. ⁹¹ The aim of the survey was to collect information about the experiences of professional witnesses when giving evidence in criminal cases in the High Court.

8.2 In order to assess the impact of the changes in High Court procedure on the experience of professional witnesses, one sample of questionnaires was distributed prior to the implementation of the reforms and the second sample was distributed after the reforms had been implemented. The same questionnaire was used for both samples, a copy of which is provided in Appendix 2. Response rates and details of the research methods employed can be found in chapter 3.

8.3 It should be noted that in some of the tables that follow percentages do not add up to 100 due to rounding.

Experiences in Court

8.4 Respondents were asked to indicate whether they had experienced various events or situations on the last occasion on which they were in attendance at the High Court as a witness. The responses are summarised in table 8.1 below. The percentages in the table do not total 100 as respondents could give more than one answer.

Table 8.1: Respondents' experience in court

8.5 As table 8.1 shows, in all but two of the named situations there is a decrease in the frequency with which each was experienced. The most notable reduction is in the proportion of respondents who indicated that they were not told early enough that they did not need to attend court (this was 11 percentage points lower in the post-reform sample). This may be indicative of improved communication between the court and the witnesses following the reforms.

8.6 It was also the case that fewer respondents in the post-reform sample stated that they were not told about the trial date early enough (a reduction of eight percentage points), although the figures were not high to start with, suggesting that this was never a particularly serious problem.

8.7 On a more negative note, there was a reduction in the proportion of respondents who, having attended court, did then give evidence in person (this was six percentage points lower in the post-reform sample). This might suggest a slight increase in the proportion of those who attend court unnecessarily, as they are not called as witnesses. ⁹²

8.8 In spite of the fact that there is a reduction of eight percentage points in the proportion of respondents who saw the accused or his or her family or friends in or around the court, there is a very small increase (of 1.5 percentage points) in the proportion of those who reported that they were actually spoken to by the accused or his family or friends.

Outcome of the Case

8.9 Respondents were then asked specifically about what happened to the case in which they were due to give evidence. The results are displayed in table 8.2.

Table 8.2: Outcome of the case on the day of trial

8.10 At first glance table 8.2 might seen to indicate somewhat negative findings, as the proportion of respondents who reported that the case was put off to another day appears to have risen from 32.4% in the pre-reform sample to 38.5% in the post-reform sample. However, this finding must be seen in conjunction with the proportion of respondents who reported that a combination of the various events had occurred, because the case being put off to another day was always one of the outcomes that would have formed part of this combination. Thus the total proportion of respondents who experienced the case being put off to another day has actually improved slightly: from 44.4% in the pre-reform sample to 42.9% in the post-reform sample. Further indication of a slight improvement is shown by the figures for the proportion of respondents who experienced none of the outcomes shown in table 8.2. This increased slightly, from 43.5% of respondents in the pre-reform sample to 46.2% in the post-reform sample.

8.11 Respondents were also asked whether they were actually called to give evidence on the day of the trial. Table 8.3 displays the responses to this question from both samples. As table 8.3 shows, the proportion of those who were not called to give evidence was little different in the two samples, indicating that at least among those who took part in the questionnaire survey, there was no real change in the proportion of witnesses turning up to court unnecessarily.

Table 8.3: Was the respondent actually called to give evidence?

Information Provision

8.12 Respondents were then asked about the extent to which they were kept informed about case progress and/or delays relating to the case on the day of the trial. As table 8.4 indicates, there was a decrease of around 16 percentage points in the proportion of those who felt that they had been kept informed and an almost equivalent increase in those who felt that they had not been kept informed.

Table 8.4: Were respondents kept up to date with delays/progress in the case?

8.13 Those who indicated that they had been kept informed of the progress of the case were then asked how frequently this had occurred. Table 8.5 displays the responses to this question. As can be seen from table 8.5, there has been a decrease of around eight percentage points in those who claimed they were informed hourly but a slight increase in the proportion who were informed of progress after each witness gave evidence.

Table 8.5: How frequently were respondents told about case progress?

8.14 Finally, respondents were asked whether they would have used a telephone information line for witnesses, which would have allowed them to telephone the day before they were due to attend court and find out whether the case was going ahead. Table 8.6 displays the responses to this question.

Table 8.6: Would respondents have used a telephone information line?

Suggestions for Improvement

8.15 In addition to these closed questions, respondents were asked various open-ended questions about their experiences as professional witnesses at the High Court and, specifically, how they felt that their experience could have been improved.

8.16 In the pre-reform sample, a perceived need for better communications at all levels and between everyone involved in the case both before and during attendance at court was highlighted, with a number of respondents suggesting that this would lead to better information being filtered down to witnesses. It was noted that better communication between the Crown and the defence would be central to improving the situation, with agreement of evidence being a key factor in this. This theme was also notable in the post-reform sample, with particular reference being made by two respondents to the agreement of evidence in relation to police photographs. It was slightly more common in the post-reform sample for respondents to focus on the shortage of information being fed back to them as witnesses by 'officers of the court' specifically while the case was underway. One respondent in the post-reform sample wrote that his or her experience would have been improved by: "Better passage of information. Don't forget about witnesses", whilst another called for "more regular updates".

8.17 In the analysis of the pre-reform sample it was noted that, whilst many respondents felt that the court was 'slow', the biggest frustration appeared to result from the lack of ongoing information. The post-reform sample did not contain any such references to the pace of court business but, as with the pre-reform sample, a perceived lack of information being fed back to witnesses about case progress appears to remain a greater cause of discontent than delays themselves. ⁹⁴

8.18 In the pre-reform sample, last minute citing and countermanding had proved a source of dissatisfaction for many respondents and whilst this point was not quite so frequently raised in the post-reform sample, uncertainty as to which days and when witnesses would be required remained an irritation to a number of respondents. As with the pre-reform sample, a number of respondents commented that this uncertainty resulted in disruption to work schedules. Whilst in the pre-reform sample some respondents reported frustration at having to be on standby, in the post-reform sample two respondents suggested that the situation could be improved by the implementation of a standby system, with one suggesting that "the court could phone two hours before attendance". The effect on annual leave of the uncertainty was commented upon in both samples.

8.19 In contrast to the pre-reform sample, in the post-reform sample there did not appear to be the same perception that witnesses were cited simply 'just in case'. In the pre-reform sample, one respondent commented that in the case she had attended 60 witnesses had all been cited for the trial diet. One respondent in the post-reform sample, however, did note that it would be helpful to be informed early of the "order of the witnesses".

8.20 Coming into contact with the accused or his or her friends and family in and around the court was a cause of concern in both samples. ⁹⁵ In both samples, the provision of separate entrances, separate rooms and a suitably segregated place to smoke were suggested. One respondent in the post-reform sample also suggested that separate parking arrangements should be made available, as he had found himself "alone in a car park with [two of the] accused … disclosing my personal vehicle to them". One respondent in the post-reform sample had found herself in a witness room with the accused and this was only remedied when the accused's lawyer turned up. In response to question 6, which asked how various specific negative events (such as meeting the accused in court) could have been avoided, this particular respondent wrote: "Speaks for itself - he shouldn't have been near any of the witness rooms". In the post-reform sample, one respondent noted that there was "no control over people 'hanging about' outside the court, thus being able to intimidate witnesses as they arrive".

8.21 In both samples, just over half the respondents were actually called to give evidence. ⁹⁶ Those respondents who were not called to give evidence were asked to indicate the reason (if any) they had been given for this. In both samples, the most common reason given was that there had been a guilty plea. The main difference between the responses in the two samples was that, in the post-reform sample, agreement of evidence was also cited as a reason, a reason that was non-existent in the pre-reform sample.

8.22 In the post-reform sample two respondents chose to make positive comments about what they perceived as an improved court service, with one forensic scientist noting that he could "already [see] benefits to the way that the Court service is now run" and that this had "particular influence on requests for excusal … during annual leave". Another respondent stated that he had "noticed a vast improvement" in whether or not he actually had to attend court, commenting that his office was "able to liaise better than before with court officials".

Conclusion

8.23 Overall, the conclusion that might be drawn from these results is that very little has changed. There are certainly no dramatic differences between the pre-reform and post-reform samples, although some very minor improvements are apparent (for example in the number of respondents who experienced the case being put off until another day). This does not necessarily mean that more dramatic improvements have not taken place. For one thing, respondents were asked about their most recent experience of attending the High Court. They were not asked whether, as a result of the reforms, they are now attending court less frequently. In addition, it may be that respondents in the post-reform sample, despite being asked about their most recent experience of attending the High Court to give evidence, were actually answering on the basis of their experience of the High Court generally, which may well have included attending the High Court prior to the reforms. ⁹⁷ This possibility should certainly be borne in mind in interpreting the responses. Unfortunately it is an inherent disadvantage of mail questionnaire surveys that, where there is no researcher present to provide clarification, respondents might not provide precisely the information that is required and might, despite the best efforts of the questionnaire designers, mis-read or mis-interpret some of the questions.

« Previous | Contents | Next »