People with disabilities are at a high risk of becoming victims of crime. Individuals with little or no functional speech (LNFS) face an even higher risk. One way of reducing the risk of remaining a victim of crime is to face the alleged perpetrator in court as a witness – therefore it is important for a person with LNFS who has been a victim of crime to have the required vocabulary to testify in court. The aim of this study was to identify and describe the core and fringe legal vocabulary required by illiterate victims of crime, who have little or no functional speech, to testify in court as witnesses. A mixed-method, exploratory sequential design consisting of two distinct phases was used to address the aim of the research. The first phase was of a qualitative nature and included two different data sources, namely in-depth semi-structured interviews (n=3) and focus group discussions (n=22). The overall aim of this phase was to identify and describe core and fringe legal vocabulary and to develop a measurement instrument based on these results. Results from Phase 1 were used in Phase 2, the quantitative phase, during which the measurement instrument (a custom-designed questionnaire) was socially validated by 31 participants. The results produced six distinct vocabulary categories that represent the legal core vocabulary and 99 words that represent the legal fringe vocabulary. The findings suggested that communication boards should be individualised to the individual and the specific crime, based on both the core and fringe legal vocabulary. It is believed that the vocabulary lists developed in this study act as a valid and reliable springboard from which communication boards can be developed. Recommendations were therefore made to develop an Alternative and Augmentative Communication (AAC) Resource Tool Kit to assist the legal justice system. Keywords: augmentative and alternative communication; person with little or no functional speech; victim of crime; testifying in court; vocabulary selection; sexual crimes; illiterate individuals; witness competency INTRODUCTION People with disabilities are at a high risk of being victims of crime (Hughes et al, 2012; Jones et al, 2012). One group within the sphere of people with disabilities who are particularly vulnerable and have an increased risk are those individuals with little or no functional speech (LNFS), in other words, those with significant communication disabilities (Bornman, 2014; Bornman, Bryen, Kershaw & Ledwaba, 2011). This is not only due to the fact that they are unable to shout or call for help, but also because perpetrators often seek vulnerable individuals who they perceive as not being able to verbalise their victimisation to family and the police (Bryen & Wickman, 2011; Collier, McGhie-Richmond, Odette & Pyne, 2006). Research shows that the majority of individuals with LNFS who have been victims of crime know their perpetrators (Western Cape Forum for Intellectual Disability, 2014; Dickman & Roux, 2005). Perpetrators often believe that if their victims are unable to speak, they will be unable to seek help or disclose and report the crime to the police. Hence the saying: a silent victim is the perfect victim. The risk that an individual with LNFS runs of being a victim of a sexual crime is increased by factors such as a low self-esteem, low self-confident behaviour, a reduced ability to learn from risks, poor decision-making skills, limited knowledge of constitutional and personal rights, and limited knowledge of how to report a crime (Collier et al, 2006). Furthermore, individuals with LNFS typically have little knowledge of sexuality and appropriate sexual behaviour due to the fact that their parents or family believe that they should be " protected " from this information (based on the myth that sexual awareness will lead to promiscuity), or that they should rather rely on non-experts (such as their peers) for sexuality education (Larcher, 2014; Bornman et al, 2011, Ziv 2007; Bryen & Wickman, 2011). On the one hand, people with LNFS are incorrectly viewed as asexual or 'sexual innocents' who should be protected from sexual experiences (Johns, 2010). On the other hand, they are viewed as sexually promiscuous, which could encourage the perpetrator in following through with the crime (Keilty & Connelly, 2001; Collier et al, 2006). All these myths are exacerbated by specific cultural beliefs regarding sexuality and sexual practices in South Africa and have a particularly negative impact on individuals with disability (Lafferty, McConkey & Simpson, 2012; Malimabe-Ramagoshi, Alexander & Molepa, 2007). For