Brief Report: Autism in the Courtroom: Experiences of Legal Professionals and the Autism Community

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.

Mock Juror Perceptions of Credibility and Culpability in an Autistic Defendant

“…Recent findings suggest that many autistic individuals are reluctant to disclose their diagnosis for fear of discrimination and a lack of understanding. For example, Crane et al (2016) found that 36% of individuals with ASD who had CJS contact never disclosed their diagnosis for fear of victimisation and discrimination, and Maras et al (2017) reported that 92% of solicitors and barristers questioned had experienced cases where the defendant’s diagnosis was not disclosed until trial. To the contrary, the present findings add to a small but recently accumulating body of literature suggesting that revealing a diagnosis of ASD largely results in more positive perceptions.…”

Mock Juror Perceptions of Child Witnesses on the Autism Spectrum: The Impact of Providing Diagnostic Labels and Information About Autism

“…We suggest that, rather than providing generic information about autism, information specific to each autistic child should be presented; explicitly outlining how their autism manifests and how it might impact on their testimony (if at all). Surveys have highlighted how legal professionals (e.g., police officers, barristers), even with fairly good knowledge of the key characteristics of autism, often lack confidence in their abilities to make accommodations and adjustments to meet the needs of autistic witnesses and defendants (George et al 2018;Maras et al 2017). As such, they may be unsure how to present information about autism to a jury.…”

Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for Arrest and Detention of Autists by Royal Malaysia Police (PDRM)

“…A research was conducted based on a questionnaire distributed to law professionals in England and Wales, to study their experience in handling the autistic community involved in the criminal justice system (Maras et al, 2017). Based on their experience, the law professionals stated their opinion that the most effective among the changes and adaptation in legal procedure in handling suspects were the provisions on time out for suspects, modification in communication and language used as well as providing additional time for autistic suspects to process questions submitted to them (Maras et al, 2017).…”

“…This situation has direct implications on how the law enforcement authority should respond to the physical and mental needs of autists. A number of researchers found that most autists face difficulty within the criminal justice system (Archer & Hurley, 2013;Chown, 2010;Gardner et al, 2019;Maras et al, 2017;Robertson & McGillivray, 2015;Talbot & Riley, 2007). According to Syriopoulou-Delli et al…”