The Secondary Shuffle: Special Educators As Tutors, Teachers, Or Both

This study explored the perspectives and practices of six secondary special education teachers regarding role conflicts within their profession. Ideally, special education teachers are expected to work with students with disabilities in ways that promote the students\u27 progress on individual learning goals as stated in their IEPs. In reality, special education teachers often spend the time set aside for working on IEP goals assisting the students with homework and tests that will allow the students to pass their required classes. Thus, students\u27 IEP goals are often neglected. Three overarching assertions emerged from the data. The first assertion was providing support and building positive relationships with students are critical to special education teachers\u27 ability to maximize student success. Next, secondary special education teachers believe the use of research-based strategies is effective and important. Teacher-developed strategies, which either come with special education training and/or come instinctively, must be implemented as well. Finally, in order to pass classes and make progress towards IEP goals, a special education teacher must maintain a balance. Recommendations for teacher preparation programs, secondary schools, and future research were presented

The Youth Proceedings Advocacy Review: Final Report

This review considered the quality of advocacy in youth proceedings and the core components of effective advocacy, with a view to informing the Bar Standard Board's consideration of whether regulatory interventions are required to improve standards of youth advocacy. The research activities comprised a survey of 215 advocates; interviews with 96 stakeholders, including advocates, young people, youth court magistrates, and court-based YOT workers; and observations in four youth courts and five Crown Courts across England and Wales. The report concluded that the work of advocates in youth proceedings cannot be viewed in isolation from its wider legal, institutional and cultural context, and presents recommendations aimed at promoting more effective advocacy. These recommendations are focused on systems and structures of youth proceedings which could support better advocacy; court-based facilitators of advocacy; and training and learning opportunities for advocates

Structured mayhem: personal experiences of the Crown Court

Synopsis: A CJA briefing on the sometimes harrowing experiences of victims, witnesses and defendants in a wide-ranging series of Crown Court cases. Structured Mayhem is a digest of a remarkable piece of research carried by the Institute for Criminal Policy Research. Featuring extensive interviews with court users it furnishes a stark reminder that, for all the progress made in recent years, our courts all too often still cause huge frustration and distress to victims and witnesses, and also defendants

Joint enterprise: righting a wrong turn?

This report presents the findings of an exploratory study of joint enterprise, undertaken by the Institute for Criminal Policy Research, in partnership with the Prison Reform Trust, and within funding from the Nuffield Foundation. Joint enterprise is a doctrine of the criminal law which permits multiple defendants to be convicted of the same criminal offence even where they had different types or levels of involvement. It has been the source of great controversy in recent years. The study looks at the application of the doctrine of joint enterprise in the prosecution of serious cases, and considers the implications of the recent Supreme Court ruling on joint enterprise, which determined that the law had taken ‘a wrong turn’ and required ‘correction’. The report argues that there is an urgent need for greater clarity and transparency in the way in which cases involving multiple defendants are prosecuted and sentenced in the future

Out of the shadows: victims' and witnesses' experiences of attending the Crown Court

This report presents the findings of research examining the experiences of 44 victims and witnesses who attended the Crown Court. These were victims and prosecution witnesses in cases covering a range of crimes, including violent and sexual offences. All interviewees were asked to describe the experience of attending court, and for their views on the fairness or otherwise of the court process and outcomes. The study findings should help inform improvements to both policy and practice aimed at supporting victims and witnesses through the court process

Effective participation or passive acceptance: How can defendants participate more effectively in the court process?

This paper presents the findings of a 20 month Economic and Social Research Council funded study into the public’s experiences of the Crown Court. The aim of the study was to examine victims ’ , witnesses ’ and defendants ’ (court users ’ ) levels of understanding and perceptions of the treatment they received at the Crown Court , and to assess the extent to which they regard court processes and outcomes as fair and legitimate. The study also explored the nature of the interplay between the different players – including legal professionals and court users – in the courtroom. There were three strands to the research: interviews with criminal justice professionals and practitioners, interviews with court users and obs ervations. A key finding that emerged through the research was the apparent limit of defendants’ ‘effective participation’ at court. This issue is the focus of the paper

Judicial perceptions of the quality of criminal advocacy: report of research commissioned by the Solicitors Regulation Authority and the Bar Standards Board

Report presents findings of 50 qualitative interviews with Circuit and High Court Judges in England and Wales about their perceptions of the quality of criminal advocacy in the Crown Court. The study aimed to understand the views of the judiciary on the quality of criminal advocacy; establish how good/competent advocacy was defined; and address perceptions and any issues of regulatory concern that may require further investigation. Findings highlighted some consensus about qualities required of good advocacy - excellent communication, persuasiveness, succinctness, and courtesy, alongside good legal knowledge. A range of concerns were also highlighted, including inexperienced advocates, poor case preparation and unfocussed questioning of witnesses. Further, interviewees identified a number of systemic barriers to good advocacy such as declining levels of remuneration in criminal advocacy, and associated low levels of morale within the profession