‘It was like more easier’: Rangatahi (Young People) and Their whānau (Family) Talk About Communication Assistance in the New Zealand Youth Justice System

Abstract

This qualitative study gives voice to rangatahi (young people) and their whānau (families) (n = 10) who have experienced communication assistance in the New Zealand youth justice system. Communication assistance is a form of specialist support for witnesses and defendants who have been identified as having communication difficulties; and is modelled on the role of the intermediary in England and Wales. The findings overall suggest that communication assistance has a valuable and ongoing role to play in the NZ youth justice system, and may be one means of addressing the rights and needs of those with communication difficulties who offend.

Keywords

children’s rights communication assistance defendant Evidence Act family group conference intermediaries Talking Mat vulnerable United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child youth justice

Introduction

There is now a large and growing body of academic literature highlighting the over-representation of communication difficulties in young people who offend (see Anderson et al., 2016 for a review). An oft-quoted statistic is that at least 60 per cent of young people who offend have communication difficulties compared to 5 per cent–7 per cent of the general population (Bryan et al., 2015; Hughes et al., 2012; Law et al., 2000; Lount et al., 2017). This is a significant problem currently facing youth justice systems around the world (Snow, 2019). Children’s rights, including fair process and just outcomes are compromised in the face of unaddressed communication difficulties. One possible remedy being utilised in the New Zealand (NZ) youth justice system is communication assistance: specialist one on one communication support in youth justice processes (Howard et al., 2020b). This article presents the findings from a small NZ-based qualitative study (n = 10) which interviewed young people and their families who had received communication assistance. The Māori or Indigenous terms in NZ for young people and their families are rangatahi and whānau and will be used throughout the article.

Communication difficulties in young people who offend: A brief overview

The communication difficulties of young people who offend have been written about extensively (Anderson et al., 2016; Snow, 2019). There exists a large and convincing body of research that consistently shows that young people who offend score poorly on language measures, score more poorly than non-offending comparison groups and are more likely to meet criteria for a language impairment than the general population (Anderson et al., 2016; Snow, 2019). Research indicates that young people who offend score more poorly on tests of receptive than expressive language skills, and have particular difficulties understanding abstract language and producing narratives (Bryan, 2004; Humber and Snow, 2001; Snow and Powell, 2005, 2008). These are all key skills for participation in youth justice processes (Snow and Powell, 2012). The origins of such difficulties are varied and may include intellectual disability, Foetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder, Autism Spectrum Disorder, head injury and/or other factors that are known to affect a child’s language development such as parental education, maternal depression, social disadvantage, abuse and neglect (Law et al., 2003; Paul and Norbury, 2012; Sohr-Preston & Scaramella, 2006; Tomblin et al., 1991). Studies have consistently found that these communication difficulties are likely to go undetected and untreated (Snow and Powell, 2004, 2012). This is partly because young people become skilled at masking their difficulties and partly because communication difficulties are difficult to identify and may instead present as laziness, rudeness or bad behaviour. Parents and other individuals involved throughout a child’s life (such as teachers and healthcare professionals) may furthermore lack awareness and knowledge of communication difficulties as a potential issue.

Children’s rights in justice settings

Children’s rights (which apply to all individuals under the age of 18) are protected internationally by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). The UNCRC sets out the rights that all children are entitled to enjoy across every area of life (see Tobin, 2019 for a comprehensive commentary). In justice settings, children are considered to have the same due process and fair trial rights as adults, including the right to participate in and understand the criminal process (Article 40 and Article 12, and General Comment No. 12; United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, 2009). In upholding these rights however, a child’s age and evolving capacities must be taken into account (Kilkelly, 2008). What this means in practice is that justice processes for children cannot simply replicate justice processes for adults. Processes must be adapted and made child-friendly in order to comply with international standards (Kilkelly, 2008). Accommodations to judicial and non-judicial processes are required to ensure that the rights of young people with communication difficulties are fully vindicated (see for example, the Guidelines of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on child-friendly justice (Council of Europe, 2010)).

Addressing the communication needs of young people who offend: A brief overview

Efforts to address the communication needs of young people who offend are still in their infancy (Snow, 2019). To date, efforts in countries such as England, Australia and NZ have included providing training and information to youth justice staff (Howard et al., 2020b; Martin, 2019; Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists, nd), modifying written materials utilised in youth justice processes (Clear Cut Communications, nd; Howard et al., 2020b; Martin, 2019; Parsons and Sherwood, 2015), providing speech-language therapy services for young people in custody (Turner et al., 2019), and utilising speech-language therapists to modify the language of rehabilitation programmes (Martin, 2019). Providing individuals with specialist third-party communication support in police interviews, court and other related processes is yet another possible solution being utilised to support suspects and defendants in some jurisdictions, including in NZ, Northern Ireland and Southern Australia (Department of Justice (Northern Ireland), 2015; Howard et al., 2020b; Rau, 2016). In NZ, this third-party support is referred to as communication assistance.

Communication assistance in NZ is described in detail in Howard et al. (2020b). In summary, assistance is provided pursuant to legislation and is based on the findings of specialist assessment and recommendations. Recommendations may include the simplification of language, the use of visual aids, tools to minimise anxiety and stress and/or changes to the environment such as different seating arrangements or the taking of breaks. The communication assistant is typically present during court or in other non-judicial processes to facilitate the young person’s understanding of proceedings in real-time and during breaks. Communication assistance in NZ, and analogous roles in Northern Ireland and Southern Australia, are based on the role of the intermediary in England and Wales. Intermediaries exist in England and Wales for vulnerable witnesses pursuant to legislation (see Plotnikoff and Woolfson, 2015 for an overview). Judges in England and Wales have exercised their discretion to appoint intermediaries for some young and other vulnerable defendants (Plotnikoff and Woolfson, 2019), however anecdotal evidence suggests that communication assistance for young people who offend in NZ is more widespread.

Current study

Previous work by the authors has looked at professionals’ experiences of communication assistance in the NZ youth justice system (Howard et al., 2020a, 2020c). The aim of this small qualitative study (n = 10) was to add the voices of rangatahi (young people) and their whānau (families) to this body of work. From a children’s rights perspective, it is imperative that young people are given the opportunity to speak and be heard on matters affecting them (see Article 12 and General Comment No.12; United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, 2009). From both an international rights and cultural perspective, it was important to also include the voice of whānau members. The inclusion of family is promoted by international instruments such as the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice (the Beijing Rules). Family is furthermore integral to the NZ youth justice legislative framework (Becroft, 2015) and to Indigenous identity (for a discussion of Māori culture and identity, see Houkamau and Sibley, 2010; see also Walker, 2006).

For readers unfamiliar with the NZ context, NZ is an island country in the Pacific Ocean with a population of almost 5 million inhabitants (Statistics New Zealand, 2019). As a former British colony, most inhabitants are of European descent (for a detailed history of NZ, see King, 2012). Māori, as Indigenous peoples, comprise approximately 17 per cent of the population (Statistics New Zealand, 2019). Māori, however, are over-represented at every point in the criminal justice system (see Department of Corrections, 2007; Ministry of Justice, 2018; Te Uepū Hāpai i te Ora, 2019). In 2018, for example, 63 per cent of children and young people with charges finalised in court were Māori (Ministry of Justice, 2018). The ongoing deleterious impact of colonisation and racism underlie these statistics in NZ (Te Uepū Hāpai i te Ora, 2019).

NZ’s youth justice system is highly regarded internationally for its separate and distinct approach to justice for young people (for an overview, see Lynch, 2019). The aim is to keep young people out of the formal court system as much as possible. This is achieved through two key pillars: Police youth aid, which are a specialist division of NZ Police and the Family Group Conference (FGC; Becroft, 2014). FGCs are statutory decision-making forum that involve the young person, their family, often the victim and state and community representatives (Henwood and Stratford, 2014). The majority of youth offending is dealt with by Police youth aid and FGCs. Only a small minority of cases reach the Youth Court, which is a specialist division of the District Court.

The authors consider that this small qualitative study is an important early attempt to seek out and give voice to a sample of young people who have communication difficulties (and their families) and who have been provided with a form of specialist support. Responding to the over-representation of communication difficulties in young people who offend is, as Woodward et al. (2019) describe, a ‘new frontier’ (p. 32). As such, there is a paucity of research in this area. The authors are not aware of any other studies that have sought the views of young people who have received communication assistance or intermediary support. Furthermore, this study is important in its attempt to prioritise and give prominence to Indigenous voices.

The study’s main research question was what are rangatahi and whānau’s experiences of communication assistance in the NZ youth justice system? The results presented may help inform the further development of what remains a relatively new role in NZ. They may also help inform other jurisdictions who are looking for their own solutions to the over-representation of communication difficulties in the youth justice system.

Method

Ethics and research approval

Ethics approval for this study was obtained from the University of Auckland Human Participants Ethics Committee (reference number 019002). Research approval to conduct the study was obtained by Oranga Tamariki-Ministry for Children, the government agency in NZ responsible for the wellbeing of children, specifically children at risk of harm, young people who offend and children of the State.

Participants and recruitment

Participants were five rangatahi who had been appointed a communication assistant in a youth justice process(es) and five whānau who were involved in a youth justice process(es) where their rangatahi were supported by a communication assistant. To be eligible to participate in the research, rangatahi needed to have been between ages 10 and 17 at the time of the youth justice process(es). The rangatahi who participated in the research were all males, aged between 14 and 18 at the time of the interview (M = 17, SD = 1.67). One rangatahi identified as Pasifika (from a Pacific Island) and four identified as NZ Māori. The five whānau members (four female and one male) all identified as NZ Māori.

Rangatahi and whānau were recruited indirectly by way of a ‘permission to contact’ advertisement sent to communication assistants, youth advocates (a NZ term used to refer to defence lawyers for young people), social workers and staff of youth justice residences. Rangatahi and whānau were asked permission to be contacted by the first author and were provided with easy-read information about the research. Contact was then made at a later date with those rangatahi and whānau who had given permission to be contacted. Rangatahi and whānau were recruited from a large metropolitan area and also from smaller regions across the North Island of NZ. All participants aged 16 and above signed a consent form to participate in the research. There was one participant under the age of 16 and he gave his assent to participate in the research. Consent was also sought from the youth justice residence, which was his current caregiver.

Data collection

An audio-recorded, semi-structured interview was conducted separately with each participant (apart from whānau members 4 and 5 who for practical reasons were interviewed together). Interviews ranged in duration from 6 minutes to 34 minutes. Each interview focused on the participant’s experience of communication assistance. Careful consideration was given to the manner in which the interviews with the rangatahi were conducted. These were rangatahi who by virtue of being appointed a communication assistant in youth justice processes had communication difficulties. The interview process was carefully planned and trialled in conjunction with the second author who is a speech-language therapist and communication assistant. Rangatahi were asked to rate their understanding and talking in different youth justice situations using visual continuums (as shown in Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Example of continuum used in interviews.

The remainder of the interview was modelled on Talking Mats, a communication framework originally developed at the University of Stirling, Scotland to help people with communication difficulties organise their thoughts and express their views (see for example, Murphy et al., 2010). This communication system consists of a topic to be talked about, for example, relationships, school (or in this case, communication assistance). ‘Options’ or picture cards related to the topic are then given to the person to place under a ‘top scale’. A top scale is three categories such as ‘Like/not sure/don’t like’ or ‘very important/quite important/not important’ under which options can be placed, for example, a young person being asked about the topic ‘school’, could place an option card depicting mathematics under ‘like’ to express his or her view about mathematics. This research utilised two top scales on two separate mats; Yes/Don’t Know/No (as shown in Figure 2) and Helpful/Don’t Know/Unhelpful. A set of 17 pictures of resources commonly used by communication assistants, such as a laptop, sticky labels or post-it notes, and a stress ball, were used as options. Rangatahi were asked which resources had been used in their youth justice process(es) and answered by placing each option card below the top scale cards, Yes, Don’t Know or No (see Figure 3 for an example of a completed mat). The researcher then asked the ranagtahi to look only at the cards in the ‘Yes’ pile and answer which ones were helpful or unhelpful by placing them into piles under the top scale cards, Helpful, Don’t Know or Unhelpful (in effect creating a second mat or sub-mat). Rangatahi were asked if there was anything missing from the option cards, and were able to add cards if they wanted to. The researcher used the second Talking Mat as a starting point for further conversation. Questions were asked about what made particular resources helpful or unhelpful. Questions were also asked to gather more information about the resources that had been used, for example, ‘What sort of pictures did she use?’ and ‘What was the paper and pencil used for?’ In addition, more general questions about communication assistance were asked such as ‘What would you tell other young people about what [Bob] does?’ The communication assistant’s name was often used in place of the words ‘communication assistant’ for ease of understanding.

Figure 2.

Example of top scale categories under which cards could be placed in interviews.

Figure 3.

Example of a Talking Mat used to gather information about the resources used by a communication assistant in a youth justice process.

The interviews with whānau did not use a Talking Mat type framework and instead consisted of questions such as, ‘What did you like/not like about having the communication assistant at the lawyer’s meeting/FGC/court hearing?’ and ‘What would you say to important people who make decisions about whether extra help should be given to other children in lawyer’s meetings/FGCs/court hearings?’ The semi-structured nature of the interviews ensured there was scope and flexibility to discuss any other related issues that arose.

Cultural considerations

The interviews were conducted in accordance with Māori or Pasifika (people from the Pacific Islands) protocols of social engagement. In particular, the importance of whakawhānaungatanga (relationship building) was at the forefront of the interviewer’s mind throughout. For this reason, interviews were conducted in the whānau home as a familiar and safe environment (except for one ranagtahi who was in a youth justice residence at the time of the interview). The interviewer took time to introduce herself and shared safe and appropriate personal details as part of this process. Time was also taken for the rangatahi and whānau to say as much or as little about themselves as they wanted. This allowed connections to be made and commonalities to be discussed. The interviewer ensured that she had ample time set aside for the visit so the whole process was not rushed. Where appropriate, the interviewer also shared a cup of tea or similar with the rangatahi and whānau. Ongoing cultural guidance and support for this research was provided by the third author who identifies as NZ Māori and who teaches cultural competence at a university level.

Data analysis

The audio recordings were transcribed (intelligent verbatim) by the first author. Anonymised transcripts were then imported into a qualitative software package, NVivo (version 11, 2015, QSR International Pty Ltd), which allowed for the management and organisation of the data for thematic analysis. Braun and Clarke’s (2006) six-stage approach to thematic analysis was conducted. In brief, this involved reading and reviewing transcripts; noting sections of interest to the research; developing codes to describe these sections; giving the codes names and definitions; and weaving them together into a story of the dataset.

Reflexivity

The first author interviewed all participants, transcribed and analysed the transcripts. Throughout the process, she remained aware of her cultural identity (in the broadest sense) that she was bringing to the research. She was conscious that she is an individual from many dominant cultures (Pākehā (non-Māori), middle-class, professional). She was also conscious that she does not have communication difficulties, has never been accused of committing a crime and has not gone through criminal justice processes (except in her previous professional capacity as a lawyer). The first author accepts that this will have undoubtedly shaped the research; how she was seen by and how she saw participants, her relationship with them, the questions she asked, the nature of the information they chose to share with her, how she interpreted the transcripts and overall how she has told their story. Endeavours were made to collect and analyse the data in a manner that stayed close to participants’ reported experience of communication assistance. This is discussed in further detail in the ‘Results’ section.

Results

Main theme

The main finding was that rangatahi and their whānau were overwhelmingly in support of communication assistance and considered that communication assistance made it ‘easier’ in a youth justice system that was otherwise ‘hard’. This was a cohort of rangatahi with communication difficulties, and for whom talking and understanding in everyday life was difficult. Communication assistance was a transformative and empowering experience for these rangatahi and their whānau and enabled them to participate in a way that they had not previously experienced in youth justice processes. Many of the rangatahi and whānau interviewed had previous experiences of youth justice processes with which they could compare their current experience. They indicated that this time, with communication assistance, they understood what was happening and were involved meaningfully in the process. As one whānau member said,

[It was] way easier. Coz he knew what they were talking about. He would come home and he was like, ‘oh yeah, [the communication assistant] said’. (whānau 4)

The impact that communication assistance had for some participants was most strikingly captured in conversation with rangatahi 1. Rangatahi 1 was asked to rate his everyday understanding out of 10 (with 0 being ‘really hard’ and 10 being ‘really easy’). He was then asked to rate his understanding with police, in court and in the FGC he attended. He rated his everyday understanding as a 4 out of 10, his understanding in court as a 4 out of 10, and his understanding with police as a 2 out of 10. In response to being asked to rate his understanding at the FGC he said, ‘It was pretty easy because [the communication assistant] was there to help’. He rated understanding in the FGC as a surprising 8 out of 10.

The essence of what was shared by rangatahi and whānau across the 10 interviews is captured in 1 overarching main theme, ‘We were participants in the process’. The name of this theme and the summary provided above are the first author’s words. ‘Participants’ is a word that was deliberately chosen because it derives from the Latin word ‘participat’, meaning to share. The essence of the transcripts, although brief and largely pictorial, was that communication assistance meant sharing in and being part of the process, rather than being an outsider to whom the process was done.

Sub-themes

Seven sub-themes were also identified which will be described in turn below. The names of the sub-themes are based on direct quotes from rangatahi and whānau and the manner in which they are presented is deliberately different from the earlier summary of the overarching (main) theme. The earlier summary was intended to be a higher level overview or interpretation by the first author. For the sub-themes, however, the first author wanted to allow the voice of the rangatahi and whānau to speak for themselves. The level of analysis conducted stays close to what the participants actually said: although it is acknowledged that it is the first author who has organised how their collective stories have been told. Giving these participants as strong a voice as possible was important as they are representatives of a relatively vulnerable and disempowered group. They arguably represent a larger number of young Māori and Pasifika men (and their whānau) who have communication difficulties and who are required to negotiate the NZ criminal justice system as a result of having committed or having been accused of committing crime.

One of the hallmark features of communication assistance, described by participants, is that it breaks down complex information into something simple and easy to follow. This is often done with the use of visual aids. In keeping with the nature of communication assistance, the results are summarised visually as a whole in Figure 4. Each sub-theme is then discussed and explored in turn using the participants’ words. For ease of reading, the results and discussion are presented separately in different sections.

Figure 4.

Visual representation of the overarching main theme and seven sub-themes.

Sub-theme 1: ‘The words were like more easier’

Rangatahi and whānau stated that communication assistance helped by making the words in youth justice processes ‘easier’ to understand. As one whānau member stated,

With [the communication assistant] it was way easier for him [my son] to understand about what is going on in court. Because when it first started, he didn’t know what they were talking about. And [the communication assistant] . . . broke it down, brought it down to his level. (whānau 4)

One rangatahi indicated that it was helpful when the communication assistant typed a simplified summary of what was being said in court on her laptop while it was being said,

Researcher:

So you said there were pictures on the laptop. What did you like about having the pictures on the laptop?

Rangatahi 4:

So I could read it while we were in court and stuff.

Researcher:

What was good about being able to read it while you were in court?

Rangatahi 4:

It was easier wording that what the judge was saying.

Another rangatahi indicated that a summary written down by the communication assistant in an FGC helped him to understand what was happening:

Researcher:

What’s understanding like when you’ve been in an FGC, really really hard, really really easy or somewhere else on this line [referring to the visual continuum]?

Rangatahi 3:

Understanding, it was alright. I understood nearly all of it.

Researcher:

So that’s quite a difference from every day.

Rangatahi 3:

Yeah.

Researcher:

What do you think helped? What made it easier to understand?

Rangatahi 3:

Because they were breaking it down. This lady was breaking it down into easier words.

Sub-theme 2: ‘She would break it down in pictures’

Rangatahi and whānau also considered that the visual aids and tools used by communication assistants helped make youth justice processes more understandable. As one whānau member stated,

. . . he drew pictures. It was good. It just made a huge difference I think. (whānau 1)

The following two exchanges between the researcher and various rangatahi also illustrate the common view expressed about the usefulness of pictures and visual aids:

Researcher:

Why was the calendar helpful?

Rangatahi 3:

Coz I knew what day, when am I going to get out [of the youth justice residence].

Researcher:

Pictures on the wall [PowerPoint presentation] . . . what was helpful about that?

Rangatahi 1:

It had stuff on there. And it was easier to understand.

Researcher:

What sort of pictures were on the wall? Do you remember?

Rangatahi 1:

No, but it was helpful.

Sub-theme 3: ‘I just liked being able to share that I was mad’

Two rangatahi indicated that they liked being able to share their feelings in court or FGCs with the help of the communication assistant as illustrated by the following quotes:

Researcher:

What did you use this for [referring to a picture of a visual rating scale]?

Rangatahi 3:

We used it to say if I was happy and if I was angry and to show if I’m stressed.

Researcher:

What did you like about that?

Rangatahi 3:

I just liked to share that I was mad.

Researcher:

What about the feelings and thoughts? What can you tell me about that one?[referring to one of the cards on the talking mat].

Rangatahi 1:

Said how I was feeling then . . . I put down nervous (laughs).

Researcher:

So you were feeling really nervous and you were able to say that.

Rangatahi 1:

Yup.

Sub-theme 4: ‘Lawyers help, but not just any lawyer’

Rangatahi and whānau also discussed the difference lawyers could make in helping them understand and participate in youth justice processes:

But he had a good lawyer too because she made sure that it was explained to [my son]. whānau 1

One rangatahi indicated that their lawyer was easier to understand because she used similar tools to the communication assistant:

Researcher:

What makes her [your lawyer] easy to understand?

Rangatahi 3:

She does the same thing as that lady [the communication assistant].

Researcher:

Does she?

Rangatahi 3:

Coz she prints it out.

Researcher:

So she prints things out for you.

Rangatahi 3:

Yeah, she prints things out for me. And she shows me. She laminates it and she brings it in [to the youth justice residence].

Sub-theme 5: ‘We couldn’t break it down, but she could’

Whānau members acknowledged that they knew their sons were struggling to make sense of the various youth justice processes in which they were involved, but that they did not have the tools or skills to help facilitate a better understanding for them:

Sometimes we think we know our children so well, but sometimes we can’t help them. For myself, my learning was limited. And I didn’t know how I could make [my son] understand some of the things, even though I understood them . . . I didn’t have the tools for it and this lady came along with a way that was able to help [my son] understand better than I could have taught him to understand it, so I grabbed onto it. (whānau 2)

One whānau member pointed out that even if she was able to help facilitate her son’s understanding, court protocol required her to sit separately from her son:

I couldn’t sit with him and do what she is doing. Usually he has to stand by himself. But she was allowed to sit there. (whānau 4)

Sub-theme 6: ‘I just needed my son to understand everything. This was his life’

Being able to understand youth justice processes was something that was valued by the rangatahi and whānau members who were interviewed. As one whānau member stated, ‘it’s [understanding is] a must’. Having a communication assistant appointed to help their rangatahi was described as a ‘relief’ by another whānau member. The more serious the charges, the greater the importance whānau placed on understanding. As one whānau member stated,

The seriousness of the charges was my concern. And I just needed [my son] to understand everything that was going on. What the lawyers were talking about, what the lawyers and the judges were talking about, so that he understood every part of what was happening through that whole process. Because this was his life. His life. A big chunk of his life. (whānau 2)

Whānau members stated that a better understanding of youth justice processes could lead to better outcomes. The whānau member quoted earlier considered that having a communication assistant helped lead to a community rather than prison sentence for her son, presumably as he would otherwise have been transferred to the adult jurisdiction:

If we got things wrong, it was going to be a big chunk of his life that he would have spent in prison. (whānau 2)

Other whānau members stated that had such communication assistance existed when they were younger, they might not have been as involved in the criminal justice system:

You know I think if I had’ve had somebody like that when I was younger, I might not have continued to get into the trouble I did. (whānau 1)

One whānau member considered that communication assistance in all youth justice processes would be helpful and not just in court and at FGCs. In relation to her son being interviewed at the police station post-arrest, she stated,

It would have been really helpful if we could ring her [the communication assistant] up and tell her to come with us [to the police station]. (whānau 4)

Rangatahi stated that they would have liked to have communication assistance on past occasions in court or at FGCs, and would like communication assistance again in the future, should they face any further charges:

Researcher:

Have there been times before when you’ve been in court or a Family Group Conference?

Rangatahi 1:

Yes, court.

Researcher:

Would you have liked a [communication assistant] there then?

Rangatahi 1:

Yes

Researcher:

Why?

Rangatahi 1:

Coz it was helpful.

Researcher:

So it was helpful to have [the communication assistant] here [points to visual timeline], but before [the communication assistant] wasn’t there?

Rangatahi 1:

No, it was hard.

Researcher:

If [the communication assistant] was there, what difference would it make?

Rangatahi 1:

Big difference.

Researcher:

How would it help?

Rangatahi 1:

Because then I didn’t understand. But for that, I starting understanding.

Sub-theme 7: ‘But it’s still YJ’

While whānau members and rangatahi considered that communication assistance was worthwhile and made their journey through youth justice easier, it did not negate the fact that a rangatahi in their whānau had been accused of committing a crime(s), that there were processes to go through and consequences to face. It also did not negate the fact that their rangatahi had communication difficulties which had existed before and would continue after their involvement in the youth justice system. One mother, for example, was angry that the support given to her son was limited to his court appearance:

She [the communication assistance] gave us a few pointers and a few flashcards which gave us ways of communicating with [my son] with other services that we were going to use afterwards, after the court case. We were going to be using other services and the flash cards were ways the other services could communicate with [my son] to make it easier for him . . . That was something that I thought was really good and really helpful, but the other services didn’t use them . . . that really pissed me off. (whānau 2)

Despite the involvement of a communication assistant, there were still many aspects of the youth justice system that were difficult, challenging or did not make sense for rangatahi and whānau members. Rangatahi 2, for example, who had a communication assistant appointed to help explain his version of events to his lawyer, could not understand why this discussion needed to take place. He was denying the charge and could not understand why he was being asked so many questions about something he did not do. The communication assistant used artists’ models to help the rangatahi explain what happened during the alleged assault. Artists’ models are wooden figurines that have moveable limbs. He indicated that he did not find the artists’ models helpful as he ‘didn’t do it’ and considered them ‘toys’.

Discussion

This study gives voice to rangatahi and whānau who have experienced communication assistance in the NZ youth justice system. Together with the authors’ previous work (Howard et al., 2020a, 2020c), it forms the first evaluation of communication assistance in NZ. Rangatahi and whānau spoke of communication assistance being a transformative and empowering experience that enabled them to participate meaningfully in youth justice processes. Professionals were also overwhelmingly in support of this relatively new role which they considered put young people at the centre of youth justice and upheld fair trial rights. The findings overall suggest that communication assistance has a valuable and ongoing role to play in the NZ youth justice system and may be one means of addressing the participation rights and needs of those with communication difficulties. The findings also suggest that communication assistance or analogous intermediary roles may be a viable option for other jurisdictions to consider.

Suspects and defendants have typically been viewed as less of a priority in policy discussions about intermediaries throughout England and Wales, Australia and NZ. In England and Wales, there exists a regulated statutory system for witness intermediaries and an unregulated, ad hoc system for defendant intermediaries (Cooper and Wurtzel, 2013; Hoyano and Rafferty, 2017). There has been a push from some professionals for access to intermediaries to be more equitable between witnesses and defendants (see for example, Law Commission (England & Wales), 2016; Plotnikoff and Woolfson, 2019). As one participant in a recent review stated, ‘defendants are treated as second class citizens’ (Plotnikoff and Woolfson, 2019: 107). Another emphasised that there is ‘very little focus on treating them [young defendants] in the same way one would a young prosecution witness’ (Plotnikoff and Woolfson, 2019: 107). While several Australian states have adopted or are in the process of adopting intermediary schemes (including Victoria, New South Wales and Australian Capital Territory), only one (Southern Australia) has a system which includes suspects and defendants (Cooper and Mattison, 2017; Magistrates’ Court Victoria, 2018; Ramsay, 2019; Rau, 2016).

It is refreshing to hear rangatahi and whānau in this study report positive communication experiences in youth justice processes because negative communication experiences predominate the literature (Kilkelly, 2010; Lount et al., 2018; Metzger et al., 2018; Ministry of Justice, 2011; Seymour and Butler, 2008; Wigzell et al., 2015). Positive communication experiences where young people understand and can participate in processes affecting them are not simply a nicety, but a necessity and legal obligation. In 2010, consultations carried out by Council of Europe with almost 3800 children and young people highlighted the discrepancy between the rights rhetoric and reality that existed across Europe (and which arguably continues to exist in some jurisdictions today; Kilkelly, 2010). Children and young people reported a general mistrust of the system: they said that they wanted to be heard and receive information in a format they understood and be supported to participate in decisions made about them. Similar findings are described in NZ-based literature. Lount et al. (2018), for example, reported that the young people in their sample struggled to understand most of what happened in court and that this led to a sense of powerlessness and frustration. A NZ-based Ministry of Justice study (2011) similarly found that some young people struggled to understand court processes as a result of the big words and legal jargon.

The results of this study suggest that communication assistance could be one aspect of a more comprehensive attempt to ensuring that children’s rights are fully realised. As one of the professionals interviewed in Howard et al. (2020a) suggested,

. . . there’s probably a relatively small number at the very top end who require the involvement of a communication assistant in the courtroom. The top of the pyramid would be a relatively small number needing that level of involvement, but there’s quite a large number impaired but nowhere near to that extent who would be able to participate properly if the process was made accessible enough. (p. 7)

Others, however, could benefit from broader communication friendly changes to the youth justice system. Comments from rangatahi and whānau in this study suggest that communication strategies could be utilised to positive effect by other youth justice professionals and not just by communication assistants themselves. This could be achieved through training, as is already occurring in several jurisdictions (Howard et al., 2020b; Martin, 2019; Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists, nd); and through changes to written materials and the general layout and environment of the court (and the settings of other non-judicial proceedings).

This research has also highlighted the need for speech-language therapy involvement or speech-language therapy knowledge at other points in the system. As one whānau member interviewed in this study emphasised, her son’s difficulties were pre-existing and ongoing. Recent research suggests that early intervention for children with identified development language disorder may reduce their later involvement with police in adolescence (Winstanley et al., 2018). Snow (2019) suggests that speech-language therapists have a key role to play in preventing at-risk children from later engaging in offending behaviour. She advocates for the inclusion of speech-language therapists (or speech-language therapy knowledge) at all stages on the notional ‘school-to-prison pipeline’. This includes at schools, in child and welfare agencies, in child and adolescent mental health care settings, at police stations, in court, and in youth justice facilities.

Limitations

As with all qualitative research, this study cannot claim to be representative of all rangatahi and whānau who have experienced communication assistance in the NZ youth justice system. Nonetheless, it presents a snapshot of important and valuable views from a small cohort of young Māori and Pasifika boys, and their whānau. Recruiting participants through professionals has the potential to introduce an element of bias to the sample of participants. There is nothing to suggest, however, that professionals were motivated to only mention the study with rangatahi and whānau who had a favourable response to or experience with communication assistance.

Future research

This research, together with the authors’ previous work, forms the first evaluation of communication assistance in the NZ youth justice system. Future NZ-based research, however, could take a wider view of communication assistance and include the work being done with adult defendants and complainants/witnesses of all ages. Such research has the potential to positively benefit and inform this growing new field in the NZ justice system (and with potential lessons for other jurisdictions). As Cooper and Mattison (2017) note, there is also scope for research into the methods used by communication assistants or intermediaries and the extent to which these methods facilitate better understanding, and the collection of better evidence.

Conclusion

The findings of this study show that communication assistance transforms youth justice processes into positive communication experiences. Negative communication experiences not only serve to frustrate and alienate young people from the justice system, but at their worst, can compromise fair process and just outcomes. The law and literature on children’s rights require that young people are encouraged and assisted to participate in processes affecting them, and are given support to do so if they have difficulties due to age, language or disability. Communication assistance, therefore, has a valuable ongoing role to play as one, but not the only, potential solution to the communication and participation difficulties of young people who come into contact with the NZ youth justice system (and with youth justice systems around the world).

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank everyone who helped to make this research possible, especially the 10 rangatahi and whānau members who shared their stories and homes with the first author. She says that it was a privilege to meet and spend time with you. A huge thanks also to the communication assistants, youth advocates (defence lawyers), social workers and staff of youth justice residences who helped facilitate contact with interested rangatahi and whānau. Last, but not least, thanks to Carol Green, NZ-based illustrator and designer, who drew the illustrations in (carol@carolgreen.net).

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The only potential conflict of interest to declare is that one of the authors works as a communication assistant.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Kelly Howard

Author biographies

Kelly Howard (BA(Hons)/LLB(Hons)) is a Clinical Psychology Doctoral Student at the University of Auckland, New Zealand. This article presents some of Kelly’s doctoral research on communication assistance in the NZ youth justice system. Kelly is supervised by Dr Clare McCann. For more information on Kelly’s research, please visit:

Clare McCann is Head of Speech Science ().

Margaret Dudley is Co-Director of the Clinical Psychology programme at the University of Auckland, New Zealand. ().

References

Anderson

Hawes

Snow

(2016) Language impairments among youth offenders: A systematic review. Children and Youth Services Review 65: 195–203.

Becroft

(2014) Signed, sealed: (But not yet fully) delivered. In: Proceedings of the healing courts, healing plans, healing people: international indigenous therapeutic jurisprudence conference, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 8 October.

Becroft

(2015) It’s all relative: The absolute importance of the family in youth justice (a New Zealand perspective). In: Proceedings of the world congress on juvenile justice, Geneva, 26–30 January.

Braun

Clarke

(2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3(2): 77–101. DOI: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.

Bryan

(2004) Preliminary study of the prevalence of speech and language difficulties in young offenders. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders 39(3): 391–400.

Bryan

Garvani

Gregory

Kilner

(2015) Language difficulties and criminal justice: The need for earlier identification. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders 50(6): 763–775.

Clear Cut Communications (nd) Supporting meaningful conversations in youth justice Durham, England. Available at: http://www.durham.gov.uk/media/24428/ClearCut-Communications-Resource-Catalogue/pdf/ClearCutCommunicationResourceCatalogue.pdf?m=636735623750570000

Cooper

Mattison

(2017) Intermediaries, vulnerable people and the quality of evidence: An international comparison of three versions of the English intermediary model. International Journal of Evidence and Proof 21(4): 351–370.

Cooper

Wurtzel

(2013) A day late and a dollar short: In search of an intermediary scheme for vulnerable defendants in England and Wales. Criminal Law Review 1: 4–22.

10.

Council of Europe (2010) Guidelines of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on child-friendly justice. Available at: https://www.coe.int/en/web/children/child-friendly-justice

11.

Department of Corrections (2007) Over-Representation of Māori in the Criminal Justice System: An Exploratory Report. Wellington, New Zealand: Department of Corrections.

12.

Department of Justice (Northern Ireland) (2015) Northern Ireland Registered Intermediaries Schemes Pilot Project: Post-Project Review. Belfast: Department of Justice (Northern Ireland).

13.

Henwood

Stratford

(2014) New Zealand’s Gift to the World: The Youth Justice Family Group Conference. Wellington, New Zealand: The Henwood Trust.

14.

Houkamau

Sibley

(2010) The multi-dimensional model of Māori identity and cultural engagement. New Zealand Journal of Psychology 39(1): 8–28.

15.

Howard

McCann

Dudley

(2020a) ‘I was flying blind a wee bit’: Professionals’ perspectives on challenges facing communication assistance in the New Zealand youth justice system. The International Journal of Evidence & Proof 24: 104–120.

16.

Howard

McCann

Dudley

(2020b) What is communication assistance? Describing a new and emerging profession in the New Zealand youth justice system. Psychiatry, Psychology and The Law 27(2): 300–314.

17.

Howard

McCann

Dudley

(2020c) ‘It’s really good, why hasn’t it happened earlier?’ Professionals’ perspectives on the benefits of communication assistance in the New Zealand youth justice system. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology 53(2): 265–284.

18.

Hoyano

Rafferty

(2017) Rationing defence intermediaries under the April 2016 Criminal practice direction. Criminal Law Review 2: 93–105.

19.

Hughes

Williams

Chitsabesan

Davies

Mounce

(2012) Nobody Made the Connection: The Prevalence of Neurodisability in Young People Who Offend. London: Office of the Children’s Commissioner for England.

20.

Humber

Snow

(2001) The oral language skills of young offenders: A pilot investigation. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law 8(1): 1–11.

21.

Kilkelly

(2008) Youth courts and children’s rights: The Irish experience. Youth Justice 8(1): 39–56.

22.

Kilkelly

(2010) Listening to children about justice: Report of the Council of Europe consultation with children on child-friendly justice. Report, 5 October. Strasbourg: Secretariat of the Group of Specialists on Child-Friendly Justice. Available at: https://rm.coe.int/CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/DisplayDCTMContent?documentId=090000168045f81d

23.

King

(2012) The Penguin History of New Zealand. Auckland, New Zealand: Penguin Group New Zealand.

24.

Law Commission (England and Wales) (2016) Unfitness to Plead; Volume 1: Report. London: Law Commission (England and Wales).

25.

Law

Boyle

Harris

Harkness

Nye

(2000) Prevalence and natural history of primary speech and language delay: Findings from a systematic review of the literature. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders/Royal College of Speech & Language Therapists 35(2): 165–188.

26.

Law

Garrett

Nye

(2003) Speech and language therapy interventions for children with primary speech and language delay or disorder. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 3: CD004110.

27.

Lount

Hand

Purdy

France

(2018) Tough talk: Youth offender’s perceptions of communicating in the youth justice system in New Zealand. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology 54(1): 593–618.

28.

Lount

Purdy

Hand

(2017) Hearing, auditory processing, and language skills of male youth offenders and remandees in youth justice residences in New Zealand. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 60(1): 121–135.

29.

Lynch

(2019) Youth Justice in New Zealand, 3rd Edition. Wellington, New Zealand: Thomson Reuters.

30.

Magistrates’ Court Victoria (2018) Intermediary Pilot Program at Melbourne Magistrates’ Court – Practice Direction 6 of 2018. Available at: https://www.mcv.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2018-10/Intermediary%20Pilot%20Program%20at%20Melbourne%20Magistrates%20Court%20-%20Practice%20Direction%206%20of%202018.pdf

31.

Martin

(2019) The role of the speech-language pathologist in supporting young people in youth justice: A Queensland perspective. Journal of Clinical Practice in Speech-Language Pathology 21(1): 6–10.

32.

Metzger

Savaii

McKee

Kedge

(2018) Youth Voices about Youth Justice: Listening to Young People’s Experiences of Communication within the Youth Justice Sector. Auckland, New Zealand: Point Research Ltd, Tuilaepa Youth Mentoring Service, Talking Trouble Aotearoa NZ.

33.

Ministry of Justice (2011) Youth Court Research: Experiences and Views of Young People, Their Families and Professionals. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Justice.

34.

Ministry of Justice (2018) Youth Justice Indicators Summary Report: April 2018. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Justice. Available at: https://www.justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Publications/Youth-Justice-Indicators-Summary-Report-201804.pdf

35.

Murphy

Gray

Achterberg

Wyke

Cox

(2010) The effectiveness of the talking mat framework in helping people with dementia to express their views on well-being. Dementia 9(4): 454–472.

36.

Parsons

Sherwood

(2015) The Widget Symbol Custody Sheet Pilot Project: Final Report. Southampton: University of Southampton. Available at: www.widgit.com

37.

Paul

Norbury

(2012) Language Disorders from Infancy through Adolescence: Listening, Speaking, Reading, Writing, and Communicating, 4th Edition. St. Louis, MO: Elsevier.

38.

Plotnikoff

Woolfson

(2015) Intermediaries in the Criminal Justice System. Bristol: Policy Press.

39.

Plotnikoff

Woolfson

(2019) Falling Short? A Snapshot of Young Witness Policy and Practice. London: NSPCC.

40.

Ramsay

(2019) More help for vulnerable witnesses. Available at: https://www.cmtedd.act.gov.au/open_government/inform/act_government_media_releases/gordon-ramsay-mla-media-releases/2019/more-help-for-vulnerable-witnesses

41.

Rau

(2016) Communication partner service selected for disability justice plan: News release. Available at: https://www.agd.sa.gov.au/sites/default/files/communication_partner_service_selected_for_disability_justice_plan.pdf?acsf_files_redirect

42.

Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists (nd) The Boxtraining: Communication help for the justice system. Available at: https://www.rcslt.org/learning/the-box-training

43.

Seymour

Butler

(2008) Young People on Remand. Dublin: Office of the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, Department of Health and Children.

44.

Snow

(2019) Speech-language pathology and the youth offender: Epidemiological overview and roadmap for future speech-language pathology research and scope of practice. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools 50: 324–339.

45.

Snow

Powell

(2004) Developmental language disorders and adolescent risk: A public-health advocacy role for speech pathologists? International Journal of Speech-language Pathology 6(4): 221–229.

46.

Snow

Powell

(2005) What’s the story? An exploration of narrative language abilities in male juvenile offenders. Psychology, Crime & Law 11(3): 239–253.

47.

Snow

Powell

(2008) Oral language competence, social skills and high-risk boys: What are juvenile offenders trying to tell us? Children & Society 22(1): 16–28.

48.

Snow

Powell

(2012) Youth (in)justice: Oral language competence in early life and risk for engagement in antisocial behaviour in adolescence. Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice 435: 1–6.

49.

Sohr-Preston

Scaramella

(2006) Implications of timing of maternal depressive symptoms for early cognitive and language development. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review 9(1): 65–83.

50.

Statistics New Zealand (2019) New Zealand as a Village of 100 People: 2018 Census. Wellington, New Zealand: Statistics New Zealand. Available at: https://www.stats.govt.nz/infographics/new-zealand-as-a-village-of-100-people-2018-census-data

51.

Te Uepū Hāpai i te Ora (2019) He Waka Roimata: Transforming our criminal justice system. Available at: https://www.safeandeffectivejustice.govt.nz/assets/Uploads/fa55462d44/teuepureport_hewakaroimata.pdf

52.

Tobin

(Ed) (2019) The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. London: Oxford University Press.

53.

Tomblin

Hardy

Hein

(1991) Predicting poor-communication status in preschool children using risk factors present at birth. Journal of Speech Language, and Hearing Research 34(5): 1096–1105.

54.

Turner

Clegg

Spencer

(2019) Speech-language pathology service provision in English youth offending institutions: Findings from a survey. Journal of Clinical Practice in Speech-language Pathology 21(1): 11–16.

55.

United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child (2009) General Comment No. 12 (2009): The Right of the Child to Be Heard (CRC/C/GC/12). Available at: https://www.refworld.org/docid/4ae562c52.html

56.

Walker

(2006) Whānau Is whānau. Wellington, New Zealand: Families Commission. Available at: https://thehub.sia.govt.nz/resources/whanau-is-whanau/

57.

Wigzell

Kirby

Jacobson

(2015) The Youth Proceedings Advocacy Review: Final Report. London: Institute for Criminal Policy Research.

58.

Winstanley

Webb

Conti-Ramsden

(2018) More or less likely to offend? Young adults with a history of identified developmental language disorders. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders 53(2): 256–270.

59.

Woodward

McLean

Swain

Snow

(2019) What’s the evidence? Speech-language pathology intervention with young people in custody. Journal of Clinical Practice in Speech-Language Pathology 21(1): 29–33.