Recognizing and addressing the specific needs of children as witnesses has brought about much needed amendments to the Criminal Code, and many of the revisions help to accommodate the differences a child presents to traditional witness testimony. Screens, videotaped evidence, closed court and support persons are all tools that can be used to aid a child in giving evidence and help to ensure that the courts are receiving the best possible recollection of the facts. Because of these amendments, there are also debates that allowing children these special “rights” is an infringement of the rights promised to the accused by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

History of Child Witnesses in Canada

“Child witnesses have historically been subjected to rules of evidence that strongly implied they were not to be believe

A study conducted by Leichtman and Ceci (1995) also shows the effect of suggestibility on young children. In the “Sam Stone” study a stranger named Sam Stone visited a daycare center of preschoolers (ages 3-6 years old) for a 2 minute period. The children were than asked questions about Sam Stone’s visit on four occasions over a 10 week period. There were two groups of children, one group in a control situation and the other in an experimental group. Children in the control group received no previous information about Sam Stone before his visit, while children in the experimental group were told a great deal about Sam Stone’s personality before his visit. The experimental group of children was told 12 stories on an interval of 3 per week before his visit, depicting Sam as a friendly but clumsy person. Both groups were then interviewed, first a free narrative was elicited, then questions were specifically asked about 2 non-events that involved Sam Stone doing something to a teddy bear or a book (he never touched either item). No child in the control group (no stereotype, no information) made false reports of any kind during the free narrative, and when asked if Sam did anything to a teddy bear or book, most of the children in the control group accurately answered “no”. Only 10% of the younger 3 and 4 year olds claimed that Sam did anything to a book or teddy bear. When the children were further questioned if they saw Sam do anything only 5% continued to say something occurred and when they were gently challenged ( “you didn’t really see Sam do anything to the book/teddy did you?”) only 2.5% of the youngest children still answered that something had occurred. None of the children aged 5 and 6 claimed they had seen Sam do anything. In the experimental group however, there were suggestions built into the questions (“when Sam ripped the book was he just being silly or was he angry?”). During the free narratives, 46% of the 3 and 4 year olds and 30% of the 5 and 6 year olds reported that Sam had committed an act that had in fact not occurred. In response to specific questions, 72% of the younger children reported that Sam had done a fictitious act, while 44% submitted that they had actually seen Sam do the act in question. When gently challenged still 21% insisted that Sam “ripped the book”. Although they were more accurate, still 11% of the 5 and 6 year olds insisted Sam did the fictitious act when gently challenged (Thompson et al., 1998).

“For the purposes of subsections (1) and (2.3) and for greater certainty, the “proper administration of justice” includes insuring the interests of witnesses under eighteen years of age are safeguarded in proceedings in which the accused is charged with a sexual offence, an offence against any of sections 271, 272 and 273 or an offence in which violence against the person is alleged to have been used, threatened or attempted”

Some topics in this essay:
Brockman Rose, Sam Stone, Justice L’Heureux-Dube, Child Testimony, Criminal Code, Witnesses Dealing, Wakefield Underwager, Rights Freedoms, Videotaped Evidence, Circuit TV, child witnesses, videotaped evidence, child testimony, trial judge, section 48611, brockman rose, criminal code, sections 7 11d, sections 7, 7 11d, section 7151, brockman rose 2001, 7 11d charter, rights sections 7, sam fictitious act,