Abstract
Online surveys were used to sample the views of judges, barristers and solicitors (n = 33) about their engagement with autistic individuals in criminal courts in England and Wales. Despite an understanding of some of the difficulties experienced by individuals with autism, and the adjustments suitable for supporting them, legal professionals reported constraints arising from a lack of understanding by others within the criminal justice system. These results are considered alongside the views and perspectives of autistic adults (n = 9) and parents of children on the autism spectrum (n = 19), who had encountered the criminal courts as witnesses or defendants and were largely dissatisfied with their experiences. Training, understanding and the provision of appropriate adjustments were identified as key issues by all respondent groups.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Notes
The term ‘autistic person’ is the preferred language of many adults on the spectrum (see Kenny et al. 2016). In this article, we use this term as well as person-first language (e.g., person with autism) to respect the diversity of views on this issue amongst the autism community.
A term that includes victims, but not suspects/defendants.
In England and Wales, criminal courts comprise Magistrates’ Courts, Crown Courts and Youth Courts. Magistrates’ Courts tend to involve ‘summary offences’ (e.g., motoring offences, minor criminal damage) and cases are presided over by district judges (who are appointed from the ranks of barristers and solicitors) or lay magistrates (members of the community who apply to sit as magistrates); there is no jury. The most serious cases (e.g., murder, rape) are handled by Crown Courts, and comprise a jury (that determines the verdict—guilty or not guilty) and a judge (who oversees the trial and determines the sentence in the case of a guilty plea or a guilty verdict). Youth courts are a type of Magistrates’ Court (with magistrates or a district judge; no jury) for defendants who are 10–17 years of age (inclusive). They deal with all offences unless the court feels the matter is so serious it needs to be referred to the Crown Court. The use of the terms judges, barristers and solicitors in this manuscript refers to specific legal roles in England and Wales. In this jurisdiction, judges preside over court proceedings, either on their own or as part of a panel; barristers are types of lawyers who generally practise as advocates in higher courts (e.g., Crown Court, High Court, Court of Appeal); and solicitors (akin to attorneys) are lawyers who conduct legal proceedings and may also conduct advocacy in higher court subject to obtaining relevant qualifications.
The term ‘judge’ is used in this paper to encompass all those who adjudicate (that is, reach a verdict in a contested case and sentence where the defendant is found guilty or pleads guilty) in criminal cases. This is despite the sample comprising District Judges and Magistrates (who may include Lay Magistrates who, formally, are not judges).
For ease of interpretation, we report the results of all five-point scales condensed into three points (e.g., ‘challenging’; ‘neutral’; ‘not challenging’) throughout the Results section, as the overall patterns remained the same.
Whilst community respondents were also asked about the Witness Intermediary Scheme, it was not possible to analyse this data as there appeared to be confusion regarding the term; respondents interpreted this quite broadly, as a third party that acts as a mediator between people, rather than a discrete role within the justice system.
Note that these data are presented to provide an insight into the experiences (in terms of types of crime and whether the individual was a victim, witness or suspect/defendant) of the legal professionals who took part in this survey; it is not intended that these indicate prevalence regarding autism and engagement with the CJS.
References
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.
Bull, R. (2010). The investigative interviewing of children and other vulnerable witnesses: Psychological research and working/professional practice. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 15, 5–23. doi:10.1348/014466509X440160.
Cooper, P. (2014). Highs and lows: The 4th intermediary survey. Retrieved from: http://eprints.kingston.ac.uk/28868/1/Cooper_P-28868.pdf.
Cooper, P. (2015). Intermediaries: Step by Step. London: The Advocate’s Gateway.
Cooper, P. (2016). A double first in child sexual assault cases in New South Wales: Notes from the first witness intermediary and pre-recorded cross-examination cases, Alternative Law Journal, 43(1), 191–194.
Cooper, P., & Allely C. S. (2016). The curious incident of the man in the bank: Procedural fairness and a defendant with asperger’s syndrome. Criminal Law and Justice Weekly, 180, 632–634.
Cooper, P., Backen, P., & Marchant, R. (2015). Getting to grips with ground rules hearings: A checklist for Judges, Advocates and Intermediaries to promote the fair treatment of vulnerable people in court. Criminal Law Review, 6, 417–432.
Cooper, P., & Wurtzel, D. (2013). A day late and a dollar short: In search of an intermediary scheme for vulnerable defendants in England and Wales. Criminal Law Review, 1, 4–22.
Cooper, P., & Wurtzel, D. (2014). Better the second time around? Department of Justice Registered Intermediaries Schemes and lessons from England and Wales. Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly, 65(1), 39–61.
Crane, L., Maras, K. L., Hawken, T., Mulcahy, S., & Memon, A. (2016). Experiences of autism spectrum disorder and policing in England and Wales: Surveying police and the autism community. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 46, 2028–2041. doi:10.1007/s10803-016-2729-1.
Henderson, E. (2015). ‘A very valuable tool’: Judges, advocates and intermediaries discuss the intermediary scheme in England and Wales. The International Journal of Evidence and Proof, 19, 154–172.
Henry, L. A., Crane, L., Nash, G., Hobson, Z., Kirke-Smith, M., & Wilcock, R. (accepted). Verbal, visual, and intermediary support for child witnesses with autism during investigative interviews. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders.
Kebbell, M. R., Hatton, C., & Johnson, S. D. (2004). Witnesses with intellectual disabilities in court: What questions are asked and what influence do they have? Legal and Criminological Psychology, 9, 23–35. doi:10.1348/135532504322776834.
Kenny, L., Hattersley, C., Molins, B., Buckley, C., Povey, C., & Pellicano, E. (2016). Which terms should be used to describe autism? Perspectives from the UK autism community. Autism: The International Journal of Research and Practice, 20(4), 442–462. doi:10.1177/1362361315588200.
Lindblad, F., & Lainpelto, K. (2011). Sexual abuse allegations by children with neuropsychiatric disorders. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 20(2), 182–195. doi:10.1080/10538712.2011.554339.
Maras, K. L., & Bowler, D. M. (2014). Eyewitness testimony in autism spectrum disorder: A review. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 44, 2682–2697. doi:10.1007/s10803-012-1502-3.
Mattison, M. L. A., Dando, C. J., & Ormerod, T. C. (2015). Sketching to remember: Episodic free recall task support for child witnesses and victims with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 45, 1751–1765. doi:10.1007/s10803-014-2335-z.
Mayes, T. A. (2003). Persons with autism and criminal justice: Core concepts and leading cases. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 5(2), 92–100. doi:10.1177/10983007030050020401.
Nicolaidis, C., Raymaker, D. M., Ashkenazy, E., McDonald, K. E., Dern, S., Baggs, A. E., Kapp, S. K., Weiner, M., & Boisclair, W. C. (2015). “Respect the way I need to communicate with you”: Healthcare experiences of adults on the autism spectrum. Autism: The International Journal of Research and Practice, 19, 824–831. doi:10.1177/1362361315576221.
O’Mahony, B. M. (2010). The emerging role of the registered intermediary with the vulnerable witness and offender: Facilitating communication with the police and members of the judiciary. British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 232–237. doi:10.1111/j.1468-3156.2009.00600.x.
Plotnikoff, J., & Woolfson, R. (2015). Intermediaries in the criminal justice system: Improving communication for vulnerable witnesses and defendants. Bristol: Policy Press.
Woodbury-Smith, M., & Dein, K. (2014). Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and unlawful behaviour: Where do we go from here? Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 44(11), 2734–2741. doi:10.1007/s10803-014-2216-5.
Acknowledgments
This work was completed under grants to the first two authors from the Economic and Social Research Council (Grant Numbers ES/N001095/1 and ES/J020893/2).
Author Contributions
The first two authors (KLM and LC) contributed equally to all aspects of the design, development, data collection, analysis and write up of the study. SM and AM contributed to the design, development and write up, TH contributed to the analysis and write up, and PC and DW contributed to the design and write up.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Maras, K.L., Crane, L., Mulcahy, S. et al. Brief Report: Autism in the Courtroom: Experiences of Legal Professionals and the Autism Community. J Autism Dev Disord 47, 2610–2620 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-017-3162-9
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-017-3162-9