Table 1
Standard vs. Enhanced Environment.
| STANDARD REMOTE WITNESS ROOM | ENHANCED REMOTE WITNESS ROOM |
|---|---|
| Analogue composite video camera system Utilising CCTV technology | High resolution, digital camera system High quality/bandwidth, video conferencing codec |
| Close proximity monitors, camera placement (limits eye-to-eye contact) Small analogue cathode ray tube (CRT) display monitors Diffuse fluorescent lighting | Remote control of camera pan tilt and zoom to optimise framing Large format, high resolution, 50-inch plasma display at comfortable viewing distance Supplementary ceiling mounted lighting fixture to improve colour rendering |
| Gooseneck microphone with large variation in transmitted speech levels Inadequate sound reinforcement, poor frequency response | Perspex, ceiling-mounted, quarter space boundary microphone with improved speech reinforcement Acoustically absorptive wall panels to support occupant comfort and speech intelligibility |
Figure 1
Standard remote witness room: 3-D view of design for standard room; plan of standard room (3D model © ICE Design; plan and photographs showing the remote participant in their room, and how they were seen in the courtroom © Emma Rowden).
Figure 2
Enhanced remote witness room: 3-D view of design for enhanced room; plan of ‘enhanced room (3D model © ICE Design; plan and photographs showing the remote participant in their room, and how they were seen in the courtroom © Emma Rowden).
Table 2
Relational Process Conditions.
| ELEMENT | STANDARD CONDITION | ENHANCED CONDITION |
|---|---|---|
| Warmth | Unfriendly | Friendly |
| Information | Minimal Information | Very Informative |
| Feedback | No check for understanding/questions | Check for understanding/questions |
Table 3
Intercorrelations between the Independent and Dependent Variables.
| M | SD | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Witness type: Lay vs. Expert | – | – | – | ||||
| 2. Environment: Standard vs. Enhanced | – | – | .075 | – | |||
| 3. Process: Standard vs. Enhanced | – | – | .062 | .082 | – | ||
| 4. Perceived Rapport | 4.79 | 0.61 | –.120 | .124 | .479 | – | |
| 5. Perceived Voice | 4.51 | 0.68 | –.186 | –.004 | .350 | .562 | – |
| 6. Perceived Respect | 4.18 | 0.82 | –.077 | .614 | .136 | .467 | .396 |
[i] Note. 1–3 are point-biserial correlations, 4–6 are Pearson correlations.
Significant correlations (p ≤ .001) are in bold.
Figure 3
Perceived respect through the design of the witness room. Bar graphs are 95 per cent confidence intervals.
Figure 4
Perceived voice. Bar graphs are 95 per cent confidence intervals.
Figure 5
Perceived rapport with the interviewer. Bar graphs are 95 per cent confidence intervals.