HI,  I'm sure there are a few allowed alternatives for people who need to give evidence in Court, not necessarity criminal cases but maybe Coroner's Court and others.

Does anyone know what those alternatives are?

Thanks.

Hi Peter,  I've done some research and find the Judge is required to provide the alternative to assist anyone giving evidence to use alternative ways, similar to the Equality Act but not quite the same.

Now I know that, I can research and put pressure on the university for them to provide the means of giving evidence under Equality Act.

This is about my daughter and her desire to study for her degree in Forensic Science.  They have told us that she has to do a presentation to the other students and then a Mock Trial when she gives evidence in a Court setting.

She is unable to talk to people she doesn't know, (Selective Mutism).  They have said she will have to do it or fail the course.  That cannot be right because the Equality Act requires Reasonable Adjustments and in my opinion if the Judge will allow for the adjustments so should the Uni.

Selective Mutism (SM) is not a simple disablity and does not allow simple solutions.  It is easy to say she could write notes in the witness box and pass them to another person to speak on her behalf but SM will not allow her to do that as she sees it as communicating with people she does not know.

Yet another complicated issue for us to deal with and to work with the UNI for the solution.

Thanks Peter.

I suspect that reasonable adjustment may still be an issue for an expert forensic witness. There is the distinct possibility of cross-examination during criminal trial and a need for explanation to the lay person of what has been presented at either court.

In a one on one situation a coroner may be sympathetic, in front of a jury it could play for the defence by undermining the credibility of the witness and the case for the prosecution.

One of my staff held a degree in forensics and made two comments about their time during interview - "it wasn't like the telly", "the mock court experience put them off" - great scientist, embarrased public speaker.

It may be prudent to see if someone at the Crown Prosecution Service could offer additional advice.

Thank for the responses.

I contacted a few courts yesterday and they said they haven't come across this so have no information.There is a allowance for a Pre Hearing meeting with Judge, Barristers and the Witness to arrange a plan.  That could involve questions requiring Yes/No answers or other short answers, a Carer alongside in the Witness box to answer on behalf of the witness, White Boards, pre written answers on cards etc. etc.

This is for my daughter who is determined to try hard to speak because she knows how much better life will be if she can.

Thanks.

Edited by user 17 May 2024 11:01:23(UTC)  | Reason: post got scrambled

I agree with Mr Snail: the issue is that she will be working as an expert witness not as the usual witness of fact. There are rules to protect witnesses of fact and  they are supported to enable them to tell the court what they saw. Expert witnesses are there to give an opinion based on their professional knowledge.  The barristers are fully entitled to challenge that in cross examination. UK courts do not simply  take expert evidence face value unless the witness is a join expert agreed by both parties.  

Any material handled by a forensics scientists has to go through a chain of custody. This is recorded and everyone has to sign for it. This is to ensure that it is not tampered with, or nobody makes a mistake while processing the material. Newly graduated forensic scientists will at some point be expected to handle the material; that’s their job. Any lawyer will appreciate that mistakes can be made, or material tampered with. They may try to challenge the procedures in the lab, and they may well ask the people in that chain of custody what they did with the material. This would be in court under cross examination.    

EDIT - some of what I typed below is similar to what had been said in posts submitted whilst I was typing! 

I could see many scenarios where a practising forensic scientist might be called to give evidence on the facts (including their analysis of the evidence) often not presented as an "Expert".

So, as example, the road traffic accident occurs and the police breathalyse the driver.

The forensic scientist analyses the sample and finds that the alcohol in blood level was X.

No need for an Expert Witness if the law says that the limit is X divided by 10, if established practice says that using equipment A in the prescribed manner leaves little margin of error on the results.

Conversely, the forensic scientist analyses the sample and finds that the level of some solvent in blood level is Y. There is no tablet of legal stone which says what level of that solvent in blood counts as impairing the driver from being safe at the wheel. 

So, at that point you need an Expert who can comment on what Y solvent in blood means in terms of capacity to drive safely.

Either way, that person might be subject to cross-examination when in the witness box, so the issue here is what would count as "reasonable adjustments".

It might well be that the role the graduate of Forensic Science means that actually they are never likely to end up in the witness box.

But the University can't predict what their student's future employment will be, so should be preparing them for likely career patterns which are often likely to include standing up in a Courtroom.

Edited by user 20 May 2024 13:54:54(UTC)  | Reason: Clarification

Originally Posted by: peter gotch

But the University can't predict what their student's future employment will be, so should be preparing them for likely career patterns which are often likely to include standing up in a Courtroom.

That seems to me an invalid argument.  Universities are not expected to prepare graduates of their courses for every possible application of that degree.  It's precisely because the university can't predict that the student will be working as a cross-examined expert witness that they should not be making it a requisite of passing the course that you can withstand cross-examination.  

Brilliant replies thank you all.

We attended Merseyside Police SOC department and were shown around the Lab where real forensic work was carried out.  We were told every change of evidence work required a change of gloves to avoid cross contanination.  There was one forensic guy working on fingerprints and chemicals on sheets of paper.  I lost count of the number of times he changed his gloves.  Every single time has to be documented.

There wa a case thrown out of court because a Barrister noticed gloves hadn't been documented as changed just once when they should have been.

Good afternoon,

Just had a Teams meeting with Uni and the Social worker.  The Uni lady started the meeting by reminding us of the requirement to speak in a court setting in year three, however there are adjustments that can be made during years one and two.  We didn't respond as we would have liked to because we don't want to rock the boat.  Once Annie is in the Uni we can take it up then.  Social worker not happy the way the meting was opened, (threat).

The Fire Evacuation arrangements are now causing an issue whereby they are not aware of how Annie will react to the sounding of the fire alarm.  For example as she has high anxiety would she have a Panic Attack on hearing the fire alarm?????  They have told us they need something in writing to confirm Annie will be OK to evacuate herself, or there may be a need for an 'all night' Carer sleeping in the same building whose main job is to go to Annie's room on hearing the alarm.  I would not recommend this as it could be affected by a fire.

The Social Worker has said she will run this past their solicitors because the UNI does not make demands like this to all students.  Thinking discrimination.

Annie has not been made a final offer yet because all her results are not yet available but she has Distinctions for every single assignment and has been put forward by her Chemistry tutor for Student of the Year.

Our question is "how can anyone confirm Annie will respond correctly on hearing the fire alarm?"

Appreciate any comments/thoughts.  Thanks.

How can anyone confirm how anyone will respond on hearing a fire alarm?

Yesterday's news showed Henry Winkler with the fire crew outside a Dublin Hotel saying he thought it was an alarm clock going off and it was only after ringing reception he was told everyone was evacuating.

Meanwhile at work it is amazing the number of people who just carry on when the alarm sounds on a day or time that is not the scheduled practice.

On a visit to the Uni and attending a sample lecture the fire alarm sounded.  I knew what it was and began to move with my two family members.  The Lecturer then said "I suppose we should evacuate" and we followed her to the assembly point.

Everyone who evacuated did so very calmly. 

The H&S Manager just wants to cover her ass with paper.

Annie has a Social Worker who has been in touch with their Legal Team about the question of Annie responding to the fire alartm.  As a result of their conversation she told us she will challenge any attempt to further delay Annie's access to the Uni because of that issue.

Further, I have realised that making Annie speak during a presentation is not viable because it is a disability that prevents her speaking.  In no way can that be "Reasonable" to expect a person with Mutism to speak, especially under the pressure of examination conditions.  It would be discriminatory.

Annie has not yet received her Offer, there is every reason for that Offer to be made especially as she finished her Access Course with flying colours, Distinctions for every singe assignment and awarded with the Student of the Year.

Hard to grasp the enormity of her achievement especially the way she has ben treated by every school and college she has attended.

It goes on and on but should be over soon we all hope.