Offences Against Children HOW ISRAEL PROTECTS YOUTHFUL VICTIMS

Press, Volume XCVII, Issue 28742, 13 November 1958, Page 16

Offences Against Children HOW ISRAEL PROTECTS YOUTHFUL VICTIMS

[Specially written for ‘The Press' by

E.T.B.]

As a safeguard against false, malicious, or imaginary accusations, a person charged with a sexual offence cannot be convicted without corroborative evidence. This is a necessary safeguard; but it may have serious effects on the emotional stability and mental health of the victim, particularly if he be a child, that receives too little attention in the normal course of investigations.

Because of the need for corroboration. the prosecution mus» base its case on the evidence of victims or witnesses. This may involve interviews with the police, possibly a medical examination, an identification parade, and an appearance in one or two courts, during which they may be subjected to sharp cross-examination. The victim may thus be compelled to relive, perhaps several times, a most distressing experience. An appearance in court can be an ordeal even for a mature person. For a child, it may be a more upsetting and traumatic experience than the offence itself, however benign the methods of investigation. Few persons who have seen the child victims of these offences in court can doubt that they are under very severe emotional strain; and some new method is necessary if consequent behaviour difficulties and neurotic traits are to be avoided. Fortunately, a method which protects the basic rights of the defendant as well as the mental health of the child has been tried and proven in Israel. New Zealand, with its abiding interest in the welfare of its children and in advanced social legislation, could adopt the method with beneficial results. Youth Examiners

The change in Israel was brought about by an amendment to the law of evidence. It came into effect three years ago. and was designed primarily to protect child victims and witnesses of sexual offences against possible I damage in character-formation during the preliminary investigation and in court. Children below the age of 14 years are kept out of court. An important innovation is that the investigation of the offence is placed in the hands of experts, known as youth examiners. who are trained in mental hygiene. The principal clauses of the law are: <1) No child under 14 years shall be investigated, examined, or heard as a witness in a sex offence, save with the permission of a youth examiner. (2) A statement by a child as to a sex offence committed upon his person or in his presence, or of which he is suspected, shall not be admitted as evidence save with the permission of the youth examiner.

(3) For the purpose of the law. youth examiners shall be appointed after consultation with an appointment committee, consisting of a judge in the Juvenile Court. an expert in mental hygiene, an educator, and an expert in child care. (4> Evidence as to a sex offence taken and recorded by a youth examiner and any report of an examination as to such an offence prepared bv a youth examiner are admissible as evidence in court. (5) Where evidence (as referred to above) has been submitted to the court, the youth examiner may be required to re-examine the child and ask him a particular question, but he may refuse to do so if he is of the opinion that further questioning is likely to cause psychic harm to the child. <6) No person shall be convicted on the evidence of a youth examiner unless it is supported bv other evidence. The procedure when an offence is reported to the police is that the parents are advised a vouth examiner will call at the child’s home for an interview, thus avoiding an investigation at the police station. It is felt that questioning in the secure environment of the home by a professional and understanding person is in itself of some therapeutic value. If the child’s statement is insufficient to secure a conviction, the youth examiner makes the difficult decision whether to permit a medical examination, attendance at an identification parade, or a visit to the scene of the offence Objections

There are three valid objections to this procedure. The police, very naturally, might resent the intrusion of a “foreign body” into their field of responsibility. A youth examiner could possibly frustrate i a sound case by preventing a ' child, in its own interest, from being forced to attend, say, an identification parade: and the public would not welcome the idea of an offender escaping retribution because the case against him was not fully prosecuted. Third, the legal profession would certainly have reservations about changing the law of evidence to allow a youth examiner to give what would amount to “secondhand” evidence in court.

The same objections were raised in Israel: but. according to Mr David Reifen, an Israeli Juvenile Court Magistrate, even the police now support the new law wholeheartedly, the only point not yet settled being whether the youth examiners should be employed within the force, as experts on call in such cases, or as a special administrative body attached to the Ministry of Justice. In an article in the “British Journal of Psychiatric Social Work.” Mr Reifen says the Israeli police had many doubts and hesitations. but experience had shown good results. The success of the law depended to a great extent on the willing co-operation of the police. In spite of misgivings, the police had co-operated in implementing the law in its true spirit. Help for the Police In some ways, skilled youth examiners have proved themselves to be better witnesses than either the child or policer. en Badly-shocked children, or those who harbour feelings of guilt after an offence, often repress, distort, or forget important details. The youth examiner can detect these psychological defences and skirt them delicately and carefully in a way few laymen could. He will note not only the child’s story, but gestures and facial expressions; and he will probably be more thorough because he, not

the child, will stand in the wit-ness-box to be cross-examined. The traumatic experience for the child is thus minimised by careful and intelligent handling, but the case is in no way weakened. Indeed, it may be strengthened. The youth examiners are generally psychiatrists, child phychologists. . or phychiatric social workers. They must possess attributes besides their training in understanding human behaviour and motivation and skill in interviewing: they must acquire, too. a sound knowledge of legal and court procedure Unfamiliarity with procedure could easily ruin

a good case and leave the offender free to continue to be a menace to society. Mr Reifen says a proper and fearless stand in the witness - box. straightforward answers, and jargon-free explanations are essential requirements. “Strange as it may sound." he adds. “an adequately-trained youth examiner can make a real contribution to the legal profession. which, in relation to sexual offences, needs a new and more challenging approach.” The youth examiners may also undertake important social work during their investigations. Accustomed to evaluating emotional and social conditions, they sometimes find children who seem to need special help and can refer them to the appropriate agency. Unfortunately, sex offences against children in New Zealand are increasing. The law recognises that severe damage can be done to the child’s characterformation by sexual interference and imposes heavy penalties for offenders. They provide some protection for the child against the commission of such offences: but there is no protection for him once an offence has been committed. The Israeli scheme provides this desirable protection. It could, perhaps, be extended to settle the vexed question of all police interviews with children: but even the adoption of the limited Israeli scheme would be a welcome advance in New Zealand.