The participation of Aboriginal people in the criminal justice system in Australia has been one of considerable public discourse and concern over the past fifteen years, with Aboriginal people being greatly overrepresented in police custody and prison. Concerns over this situation contributed to the establishment of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody between 1987-1991, which made over 300 recommendations, addressing issues ranging from conditions in prisons, to far-reaching social, educational and health matters (RCIADC 1991).

This chapter discusses intercultural communication in the legal system, an institutional context where the exercise of power through the manipulation of language is central. It examines the way that an understanding of differences between Aboriginal English and standard Australian English has been used in an initiative aimed at improving intercultural communication in the legal system. But it goes on to show some problems with the assumption's underlying this approach, problems which are highlighted in a particularly shocking court case in 1995. The discussion of this case points to the need for a new approach to intercultural communication in the legal process. The Aboriginal population comprises approximately two percent of the total of nearly 20 million Australians. Like dispossessed indigenous people the world over, Aboriginal people are the most disadvantaged ethnic group in the country in terms of poverty, ill health, discrimination, mortality rates, unemployment, and inadequate housing. They are also grossly overrepresented in police custody and prisons. The first language of most Aboriginal people is either Aboriginal English, or one of the English-lexified creoles, Kriol or Torres Strait Creole, although in the remote northern and central areas of Australia there are still a number of people speaking "traditional" languages. In their dealings with the law most Aboriginal people speak a variety of Aboriginal English or a second language variety of English.

Blommaert's article tells a shocking story of two of the worst injustices that an individual can experience. The Rwandan asylum seeker Joseph suffered prolonged abuse and torture in his own country as a child, only to be refused in the United Kingdom the protection from persecution that is supposed to be provided according to international human rights law. Blommaert gives us much more than a shocking story; his analysis of "modernist reactions to postmodern realities" is both strikingly simple and powerfully rich and reaches far wider than this individual's story. As Blommaert says, it would be "far too easy to rave about the ignorance or absurdity" displayed by the British government in their assessment of Joseph's story. What Blommaert provides is an understanding of problematic language ideologies that facilitate such denials of human rights, with his analysis of how "anomalous frames for interpreting human behavior ... are used as instruments of power and control in a world in which more and more people no longer correspond to the categories of such frames." The United Kingdom is among a large group of industrialized nations who take this modernist approach, using asylum seekers' speech as some kind of diagnostic for assessing the truth of their claims of origin. In the linguistics literature, this approach is called LADO, for language analysis in the determination of origin. LADO is currently being practiced by some linguists, as well as many "native speakers" without linguistic training. And it is being described, critiqued, debated, and defended within linguistic circles, particularly at conferences and workshops of the International Association of Forensic Linguists and the International Association of Forensic Phonetics and Acoustics and in several linguistics publications.

Trinch's article provides a thought-provoking consideration of the risks involved for abuse victims in telling their story. In bringing together two seemingly different types of narrative, Trinch compels us to consider what they share. First, there are similarities in the interactional production of the written versions of Rigoberta Menchú's published 'testimonio' and the stories which survivors of domestic abuse tell to paralegals. In both situations, the stories were/are told to an interested interlocutor who works to produce a written account in the first-person narrative of the storyteller. Second, Trinch's analysis of the controversy surrounding Menchú's 'testimonio' and of the process by which the domestic abuse survivors' written affidavits are produced highlights the risks involved for people reporting abuse. At the immediate level is the risk of antagonising their abusers, and on another level are the risks in the ways in which their story is transformed in the recontextualisation process, and the subsequent risks for the narrators involved in being seen as not 'telling the truth', or as embellishing the 'facts'. It is this second level of risks which Trinch addresses, exposing powerful language ideologies about narrative truth relevant to the reception of these two different types of narrative. Building on her important (2003) book, Trinch's work here on the interactional and entextualised nature of narrative production advances both the sociolinguistic analysis of narrative and linguistic anthropological work on language ideologies. Here, I take up Trinch's point about the role of what she has referred to as the 'ideology of narrator authorship' (Trinch 2003, pp. 49–50) in the risks faced by victims of abuse in telling their story.

The following article identifies some of the major differences between Aboriginal English and General Australian English. It provides some suggestions which might be helpful for judicial officers communicating with Aboriginal people. In the area now known as New South Wales, there were at least 70 distinct languages spoken before British invasion and settlement. Today, about 10 of these languages are being taught in schools, and about four of them have some fluent speakers. All Aboriginal people in New South Wales today speak varieties of English, which typically show many influences from the traditional languages. For example, the traditional languages did not have an h sound. Over the generations, Aboriginal people have come to speak English with an Aboriginal accent, which often results in not pronouncing the English h sound at the beginning of words. So 'Harry's hat' in General Australian English (CAE) often sounds like 'Arry's at' in Aboriginal English (AE). Interestingly, there is also a pattern in Aboriginal English which results in an h sound being added at the beginning of some English words, as in the example of the elder who says: 'We are the proud howners of this land.'

The lower courts in Australia are important spaces. These "people's courts" handle the majority of civil and criminal matters and can profoundly shape perceptions, not only of the courts but of the criminal justice system at large. Lower courts play a key role in educating and guiding court workers and are places where innovative practices are pioneered and social change is pursued. Despite their significance there has been little review of the lower courts, even less of courts beyond the cityscape. In the article that follows the authors explore the history, role and operations of lower courts in rural, regional and remote Australia to assess how the courts respond to the needs and diversity of different community groups and regions; they identify barriers to justice and signal emerging areas of research.

Women who live in rural or regional areas are more likely to experience family violence than women in metropolitan areas, but they often face significant challenges when seeking help or justice. A new report captures the experiences of these women and presents a comprehensive plan to overcome geographical barriers.

In June 2004, a group of 19 linguists from 6 countries released a 2000 word document entitled Guidelines for the Use of Language Analysis in Relation to Questions of National Origin in Refugee Cases (hereafter "the Guidelines"). This paper aims to explain the origin and motivation, development, authorship and content of these Guidelines, as well as their scholarly and judicial status.

Successful participation in the legal system depends to a considerable extent on the ability to manipulate language. Many people who are usually very fluent and articulate speakers feel that they are at a disadvantage in the legal process, because of such factors as the use of complicated legal terms (see Legal-Professional Language in Jury Trial), the asymmetrical power relations between legal professionals and other participants, and the often serious consequences of the legal matters in which they are involved. Yet, it is clear that some people are more vulnerable than others in the legal process, and to define this vulnerability necessarily involves a consideration of sociolinguistic issues because of the centrality of successful language use to successful outcomes in legal contexts. This article begins by looking at participants in the legal system who are vulnerable because of enduring aspects of their social identity, such as native language variety and age, and concludes by looking at those whose vulnerability is due primarily to their situated identity in the legal matter in which they are participating; for example, victim-witnesses. Although this article defines vulnerable participants in sociolinguistic terms, it is important to point out that a number of governments around the world have formally defined vulnerable witnesses as part of the process of enacting special measures to assist them in coming to court, understanding the process, and giving evidence. For example, such witnesses may be permitted to give direct evidence from a separate room via closed-circuit television. In the terms of such provisions, vulnerable witnesses are usually defined foremost as children, and the category often also includes people with mental, learning, and sometimes physical disabilities. It may also include intimidated witnesses, such as survivors of abuse. In some jurisdictions, such as the Northern Territory of Australia, the status of vulnerable witness is extended also to people who experience difficulty related to linguistic or cultural difference. The sociolinguistic view of 'vulnerable participants' used in this article corresponds to the most inclusive of the various legal definitions.

The prominent focus on Aboriginal people in the criminal justice system over the past 25 years has paid greatest attention to accused people. This article turns the spotlight to Aboriginal witnesses in courts (including defendants and plaintiffs) and specifically to ways in which judicial officers understand Aboriginal identities, practices and cultures, as these factors impact on communication. The functioning of the legal process centres on fundamental questions about whose story can be believed, or which parts of which stories can be believed, and in these questions Aboriginal identity and culture can be important considerations.

In early 2010, the Federation of Community Legal Centres (Victoria) changed addresses. From its quarters in Melbourne's left-leaning heart - Trades Hall in Carlton - it relocated to a multi-storey suite of offices in Melbourne's central business district. The Federation had outgrown Trades Hall, where high ceilings create yawning spaces that co-exist uneasily with a warren of small interconnected rooms.

This research combines the findings of two studies undertaken by the CRRLJ and explores the experiences of and outcomes for women and children survivors of family violence in regional and rural Victoria, examining their contact with and perceptions of government agencies (including Victoria Police, the Victorian magistrates' courts and DHS) as well as private and community advocates (legal actors and services, women's services and family violence services) and healthcare professionals. Issues and barriers facing survivors escaping family violence are identified, and survivors, support workers, legal actors and magistrates have offered suggestions as to how the criminal justice system and the broader Victorian community might assist in improving access to justice, and further support and protect survivors and their children. This research employs a feminist legal methodological approach to research, focusing on and privileging the lived experience of survivors. Researchers conducted court observations and semi-structured interviews with survivors, workers, lawyers and magistrates. Additionally, in developing recommendations to empower and enhance support, security and assistance for survivors, researchers engaged in extensive consultation with government and non-government agencies involved with responding to family violence.

... One of the major contributions made by sociolinguists to the understanding of society in the latter half of the twentieth century has been in the explanation of the role that cultural differences play in intercultural communication and miscommunication. ... On the basis of my work on Aboriginal ways of communicating and on intercultural communication between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people in the legal system, I had some general ideas about how this question might be answered. ... Thus, there are many points of contrast between Aboriginal ways of seeking information, and those used in the legal system, particularly in the lawyer-client interview, which is of greatest relevance here. ... General comments from both Kina, in her interview with me, and the lawyers, in their written affidavits, reveal the common tendency of people to interpret different approaches to communication in terms of personality and intention rather than in terms of cultural difference. ... (3) Conflicting answers in an interview are a sure clue to a speaker's dishonest and untrustworthy character. ... And in fact, the Native-American use of silence was a key issue in the sociolinguistic evidence given by the most eminent scholar in intercultural sociolinguistics, Professor John Gumperz, in the 1989-90 retrial of Patrick Croy in the Supreme Court of California. ... The area of intercultural communication with Native-American, African-American, and immigrant groups in the legal system is an important one for future sociolinguistic and sociolegal research. ...

In the 1970s, community legal centres (CLCs) - free, independent, community-based legal services - emerged as unique spaces. Traditional legal offices reflected and reinforced the exclusionary nature of the legal profession as places those without capital were unlikely to be able to access. In contrast, CLCs sought to provide legal advocacy for all and their design reflected the inclusive and empowering environment that workers promoted. The workers and their roles were also atypical. CLCs housed legal and non‐legal workers who offered legal information and representation, engaged in educative programs and embarked on law reform and campaigns designed to protect and promote human rights on an everyday 'street-based' level. In 2015, CLCs can still be identified as distinctly different spaces of law where workers transform the legal landscape, the ways citizenship is exercised and the criminal justice system is experienced. Premised on the assumption that 'space' is a forum where identities, philosophies and power are articulated and resisted, this paper draws on archival analysis and semi‐structured interviews, and uses a spatial framework to explore CLCs as spaces of police accountability.

In the first two decades of the development of forensic linguistics, most expert linguistic evidence was in criminal and civil law. However, the most recent legal area in which linguists are becoming involved concerns immigration, specifically in relation to the use of 'language analysis' in the investigation of the nationality claims of asylum seekers who do not have any official documents from their country of origin. This is most commonly referred to as Language Analysis in the Determination of Origin, or LADO (although it has also been referred to as linguistic identification, as in Eades and Arends 2004; and LingID, as in Eades et al. 2003). Language analysis is often sought by immigration departments for use in their administrative processing of claims to asylum, but, given that appeals against decisions of administrators can end up in the legal process, where linguists can be called on as experts to give counter-analyses, then this work comes within forensic linguistics.

Manipulation of language is the key to all participation in the legal system. While linguists, especially sociolinguists, have been researching legal contexts for some two decades, there is still a considerable paucity of research on what happens when second language (L2) and second dialect (D2) speakers come into contact with the 'language' of the law. This chapter overviews the current state of theory and research on this topic. As with studies of L1 speakers, most of the studies have analyzed language in courtrooms, where access to data is much easier than in other legal settings, such as police interviews, mediation sessions or lawyer-client interviews. Most such research addresses one or more of the following questions, with the greatest concentration of research on the second and third of these: (a) What are the interpreting needs of second language speakers? (b) How are these needs being addressed? (c) What are the challenges to the provision of language services to second language speakers? And (d) How do dialectal differences affect the participation of second dialect speakers? The discussion concludes by highlighting a number of questions of crucial legal concern that need to be addressed by applied linguistics research.

Over the last two decades John Gumperz and his colleagues have drawn attention to the fact that 'speakers may have similar life styles, speak closely related dialects of the same language, and yet regularly fail to communicate' (Gumperz and Cook-Gurnperz, 1982, p. 13). On the basis of interactional sociolinguistic work in the Australian state of Queensland, it has been argued (e.g. Criminal Justice Commission, 1996; Eades, 1994, 1996) that such communication failure is an important factor in the way in which Aboriginal people are disadvantaged by the legal system. This chapter focuses on the role of misunderstanding of Aboriginal English ways of speaking in this disadvantage, drawing on specific cases. I follow Bremer (1996, p. 40) in saying that misunderstanding occurs when the listener achieves an interpretation which makes sense to him or her, but is not the interpretation meant by the speaker. For the purposes of this chapter, I take misinterpretation to be synonymous with misunderstanding. In this chapter, I examine how Aboriginal English ways of speaking have been misunderstood in the legal process, highlighted in a brief outline of a particular case, known as the Kina case. I show how the disadvantage which results from this misunderstanding has begun to be addressed. I then turn to another case (the Pinkenba case), which shows how a knowledge of cultural differences in ways of speaking can be used to achieve misunderstanding. This leads to a discussion of the politics of misunderstanding in the legal system. The chapter begins with some background about Aboriginal people in the criminal justice system, and about Aboriginal English, the language variety spoken by most Aboriginal people in their dealings with the law.

It is now more than 20 years since Gumperz and Cook-Gumperz drew attention to the subtle power of dialectal differences in intercultural misunderstandings. But there is still widespread misrecognition of communication differences between speakers who have quite similar dialects, but different worldviews, and different ways of using the same language. This misrecognition can have serious consequences for participants in intercultural interactions. In this paper we will consider this issue for Aboriginal English speakers in the Australian criminal justice system, particularly in lawyer-client interviews and courtroom examination and cross-examination.

'Space' has a significant role in studies of interpersonal violence, also referred to as 'domestic violence' or, more inclusively, 'family violence': a term which encompasses violence that occurs within intimate relationships as well as violence which involves other members of a family structure. In sharp contrast to stereotypical images of the dangerous streets and the dangerous stranger (often associated with crime), family violence is characterised by the space in which it occurs, within the privacy and sanctity of the family home against and by those in the family unit.