Courtroom Performances: Drama, but not Representational Drama

Part of the Palgrave Socio-Legal Studies book series (PSLS)


This chapter focuses on the material regime. We explore aspects of the rape courtroom assemblage which include various embodied practices and performances. Through this, we can map the significance placed on the ability of the body to affect and be affected and consider how this impacted barristers’ perspectives on, and utilisation of, measures which have been brought in to improve the courtroom experience for rape victims. We also map, and make visible, various courtroom tactics and practices and see how these are influenced by key attractors and involve drawing a plane of composition and engaging in techniques of affect. Whilst affects and the material regime will be our primary focus, given the interconnected reality of the theory, this will also involve issues of territory and intensive sense.


Material regime Territories Techniques of affect Rape Special measures Courtroom performances Victimhood Testimony 


  1. Advocates Gateway. (2017). Identifying Vulnerability in Witnesses and Parties and Making Adjustments. Toolkit 10. Retrieved from
  2. Advocates Gateway. (n.d.). Toolkits. Retrieved October 10, 2018, from
  3. Ashforth, B. E., Kreiner, G. E., Clark, M. A., & Fugate, M. (2007). Normalizing Dirty Work: Managerial Tactics for Countering Occupational Taint. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 149–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brewin, C. R. (2011). The Nature and Significance of Memory Disturbance in Posttraumatic Stress Disorder. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 7, 203–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burton, M., Evans, R., & Sanders, A. (2006). Are Special Measures for Vulnerable and Intimidated Witnesses Working? Evidence from the Criminal Justice Agencies. Home Office Online Report 01/06.Google Scholar
  6. Carline, A., & Gunby, C. (2017). Rape Politics, Policies and Practice: Exploring the Tensions and Unanticipated Consequences of Well-Intended Victim-Focused Measures. The Howard Journal of Crime and Justice, 56(1), 34–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carline, A., Gunby, C., & Murray, J. (in press). “And That’s Why Street-Wise Complainants Now Always Give Evidence Behind Screens, Live”: Exploring the Intensive Affects of the Courtroom. In K. Duncanson & E. Henderson (Eds.), Courthouse Design and Social Justice. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. Council of HM Council Judges. (2006). Convicting Rapists and Protecting Victims: A Consultation Response of the Council of Her Majesty’s Circuit Judges. London: Council of HM Circuit JudgesGoogle Scholar
  9. Davies, G. (1999). The Impact of Television on the Presentation and Reception of Children’s Testimony. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 22(3–4), 241–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ellison, L., & Munro, V. (2013). Better the Devil You Know? ‘Real Rape’ Stereotypes and the Relevance of a Previous Relationship in (Mock) Juror Deliberations. The International Journal of Evidence and Proof, 17(4), 299–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ellison, L., & Munro, V. (2014). A “Special” Delivery? Exploring the Impact of Screens, Live-Links and Video Recorded Evidence on Mock Juror Deliberation in Rape Trials. Social & Legal Studies, 23(1), 3–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Engelhard, I. M., McNally, R. J., & van Schie, K. (2019). Retrieving and Modifying Traumatic Memories: Recent Research Relevant to Three Controversies. Current Direction in Psychological Science, 28(1), 91–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gunby, C., & Carline, A. (2019). The Emotional Particulars of Working on Rape Cases: Doing Dirty Work, Managing Emotional Dirt and Conceptualizing ‘Tempered Indifference’. British Journal of Criminology.
  14. Hamlyn, B., Phelps, A., Turtle, J., & Sattar, G. (2004). Are Special Measures Working? Evidence from Surveys of Vulnerable and Intimidated Witnesses. Home Office Research Study 283. London: Home Office.Google Scholar
  15. Jordan, J. (2004). Beyond Belief?: Police, Rape and Women’s Credibility. Criminology and Criminal Justice, 4(1), 29–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Judicial College. (2019). The Crown Court Compendium. Part 1: Trial Management and Summing Up. London: Judicial College.Google Scholar
  17. Kelly, L., Lovett, J., & Regan, L. (2005). A Gap or a Chasm? Attrition in Reported Rape Cases. Home Office Research Study 293, Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate. London: Home Office.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Larcombe, W. (2002). The ‘Ideal’ Victim v Successful Rape Complainants: Not What You Might Expect. Feminist Legal Studies, 10(2), 131–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Loftus, E. F., & Palmer, J. C. (1974). Reconstruction of Automobile Destruction: An Example of the Interaction Between Language and Memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 13, 585–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ministry of Justice (MoJ). (2011). Achieving Best Evidence in Criminal Proceedings Guidance on Interviewing Victims and Witnesses, and Guidance on Using Special Measures. London: Ministry of Justice.Google Scholar
  21. Payne, S. (2009). Redefining Justice: Addressing the Individual Needs of Victims and Witnesses. London: Home Office.Google Scholar
  22. Read, J. D., & Connolly, A. (2007). The Effects of Delay on Long-Term Memory for Witnessed Events. In M. P. Toglia, J. D. Read, D. R. Ross, & R. C. L. Lindsay (Eds.), Handbook of Eyewitness Psychology: Volume I. Memory for Events (pp. 117–155). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  23. Rowden, E., Wallace, A., Tait, D., Hanson, M., & Jones, D. (2013). Gateways to Justice: Design and Operational Guidelines for Remote Participation in Court Proceedings. Sydney: University of Western Sydney. Retrieved from Scholar
  24. Saunders, C. (2012). The Truth, the Half-Truth, and Nothing Like the Truth: Reconceptualizing False Allegations of Rape. The British Journal of Criminology, 52(6), 1152–1171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Stern Review. (2010). A Report by Baroness Vivien Stern CBE of an Independent Review into How Rape Complaints Are Handled by Public Authorities in England and Wales. London: Home Office.Google Scholar
  26. Westera, N. J., Kebbell, M. R., & Milne, B. (2013a). Losing Two Thirds of the Story: A Comparison of the Video-Recorded Police Interview and Live Evidence of Rape Complainants. Criminal Law Review, 4, 290–308.Google Scholar
  27. Westera, N. J., Kebbell, M. R., & Milne, B. (2013b). It Is Better, but Does It Look Better? Prosecutor Perspectives of Using Rape Complainant Interviews as Evidence. Psychology, Crime and Law, 19(7), 595–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Westera, N. J., Zydervelt, S., Kaladelfos, A., & Zajac, R. (2017). Sexual Assault Complainants on the Stand: A Historical Comparison of Courtroom Questioning. Psychology, Crime and Law, 23(1), 15–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Zydervelt, S., Zajac, R., Kaladelfos, A., & Westera, N. (2017). Lawyers’ Strategies for Cross-Examining Rape Complainants: Have We Moved Beyond the 1950s? British Journal of Criminology, 57(3), 551–569.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of LiverpoolLiverpoolUK
  2. 2.Institute for Applied Health ResearchUniversity of BirminghamBirminghamUK
  3. 3.Liverpool Hope UniversityLiverpoolUK

Personalised recommendations