Reflections on Intermediary practice

I feel as if I were there at the beginning. In March 2007 I spoke to the Midland Circuit of the Bar about intermediaries. The scheme was still in the pilot period and awareness of it was low. A barrister came up to me afterwards and explained that his lay client who was appealing a conviction in the magistrates’ court bore all the hallmarks of a ‘vulnerable witness’. Could an intermediary help this vulnerable defendant when giving his evidence? An intermediary did, and I think she was the first to do so.

What is supervision? Is it necessary?
Being on the front line in the role of an Intermediary can be very challenging, and at times distressing. Although many of us are experienced clinicians, the effect of vicarious/secondary trauma cannot be underestimated.

“The expectation that we can be immersed in suffering and loss on a daily basis and not be touched by it is as unrealistic as expecting to be able to walk through water without getting wet.” (Green 2013)

The authors, Sue O'Rourke and Chantelle de la Croix, argue that while interpretation services have improved, more can be done to make courts deaf-friendly. They propose steps like increased awareness among court staff, video recording of deaf evidence, and wider use of Deaf Intermediaries who understand deaf culture and communication needs.

‘How long did the assault last?’ (Long pause . . . . . ) ‘About as long as it takes to eat a chip.’