dc.contributor.author | Schultz, Karen | |
dc.contributor.editor | TC Beirne School of Law, University of Queensland | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2017-05-03T15:03:44Z | |
dc.date.available | 2017-05-03T15:03:44Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2004 | |
dc.date.modified | 2009-08-30T23:14:27Z | |
dc.identifier.issn | 00834041 | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10072/25452 | |
dc.description.abstract | What substantive criteria do Queensland judicial officers prefer for competence tests for non-accused child witnesses in criminal proceedings? Are competence tests for sworn and unsworn evidence distinguishable? This paper is the second reporting a suite of questions concerning competence, in a survey of Queensland judicial officers. This suite focussed on three general questions of interest: the referability of competence tests to the Queensland legislation; the substantive criteria of competence tests for sworn and unsworn evidence; and the formal framing of competence tests. Two question-types were included - judicial officers signalled, in closed-ended questions, the importance that listed criteria 'should' bear to competence tests, and, in open-ended questions, the questions they 'would' put in competence tests. Question-type seemingly affected some judicial responses. For sworn evidence, a child's understanding of an oath was assigned low importance in closed-ended questions (in two formulations), but high importance in open-ended questions. For unsworn evidence, a child's understanding of a promise was assigned extremely high importance in closed-ended questions (in two formulations), but low importance in open-ended questions. Consonant with law reform endeavours, both empirical and theoretical issues are traversed in this article. | |
dc.description.peerreviewed | Yes | |
dc.description.publicationstatus | Yes | |
dc.language | English | |
dc.language.iso | eng | |
dc.publisher | TC Beirne School of Law, University of Queensland | |
dc.publisher.place | St Lucia, Queensland | |
dc.publisher.uri | http://www.heinonline.org/ | |
dc.relation.ispartofpagefrom | 134 | |
dc.relation.ispartofpageto | 169 | |
dc.relation.ispartofissue | 1 | |
dc.relation.ispartofjournal | University of Queensland Law Journal | |
dc.relation.ispartofvolume | 23 | |
dc.subject.fieldofresearch | Law | |
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode | 1801 | |
dc.title | The Content of Competence Tests: Queensland Judicial Perspectives on Non-Accused Child Witnesses in Criminal Proceedings, Part 2 | |
dc.type | Journal article | |
dc.type.description | C1 - Articles | |
dc.type.code | C - Journal Articles | |
gro.date.issued | 2004 | |
gro.hasfulltext | No Full Text | |
gro.griffith.author | Schultz, Karen | |