What is the difference between competence and credibility

On the other hand, results showed that leaders are perceived as incompetent when: - they fail to demonstrate relevant knowledge and expertise, - fail to take appropriate action, - take ego-driven actions, - fail to appreciate employees, - create confusion among employees and key stakeholders, - communicate poorly and - are close-minded. Leaders are perceived as untrustworthy when they: - promote an unethical climate in the organisation, - communicate dishonestly, - act in a self-serving manner, - behave in an inconsistent manner, - communicate in a guarded or inconsistent manner, - ignore the input of employees and key stakeholders and - treat employees as expendable.

Firstly, the behaviours that help you gain or lose credibility are not always mirror images of each other. For example, avoiding behaviours that make leaders lose credibility does not automatically help them gain credibility.

Even when they engage in behaviours that enhance credibility, leaders might still lose credibility by engaging in behaviours that indicate incompetence and untrustworthiness. It is important to consider the full range of indicators when trying to gauge how others see you as a leader. Secondly, sometimes positive information carries more weight than negative information — and vice versa.

Scholars who study trust have found that people tend to weigh positive information more heavily than negative information with regard to competence. However, people weigh negative information more heavily than positive information when it comes to trustworthiness.

A single competent act may be seen as a reliable signal of competence, but a single incompetent act is more likely to be dismissed as an outlier. On the other hand, people tend to attach more significance to a single untrustworthy act than to a single trustworthy act.

Finally, overcoming the loss of credibility is difficult — but possible. As noted earlier, employees are less tolerant of untrustworthy behaviours than of incompetence. Sed [] 1 WLR , held that the test of competence set out in Section 53 did not require a witness to understand all the questions put to her and for all her answers to be understood.

It was a matter for the judge to determine competence, taking into account the effect of the witness's performance as a whole and whether there was a common and comprehensible thread in her responses to the questions. Section 54 YJCEA sets out the procedure to be followed when determining the competency of a witness. In summary:. Questions of competency must be decided before the witness is sworn or starts to give evidence and ideally prior to the start of the trial. In the case of a prosecution witness, it was held in the case of Yacoob 72 Cr App R that the question should be raised and decided at the beginning of the trial.

However, issues of competency may only become apparent after the witness has begun to give evidence or during cross-examination. This may be particularly so for child witnesses, whose examination-in-chief has been given in a pre-recorded video interview admitted under Section 27 YJCEA , where the child witness might subsequently be unable to provide intelligible answers in cross examination.

However, the incremental implementation of pre-recorded cross examination Section 28 of the YJCEA should enable early identification of cases with issues of competency. Competency should not be confused with credibility or reliability.

At the stage when the question of competency is being decided upon, judges or magistrates are not deciding whether a witness is, or will be, telling the truth or giving accurate evidence. Questions about credibility and reliability go to the weight of the evidence, not to the competence of the witness. The purpose of the trial process is to identify the evidence which is reliable and that which is not, whether it comes from an adult or a child. Prosecutors should also recognise that the competence of a witness is a separate issue to that of the mental capacity of a witness.

A witness is compellable if he or she may lawfully be required to give evidence. Most witnesses who are competent can be compelled to give evidence. The only exception relates to spouses and civil partners who are only compellable to give evidence against their partner in limited circumstances - see Spouses or Civil Partners , below.

Prosecutors are reminded that where they are not satisfied that the witness will attend court voluntarily; they can apply for a witness summons. A witness summons can either require a person to give evidence or require a person to produce documents needed as evidence. A person, who disobeys a witness order or summons requiring him or her to attend Court, is guilty of contempt of the court if he or she fails to attend without just cause.

He or she may be punished summarily by that Court as if his or her contempt had been committed in the face of the Court. The Court in Popat JP 24 emphasised that it is the disobedience of a summons which represents the contempt and there is no requirement for an arrest warrant to have been issued in addition.

The relevant rules on application for witness summons are set out in Part 17 of the Criminal Procedure Rules. See in particular Rule Please see below for the position regarding the compellability of spouses or civil partners in criminal proceedings. When reviewing a file of evidence, it is important to identify any witnesses whose competence may be called into question at trial, and to consider this when deciding whether there is a realistic prospect of conviction.

The Code for Crown Prosecutors instructs Prosecutors to consider whether evidence can be used and whether it is reliable paragraph 4. It is also important to decide if a witness is compellable and, if not, whether she or he will give evidence voluntarily. This may affect the decision to prosecute. A Prosecutor concluding at the review stage that a witness is not competent by virtue of Section 53 3 of the YJCEA should ensure they have considered the matter thoroughly.

Such a significant and rare decision should be discussed with, and authorised by, a District Crown Prosecutor or above. The potential ramifications for the witness in both the present and future proceedings should not be underestimated. Children of any age can be called to give evidence; their competence depends upon their understanding, not their age. As far as competency is concerned, the same test is applied to child witnesses as for adult witnesses. The competence of a child, in particular whether the child should give sworn or unsworn evidence is covered by Sections 55 and 56 of the YJCEA Section 55 of the YJCEA provides that the witness cannot be sworn for the purposes of giving evidence on oath unless the witness has attained the age of 14 and has a sufficient appreciation of the solemnity of the occasion and of the particular responsibility to tell the truth which is involved in taking an oath.

Therefore, children under the age of 14 should give unsworn evidence and this shall be received in evidence by the Court: see Section 56 of the YJCEA With regards to children above the age of 14, the party seeking to have the witness sworn should satisfy the Court, on a balance of probabilities, that the child has attained the age of 14 and has a sufficient appreciation of the matters in question.

Section 80 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act PACE is the statutory provision which governs the competence and compellability of spouses and civil partners in criminal proceedings. Spouses or civil partners of a person charged in proceedings are generally competent to give evidence for the prosecution. The only exception is if the spouse or civil partner is jointly charged. If they are, neither is competent or compellable to give evidence, on behalf of the prosecution, against the other, unless the spouse or civil partner witness has already pleaded guilty, or the proceedings in respect of the spouse or civil partner witness have been discontinued.

Spouses or civil partners are competent and compellable to give evidence on behalf of the Defendant or the Defendant's co-accused. The prosecution can only compel a spouse or civil partner to give evidence for the prosecution in cases which involve:. Section 80 of PACE does not apply to a Defendant's partner to whom he or she is neither married nor in a civil partnership.

The decision to compel a witness to attend Court with a view to giving evidence for the prosecution against his or her expressed wish witness summons pursuant to Section of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act is one that should be exercised with sensitivity and discretion. Prosecutors are reminded that applying for a witness summons should be regarded as a last resort as the consequences for not attending court are serious.

The witness summonsed may be arrested by the police and taken to the Court if the witness does not attend Court. Before any application for a witness summons is made, the Prosecutor must ensure that they have up to date information from the officer in the case. Prosecutors should bear in mind that the refusal of a witness to attend Court may be brought about through fear.