‘Robust and Raring to Go?’– Judges' Perceptions of Child Witnesses

This article explores judicial perceptions of child witnesses. It considers the impact of recent legislation in England and Wales as well as in Scotland which classified all child witnesses as vulnerable and introduced a series of special measures to facilitate children's evidence. The article reports the findings of an empirical research study conducted with the judiciary in Scotland which suggests that judicial perceptions of child witnesses extend across a complex spectrum where a child may be viewed as vulnerable but is also likely to be seen as suggestible, reliable or resilient. The article advances two propositions. First, that the statutory conceptualization of children as invariably vulnerable has not displaced established beliefs concerning children's suggestibility and therefore has made little difference to perceptions of their ability to produce reliable testimony. Second, that focusing on children's potential for resilience rather than their vulnerability may prove a more productive conceptualization of children, one which could better support their capability as witnesses.     

Guantánamo Bay: Towards Legality?

This article outlines the US Supreme Court's approach to the habeas corpus entitlements of suspected terrorists detained in Guantánamo Bay and argues for the extension of constitutional habeas corpus rights to them. The article considers two ways in which the Supreme Court might carry out this task: first, 'the territorial approach' (based on domestic legal principles of 'unincorporated territories' and principles of leasehold), and secondly, 'the extraterritorial approach' (based on international purposive approaches to the reach of human rights treaties exemplified by the European Court of Human Rights' Article 1 jurisprudence). For reasons of effectiveness of protection, the Article expresses a clear preference for the latter. The House of Lords decision in R (Al-Skeini) v Secretary of State for Defence (2007) is proposed as a template for such a development. Finally the article refutes arguments rejecting such a development based on the 'trade-off thesis' and perceptions of judicial competence.     

Mainstreaming: A case for optimism and cynicism

This paper seeks to evaluate the concept of mainstreaming against a range of feminist critiques of laws and legal systems and to examine the case for the pursuit of feminist politics through mainstreaming strategies. It begins, in section two, by identifying theme sin existing mainstreaming literature, and then in section three considers the potential of mainstreaming to tackle the causes o fine quality. In particular it questions whether mainstreaming can address the patriarchal nature of laws and legal systems and the essentialising tendencies of law, and whether mainstreaming can effectively tackle market-driven inequality. A final section considers the conditions under which feminists might consider engagement with mainstreaming and the limits of such strategies.     

CHILDREN IN CONCILIATION THE EXPERIENCE OF INVOLVING CHILDREN IN CONCILIATION

Conciliation services in Scotland have developed rapidly since the first service, Lothian Family Conciliation Service (LFCS), was set up in Edinburgh in 1984. Conciliators in Scotland work principally with parents, but wherever possible involve children in the process. The author monitored and evaluated this work over two years. This article outlines the context of conciliation in Scotland, briefly describes the LFCS and presents the research findings on the service's involvement with children.