Fragmented justice: witness intermediary schemes and communication disability rights in the Australian criminal justice process

Intermediaries are crucial in bridging the communication gap between vulnerable individuals and the complexities of the criminal justice process. They advise legal professionals on effective communication and how to adapt questioning techniques and advocate for necessary adjustments to ensure meaningful participation and uphold fundamental human rights. While most Australian jurisdictions have adopted an intermediary scheme, variations in legislative scope, policy and practice exist. This article analyses these diverse schemes through a human rights lens, drawing upon research and existing evaluations of intermediary schemes to highlight the positive impact of intermediaries on communication and evidence quality. Inconsistencies across the jurisdictions regarding eligibility criteria, procedural accommodations and access raise concerns about equitable access to justice and compliance with international and domestic human rights obligations. Given this fragmented landscape, the article examines the effectiveness of these intermediary schemes across all vulnerable participants—including children and adults with cognitive or communication disabilities—and advocates for a nationally harmonised framework. Such a framework would ensure consistent standards, training and access, in turn, promoting fairness, efficiency and alignment with international best practices, as well as enhancing procedural justice for vulnerable adults. Moreover, the article submits that a national scheme would yield economic benefits, justifying government investment.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Australian Journal of Human Rights
Published
2026-10-13
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1080/1323238x.2026.2729482
Primary Topic
Disability Rights and Representation
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Fragmented justice: witness intermediary schemes and communication disability rights in the Australian criminal justice process

Siva Barathi Marimuthu, Rukiya Stein, Laura Smith‐Khan
Australian Journal of Human Rights
Disability Rights and Representation
article

Fragmented justice: witness intermediary schemes and communication disability rights in the Australian criminal justice process

Siva Barathi Marimuthu, Rukiya Stein, Laura Smith‐Khan
article en

Abstract

Intermediaries are crucial in bridging the communication gap between vulnerable individuals and the complexities of the criminal justice process. They advise legal professionals on effective communication and how to adapt questioning techniques and advocate for necessary adjustments to ensure meaningful participation and uphold fundamental human rights. While most Australian jurisdictions have adopted an intermediary scheme, variations in legislative scope, policy and practice exist. This article analyses these diverse schemes through a human rights lens, drawing upon research and existing evaluations of intermediary schemes to highlight the positive impact of intermediaries on communication and evidence quality. Inconsistencies across the jurisdictions regarding eligibility criteria, procedural accommodations and access raise concerns about equitable access to justice and compliance with international and domestic human rights obligations. Given this fragmented landscape, the article examines the effectiveness of these intermediary schemes across all vulnerable participants—including children and adults with cognitive or communication disabilities—and advocates for a nationally harmonised framework. Such a framework would ensure consistent standards, training and access, in turn, promoting fairness, efficiency and alignment with international best practices, as well as enhancing procedural justice for vulnerable adults. Moreover, the article submits that a national scheme would yield economic benefits, justifying government investment.

Australian Journal of Human Rights
University of New England (US), University of New England (AU)
Australian Government
Openalex Percentile: Top 8%
Disability Rights and Representation
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.