Available via license: CC BY
Content may be subject to copyright.
1Department of Sociological Studies, The
University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
2Murdoch Children’s Research Institute,
Melbourne, Australia
3Donald Beasley Institute, Dunedin, New
Zealand
4Centre for Postgraduate Nursing Studies,
University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand
5Registered Psychologist, Dyslexia Foundation
of New Zealand, Christchurch, New Zealand
6The University of Auckland, Auckland, New
Zealand
7PGDipLitEd, Massey University, Palmerston
North, New Zealand
8Advocate and Advisory, Neurodiversity
Community of Practice, Ako Aotearoa,
Thrivable, New Zealand
Correspondence
Betony Clasby, Department of Sociological
Studies, The University of Sheffield, Elmfield
Building, Sheffield, S10 2TU, UK.
Email: beclasby1@sheffield.ac.uk
Abstract
Recent research has highlighted that a high prevalence
of young adults who have various forms of neurodiver-
gence come into contact with the criminal justice system.
Currently, many courts are not designed to respond to
neurological differences often seen in young people who
engage with them. The aim of this study was to identify
ways to make locality courts more accessible, engaging, and
ultimately more responsive to neurodivergence. A panel of
neurodivergence specialists reviewed the general district
courtroom environment of a new specialised young adult
list court in Aotearoa New Zealand to identify potential
barriers to accessibility and to highlight areas for improve-
ment. The methodology involved naturalistic observation of
a typical morning in the courtroom. We identified a series
of recom mendations with the potential to improve the
court experience and increase access to justice for neuro-
divergent young adults. This study identified specific need
for neurodiversity education and screening within the court
environment.
KEYWORDS
accommodations, courtroom, intervention, neurodevelopmental,
neurodiversity, support
INVITED ARTICLE
Responding to neurodiversity in the
courtroom: A brief evaluation of environmental
accommodations to increase procedural fairness
Betony Clasby1,2,3 | Brigit Mirfin-Veitch3,4 | Rose Blackett5 |
Sally Kedge6 | Esther Whitehead7,8
DOI: 10.1002/cbm.2239
Received: 28 November 2021 Accepted: 20 March 2022
197
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and
reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
© 2022 The Authors. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Crim Behav Ment Health. 2022;32:197–211. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/cbm
1 | INTRODUCTION
There is increasing awareness that a large proportion of young adults who come into contact with the criminal
justice system have neurological differences which may remain mis- or undiagnosed and unsupported during court
proceedings, potentially contributing to higher incarceration rates (Foster & Young, 2021). The term neurodivergence
covers a variety of neurological differences including traumatic brain injury (TBI), autism spectrum disorder (ASD),
foetal alcohol spectrum disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), intellectual disability, communica-
tion disorders, non-traumatic acquired brain injury, and specific learning difficulties (for instance dyslexia, dyspraxia,
or dysgraphia). Challenges associated with neurodivergence can present in a variety of areas including attentional
capacity, functional skills, memory and learning, psychomotor skills, executive functions, social competence, emotion
regulation, impulse control, and academic achievement (Catroppa et al., 2017; Morie et al., 2019).
Young adults with these difficulties may encounter barriers to accessing justice when interacting with the crim-
inal justice system. For instance, those with intellectual disability have been found to have significant difficulty
understanding legal terminology and court proceedings (Ericson & Perlman, 2001). There is evidenced potential for
confabulation – described as an act of ‘honest lying’ (Brown et al., 2013) – in young adults with foetal alcohol spec-
trum disorder when criminal justice officials do not alter practice to reflect these differences (Pora v The Queen
[2015] UKPC 9, [44–48]). Furthermore, the reliance on oral language within the courtroom puts neurodivergent
young adults who find communication challenging at a distinct disadvantage (Edwards et al., 2012), potentially
contributing to the increased risk of being sentenced to incarceration (Foster & Young, 2021). All these factors can
contribute to a hostile environment for those with neurodivergence in the criminal justice system, leading to a need
for reform of the court system.
Article 13 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) outlines the importance of ensur-
ing equal and effective access to justice for those with disability, including through the provision of accommodations
where required (UN, 2006). Access to justice has been defined as peoples' effective access to the systems, procedures,
information, and locations used in the administration of justice (Ortoleva, 2010). To date, 184 States from across the
globe have formally committed to the CRPD human rights treaty (UN, 2021) and have thus accepted that barriers to
full participation in society still exist for those with disabilities. When exploring these barriers in the context of the
criminal justice system it is important to consider procedural fairness as a core construct (Dorfman, 2017). Procedural
fairness refers to the idea that when coming into contact with the justice system, not only do people care about the
outcome of their case, but also in the way in which it was handled (Brems & Lavrysen, 2013). Valued criteria include
being given the opportunity to participate, judge neutrality, being treated with respect, and trust in the system,
which stems from understanding the process (Tyler, 2007). Improving procedural fairness not only increases access
to justice, but it has also been found to increase compliance with court orders (Bornstein et al., 2011), and reduce
reoffending even amongst more violent offenders (Papachristos et al., 2012).
These factors provide an important foundation to consider when identifying accommodations to support neuro-
divergent young adults who are attempting to access justice in the courtroom. In New Zealand, these calls for reform
have resulted in the development of a specific locality court for young adults, termed Young Adult List (YAL) court.
This initiative was developed in response to a large body of research which highlights that neuromaturation continues
to occur into a person's mid-twenties (Johnson et al., 2009), suggesting that their experience in court needs to reflect
this difference in developmental trajectory alongside any neurodivergence.
There is a dearth of specific recommendations to improve procedural fairness, of what training should entail,
and a lack of formal evaluation which limits the applicability of the accommodations (Turner and Hughes, forthcom-
ing). Reports of best practice exist within the literature but are limited (White et al., 2021); therefore the contribu-
tion of neurodivergence experts has the potential to be significant and can be harnessed relatively quickly (Baker
et al., 2006). It is essential that criminal justice officials and policymakers have access to specific recommendations
and a grounding in evaluation to address this gap in the literature and improve access to justice for neurodivergent
young adults, in line with the obligations of the CRPD.
CLASBY et AL.
198
Consequently, the aim of this study was to identify and clearly present ways to make the court environment more
accessible, engaging, and ultimately more responsive to neurodivergence amongst young adults to facilitate further
evaluative work. During an environmental assessment focus group, a panel of neurodivergence specialists reviewed
the general district courtroom environment of a new YAL court to identify potential barriers to accessibility and to
generate new ideas to empower neurodivergent young adults to better understand, engage, and participate in the
courtroom process. These were submitted in a report to the New Zealand Ministry of Justice for potential implemen-
tation and evaluation alongside being presented in this paper.
2 | METHOD
The Young Adult List (YAL) (The Māori name of the Young Adult List is Iti rearea teitei kahikatea ka taea. This name
was gifted by the Ngati Toa iwi (tribe) and symbolises that challenges can be overcome with determination). This is a
specialised District Court in New Zealand, which has been developed for young adults aged 18–25 years. The initial
pilot of the YAL court occurred in the Porirua District Court (Porirua is a city near Wellington, Aotearoa New Zealand's
capital city), which is where the data collection session for the environmental assessment focus group took place. The
YAL trial began in March 2020, although the Covid-19 pandemic restrictions delayed its official launch until the 31 st
of July 2020. An undisguised naturalistic observational visit to the court was undertaken to observe the day-to-day
procedure of the courtroom and the behaviour of those in attendance. In essence, undisguised observation means
that the panel were in plain sight of those in the courtroom and courtroom staff were aware of observers (Price
et al., 2017). The visit was carried out over a period of 4 h on a single day in April 2021 by five neurodivergence
specialists, with 2 h set aside for observation of the court proceedings. Experts were selected on their knowledge
base (such as focal area of neurodivergence and of providing support, interventions, and accommodations) and expe-
rience (including clinical, research, and lived experience), and the panel's makeup aimed to provide a broad view of
neurodivergence from multiple perspectives.
The panel included a speech and language therapist and court-appointed communication assistant, clinical
psychologist, disability rights academic, neuropsychology academic, and neurodivergence advocate representing a
non-governmental organisation. A semi-structured guidance sheet detailing courtroom features, relationships, and
processes was provided to the experts to provide a foundation from which to identify and recommend neurodi-
vergence specific improvements, such as accessibility, engagement, and understanding. The panel of experts were
also provided with information booklets routinely distributed to young adults who attend court, along with an A5
notebook to record anonymised feedback. The panel sat in the public gallery alongside other members of the public
in order to reduce the likelihood of interrupting the typical routine during the YAL court. The panel then each inde-
pendently recorded behaviours suggestive of anxiety, stress, or lack of understanding and their apparent triggers,
whilst highlighting potential adjustments that could be made to procedures to reduce any barriers to accessing justice
relating to neurodivergence. This information was then compiled by the lead researcher into a table. Following this,
the table was again disseminated to the panel in a group session to collect any further feedback or suggestions relat-
ing to the barriers to accessing justice related to neurodivergence raised. Furthermore, the table was also dissem-
inated to a key member of the judiciary and criminal justice officials to get their feedback on the feasibility of the
suggestions.
3 | RESULTS
The panel identified a range of stress-response behaviours indicative of neurodivergence within the young adults
attending court during the time of the observation. The assessors also observed multiple instances of positive prac-
tice during the environmental assessment of the YAL which differentiated the courtroom from a typical adult court.
CLASBY et AL.199
This was evident in the number of different stakeholders present in the courtroom, the readability of documentation,
design of the courtroom, and involvement across all staffing levels. A number of recommendations were identified as
offering potential for greater responsiveness and accessibility to a person with neurodivergence. For clarity and quick
reference, specific accommodations, and their staging, are provided in Table 1. The next section shall discuss the key
recommendations identified through this process. The accommodations identified fit well and could be implemented
in a similar method to the Tiered Support Model framework, which currently describes accommodations offered to
students in the education system as being on a continuum of intensity – universal (Tier 1), targeted (Tier 2), or indi-
vidualised accommodations (Tier 3) (Ministry of Education, 2020). An example of how this could work in the criminal
justice system has been presented in Figure 1.
4 | DISCUSSION
4.1 | Accommodation approaches and recommendations
A variety of accommodations that were recommended by the panel would be beneficial to apply universally for young
adults who come into the criminal justice system (at Tier 1). Universal supports were identified as potentially useful
in a range of areas such as to increase engagement with the courtroom and to improve wellbeing. Furthermore, the
engagement of multi-disciplinary support agencies would be useful not only in the context of neurodivergence but
would take into consideration other important barriers. For instance, lack of responsiveness to young people's ethnic-
ity and culture can lead to even greater barriers for neurodivergent young people. More guidance regarding how to
improve communication and language accessibility would be beneficial to inform practice. For instance, it is highly
likely that all young adult participants would find clear signposting and ‘comprehension checks’ throughout court
discussions helpful. Legal discussions can be highly complex and when legal professionals are talking between them-
selves, providing alternative and/or additional forms of engagement to verbal discussion is important to encourage an
active ‘voice’ during court session. Suggestions as to what format this could take are available in Table 1.
To facilitate effective implementation of many of these accommodations, systemic training would be universally
beneficial for criminal justice and enforcement workers. Without adequate training about neurodivergence, court-
room workers are unlikely to be able to alter their practices appropriately. In particular, criminal justice officials need
education to develop greater awareness about how neurodivergence may present in a distressing environment, such
as a courtroom. Understanding basic information regarding adapting communication to an individual, what ‘plain
English’ really means in practice, insight into why people may present with ‘challenging behaviour’, and techniques to
support young adults in these circumstances should be included in such education. Including lived experience from
neurodivergent young adults who have gone through the system is critical to any education efforts when seeking
to improve both staff and young adult perceptions of active participation. Training should be both comprehensive
across understandings of neurodiversity, and trauma-informed; it is important not to solely focus in one area of
neurodivergence (for example, autism or brain injury only) over another to avoid misidentification and inappropriate
supports. Indeed, young adults in the criminal justice system often present with a myriad of neurological differences,
including those related to experience of trauma (Kirby, 2021). In line with this recommendation, researchers have
reported improved attitudes amongst criminal justice officers after completing specialist disability awareness courses
(Viljoen et al., 2017). However, ensuring the content of these provides a comprehensive, yet engaging view of neuro-
divergence, which is regularly evaluated with focus groups of young adults and staff members and is critical to ensure
practice is evidence-based.
It is also important to ensure the system can appropriately support staff when improving access to accommoda-
tions, and therefore a clear pathway for onward referral is needed so that criminal justice workers have the frame-
work to then provide accommodations. Resources in Easy Read and other accessible formats should be developed
for those in common offence pathways to help prevent reoffending (e.g. for driving without a licence, a guidance
CLASBY et AL.
200
CLASBY et AL.201
Universal supports (Tier 1) Targeted supports (Tier 2) Individualised support (Tier 3)
Introduc-
tion to
courtroom
• Reflect cultural practices. (e.g., karakia/blessing).
• Introduce key individuals in court to young adult.
• Reassure that other individuals are in the courtroom to
support other people.
• Give family/whānau clear direction (or providing a navigator)
on where they can sit prior to them entering court.
• If the young adult is particularly anxious or has
experienced previous trauma, give whānau/
family the opportunity to be in a position where
they can better support them (e.g. seated beside
them).
Location and
physical
attributes
of the
courtroom
• Seat young adults next to their defence lawyer/support
person as opposed to separately in a dock.
• Provide a chair for the young adult.
• Consider removing any dock barriers.
• Ensure signage is easy read with images alongside wording.
• Place signage where young adult can see for example, side
of chairs, or keep on back for rest of court and give easy read
identity label for chest so young adult can see who is who.
• If possible, reduce number of people in courtroom (particularly
in cases where anxiety or sensory difficulties present).
• A horseshoe layout would be more engaging and less
imposing for the young adult.
• A smaller courtroom.
• Judges and lawyers should avoid formal clothing.
• Provide inflatable seat cushion to assist those
with sensory processing and attention issues.
• Reduce lighting to reduce sensory burden for
those who need it.
• Opportunity to participate via a CCTV camera
would be important to provide for highly anxious
young adults.
Engagement
with
courtroom
• Provide means for young adults to engage with the
courtroom officials. From a limited resource perspective, this
could be through an agreed signal so that young adults can
indicate when they want to contribute, when they do not
understand, or when they do not feel comfortable talking in
front of the court (e.g., green card/red card/blue card to hold
up and show their lawyer or the judge discreetly).
• Give extra thinking time. Responses from the young adults
(such as a simple ‘yes’ or nod) may be their attempt to
mask a lack of understanding. The young adult may still be
processing information or may not have fully understood
proceedings.
• Show choices or pathways visually - for example,
if you choose A then B will happen. There are
often complex processes involved that require
young adults to consider many different potential
outcomes, and the implications of potential
decisions can be hard to understand. These
discussions can be much easier if the young adult
can ‘see’ the options laid out on paper, (rather
than needing to keep track of being only ‘told’
the information). A highly relevant choice to
show visually would be as follows: for example,
follow the guidance of the courtroom’s plan for
you and *this* will happen, do not and *this* will
happen). Present with very clear choices.
TABLE 1 Recommendations
(Continues)
CLASBY et AL.
202
Universal supports (Tier 1) Targeted supports (Tier 2) Individualised support (Tier 3)
• Give praise and encouragement for effort, for asking
questions, and for completing tasks. Always try to build on
success. If someone has completed all tasks necessary and
no longer needs to continue coming to court, acknowledge
this accomplishment by asking them what they are going to
do next in their life, and congratulate them for starting to
turn their life around.
• Find a way to capture the strengths and motivations of the
young adult as these can be used as a motivational tool. This
could be completed at screening or by the duty lawyer prior
to their court session, if there is time. This allows the young
adult to better engage in the courtroom and feel recognised
for what they are good at alongside getting help working on
aspects which they find more difficult.
• Have an easy read schedule available for their
day at court. This could simply be a paper
flow chart with images that the lawyer could
notate to show where the young adult is in the
courtroom process.
• As the courtroom is developing a court plan
for a young adult, provide this in visual form
(preferably with images and minimal written
words) so the young adult can see what they
have completed and what they have to do
and have that available to all while it is being
discussed.
• Include pictures of the court and of the dock in
each information booklet if possible.
• Set of guidelines for courtroom staff and
stakeholders to use a range of effective
communication strategies that result in active
engagement and allow them to check the YA's
understanding (not yes and no questions).
• Avoid saying ‘do you understand?’ as most
people will say yes to that question. Instead, say,
‘I've just given a lot of information here, I need
to make sure I've explained it properly. Tell me
what you understand/tell me what is going to
happen next/tell me what you need to do now’.
• Recap the key points before the young adult
leaves and ideally provide them with the key
information in written form, for example ‘you
probably were following along, but just to make
sure, the things you need to do now are…./what
we decided today was…../the next thing that will
happen is ….’
TABLE 1 (Continued)
CLASBY et AL.203
Universal supports (Tier 1) Targeted supports (Tier 2) Individualised support (Tier 3)
• Spoken and narrated media for the YA would
be helpful, so that audio and video options are
enabled. Many neurodiverse young adults will
prefer access to information, without the need
for strong literacy skills, and use alternative
modes to access information.
• Develop a web-based or app-based interactive
version of booklet in addition to providing a
paper-based copy.
• Develop easy read interactive webpage detailing
what will happen on the day they go to court.
• Provide other information prior to entry into
courtroom for example, create a visual map
outside the courtroom to display who does what
and how to engage with the process. A TV with
a case study in the form of an age-appropriate
animation, could be useful. Make available
different modes of information including audio
and visual, immediately prior to accessing the
court
Engage with
multi-dis-
ciplinary
team
• Support agencies could follow a co-location of services
model, and then a court coordinator could be employed to
liase with the court, young adult, and the multidisciplinary
support agencies who go on to provide targeted support for
example, in the context of substance misuse.
• Multi-disciplinary team available to include: Neurodiversity
NGOs; cultural support services; bail support officers; youth
community workers; forensic nurses; drug and alcohol
specialists; and police prosecutors.
• If, during screening, further queries are raised
then additional general support may be provided
by neurodiversity NGOs. Although formal
assessment will be needed to determine most
appropriate service.
TABLE 1 (Continued)
(Continues)
CLASBY et AL.
204
Universal supports (Tier 1) Targeted supports (Tier 2) Individualised support (Tier 3)
Effective
communi-
cation
• Ensure that all courtroom staff and stakeholders use agreed
straightforward terminology – try to use as familiar and
easy vocabulary as possible. If difficult terminology such as
'discharge without conviction' is used, make sure to explain
what it means in lay terms to young adult before they leave
court, and is provided in an easy-read booklet.
• Speak literally (without similes, metaphors, acronyms, or
idioms) for example:
o ‘you are free as a bird!’ or ‘results showed she was as
clean as a whistle’ (simile = comparison using like or as).
o ‘you can remain at large’ or ‘this case is watertight’
(metaphor = comparison that does not use like or as).
o ‘you are not above the law’ or ‘they are in contempt
of court’ (idiom = group of words established by usage
as having a meaning not deducible from the individual
words alone).
• Avoid preamble and legalese for example, ‘my learnt friend’.
• Ensure pace is slower, volume clear, and the content is
expressed clearly to reduce barriers to the young adult
engaging and participating in the process.
• Speak directly to the young adult.
• Adapt communication style according to the needs of each
young adult and check in (sensitively) with the young adult
to see whether it is working for them. If legal terms are
required, then give a brief lay explanation (e.g., released at
large, that means you are free to go now).
• Give young adults the opportunity to also
contribute to court proceedings beforehand by
discussing with their defence lawyer what is
going to be talked about on their day in court.
It would be helpful for their defence lawyer to
make sure any plan the young adult is working
on is available to look through so they can see
what they have completed and what is to be
completed, or they can see where they are
within the court process and what the next step
is. For instance: Today is about putting in pleas,
next step is getting reports and then sentencing,
etc. These plans (as suggested elsewhere) would
be best in easy-read with images.
• Access to communication assistants
(see the MOJ's communication
assistant quality framework in New
Zealand https://www.justice.govt.
nz/assets/Documents/Publications/
Communication-Assistance-Quality-
Framework-FINAL.pdf).
TABLE 1 (Continued)
205
CLASBY et AL.
Universal supports (Tier 1) Targeted supports (Tier 2) Individualised support (Tier 3)
Wellbeing • Ensure water is available.
• Try to keep proceedings to a minimum.
• Some young people may not have access to breakfast/
food. Perhaps enquire if there is a local company that could
donate/sponsor snacks in the waiting area.
• Ask the defence lawyer to raise the option of
having fewer people in the courtroom with the
young adult beforehand, if sensitive information
may be discussed or there is previous trauma.
‒ this can be done with a script of verbal
prompts given to the duty lawyers to aid this
difficult conversation.
• These suggestions are reliant on trauma-
informed education (understanding how
traumatic events can influence current
behavioural presentation and de-escalation)
and also the development of a script of verbal
prompts (this would only require a few brief
simple prompts which could be included in the
training to give staff a guide as to how to talk
about trauma). Typically people find it a very
challenging topic to raise.
• Provide a space/quiet area/specific room outside
of the courtroom to decompress either before
or after court. This space should feel calm, have
lower lighting and some soft furnishings, where
possible.
• Develop a response pathway for those
who present as anxious/overwhelmed/
triggered by seeing police or other
professionals. This would require
education for staff and stakeholders
involved in the response pathway.
‒ Be aware that anxiety can manifest
as agitation, anger, and frustration
and that this is a call for help. It
may signal lack of understanding.
Anxiety and stress further debilitate
comprehension and communication,
so minimising stress is the ultimate
goal.
‒ Remain calm and supportive,
regardless of presentation of young
adult.
‒ Always remember that each and
every behaviour is a response
to a stimulus (which may not be
immediately obvious to the court,
but may be very troubling to the
young adult). Without the stimulus
identified and fixed, the behaviour
will not change. Reschedule if
needed or hold a closed court.
TABLE 1 (Continued)
(Continues)
206 CLASBY et AL.
TABLE 1 (Continued)
Universal supports (Tier 1) Targeted supports (Tier 2) Individualised support (Tier 3)
‒ Consider assigning someone in the
courtroom to be responsible for
checking up on the presentation
of the young adult and deciding
whether they need assistance or
follow up.
• Targeted training for these assigned
individuals would be helpful for them
to best identify how to support young
adults in the moment by recognising
behaviours.
Executive
func-
tioning
supports
• Try to help develop strategies to prevent lost, forgotten, or
damaged items. For instance:
‒ Provide young adults with important information in both
digital (text/email) and paper-based formats (for example
the paper slips given when exiting the courtroom).
‒ Courtroom plan support person: Work with young adult
to allocate key member from multidisciplinary team or
family/whānau to support carrying out administrative
challenges relating to courtroom plan, assist with
management of paper-based documents, follow-ups and
reminders for young adult, and scheduling of and help
adhering to appointments.
• Important information should be provided to the young
person in multiple formats (text/email/paper-based), as well
as to their allocated courtroom plan support person and
other relevant parties the young adult consents to.
• Ensure the young adult has access to both a
computer and in-person support for writing
tasks for example, apology letters. If possible,
think of other creative ways of undertaking tasks
such as pursuing restorative justice that do not
involve writing and are suited to those with
theory of mind difficulties.
• Proactive advocacy for digitalisation
in other agencies for example, Driving
Authorities to make processes to gain
licence available through an online easy-
read portal and more accessible for those
who are neurodivergent.
207
CLASBY et AL.
Universal supports (Tier 1) Targeted supports (Tier 2) Individualised support (Tier 3)
Training • Training for all courtroom staff and judiciary on neurological
difficulties (and neurodiversity broadly), how they may
present, factors that might intersect, understanding
behavioural presentations, and establishing strategies to
support someone who may be struggling. Long term ideally
much of this training would be inbuilt in legal education, that
of forensic nurses, and other courtroom staff.
• Be aware of sensory issues – what they are
and why they can be a problem. Try to keep
background noise to a minimum.
‒ For example, Keys jangling; people eating;
doors opening/closing; whispering; rustling
paper; lights flickering; too warm/too cold;
visually people entering and leaving the
court during session.
• Keep materials out of view when not in use.
Try to have a specific place for everything and
reduce loose documents.
• Regarding sensory issues:
‒ Utilise the sound systems in place and
provide a noise-cancelling headset/
frequency modulation system in each
courtroom to help reduce background noise
and increase clarity of those speaking.
Screening • Brief systematic screening for neurodiversity amongst all
those who interact with the justice system would help
criminal justice workers to identify who may be in need
to more targeted, and also more specialised support.
This screening would help to frame the different tiers
of accommodations and could be carried out prior to
engagement with the courtroom; preferably at first
interaction with the justice system (e.g. by police).
• Create a central Internet repository for all neurodiversity
guidance, documentation, support maps, information
booklets etc., which can be readily accessed for all
employees and those attending court.
• Create a series of easy-read documents with infographics to
support tasks in most common offence pathways.
‒ For example, Driving offences > steps to get licence etc.
• Specific accommodations could be linked to
certain responses on the screening tool, enabling
a smoother process of providing more targeted
support without requiring this to be fully
individualised at this stage.
• Referrals to specialist for comprehensive
assessment and potential specialist
support.
Abbreviations: MOJ, Ministry of Justice; NGOs, non-government organisations; YA, Young Adult.
TABLE 1 (Continued)
208 CLASBY et AL.
sheet highlighting the steps to get a licence in an accessible format). All related resources and guidance should be
collated and available for both staff and young adults freely online at any stage of their criminal justice trajectory to
help support responsive practice.
Systematic screening should be undertaken to assist in the identification of potential barriers to accessing justice
and to shape accommodations provided; this is particularly key as neurodivergent difficulties are often not easily
identifiable. There should be a clear response pathway to determine what accommodations and support any young
adult who screens positive for potential neurodivergence could then receive, including any consideration needed
when sentencing. There are clearly evidenced difficulties accessing justice at each stage of interaction with criminal
justice system (Foster & Young, 2021). Therefore, screening should be undertaken at first point of contact (i.e., police
interaction) and this information should be considered at each step of a young adult's criminal justice trajectory to
ensure appropriate access to justice is provided.
Neurodivergence is incredibly heterogenous; a one size approach will certainly not suit everyone (Holness, 2014).
For this reason, the provision of targeted supports (Tier 2) would be beneficial for some young people. These
supports could be driven by the strengths and challenges of the young adult as identified during screening for
neurodivergence. For instance, if a young adult is identified as experiencing high sensory reactivity and associated
anxiety on a screening tool, protocol could then dictate that a set of Tier 2 accommodations could be implemented.
A systemic pathway to allocate accommodations would also work, considering that many who are neurodivergent
have multiple challenges which may need more than one accommodation to achieve active participation (White
et al., 2020).
In cases where there is additional complexity, having multi-disciplinary partners could also provide the oppor-
tunity for further specialist support; for example, if an individual has been known to use alcohol to self-medicate for
underlying anxiety and sensory difficulties, then engagement between neurodivergence and substance abuse groups
to produce an individualised support plan would be beneficial (Tier 3). This would also include any referral to health-
care professionals for further assessment and specific individualised support needed.
FIGURE 1 Tiered support model for accommodations provision in the CJS. YA, Young Adult [Colour figure can
be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
209
CLASBY et AL.
4.2 | Limitations and future research
There are several limitations of the observational nature of this assessment that are important to disclose. The envi-
ronmental assessment observation component was restricted to a single point in time (2 h during the morning session
on 23 April 2021). This is only a very short time period in this specific court on which to base recommendations,
although all attendees had experience of traditional courtroom settings. Courtroom staff were aware that the panel
were observing on that day, which may have caused some reactivity bias. In addition, during the observation there
was no opportunity to engage with courtroom staff, other stakeholders, or the young adults themselves. The number
of assessors that could be included in this exercise was limited; this is a key limitation because the success of the
focus group is determined by the composition of the group and the background of its members. Efforts were made
to cover a range of different neurodivergent profiles and perspectives, however a critical gap related to the lack
of assessors who are Māori, and those with Pasifika backgrounds. Further work led by Māori and Pasifika peoples
should be conducted to determine further accommodations that could be recommended in the context of cultural
responsivity. Additionally, the group of assessors were all female and most of those appearing that day before the
court were male. The group also did not reflect the demographic that the court intends to serve, and it would be
highly useful to include young adults and their whānau who have lived experience of court processes as assessors in
future panels. Furthermore, due to the prospective and exploratory nature of this work, it was not within the scope
of this project to fully implement and evaluate the accommodations recommended. Designing complex evaluation
studies for translational research may seem off-putting for many due to the challenges involved with using large scale
experimental designs in real-life settings.
However, there are ways to undertake effective evaluations, and these should be prioritised. For instance, one
potential methodology which could be suitable to evaluate courtroom accommodations is a matched control group
design (Komro et al., 2016). By implementing different sets of accommodations at different locality courts with similar
populations, this would enable the determination of the most effective set of accommodations. There are many other
ways to frame such an evaluation, and useful explorations of these have been found in other community settings
(Komro et al., 2016; Mikkelsen et al., 2016). The foundation of any evaluation would be selecting appropriate meas-
ures, such as of procedural fairness, which could be operationalised in an interview format or through a survey design.
There are multiple different options available regarding the measurement of procedural fairness in courtrooms (e.g.,
LaGratta & Jensen, 2015), however it must be noted that these themselves would need to be altered significantly to
be accessible to young adults with neurodivergence. When looking to evaluate the effectiveness of training, meas-
urement of both young adult and criminal justice workers' perception of staff knowledge, confidence, and application
of knowledge would be helpful. Future research and implementation of courtroom accommodations for neurodiver-
gent young adults should look to embed an ongoing developmental evaluation – which involves an evolving set of
accommodations – into practice to ensure true access to justice.
5 | CONCLUSION
During the environmental assessment, focus group assessors recognised significant signs of potential neurodiver-
gence amongst the group of young adults, indicating a clear need for systems such as the YAL initiative. They also
recommended neurodiversity training, trauma-informed education, and screening for neurodivergence in order to
maximise the potential of the YAL and similar initiatives internationally. Accommodations were identified which could
be applied in the context of limited resources, as well as more aspirational strategies requiring greater resource
commitment. Importantly, different courts may require different framing of accommodations depending on the popu-
lation and community they serve and accommodations must be responsive to such diversity. A tiered accommodation
model would greatly improve inclusion whilst maintaining feasibility for criminal justice systems, and ensuring that
those who need more individualised support receive it. The range of opportunities where improvements have been
210 CLASBY et AL.
recommended, will be aided most significantly by neurodiversity training of the judiciary and courtroom officials
that frames neurodiversity from a contemporary perspective. The strategies identified in this article aim to increase
engagement, understanding, and empower young adults with neurodiversity to feel heard and understood following
their time in court. Ultimately, the legal system has a clear opportunity to reduce societal barriers for young adults
with neurodivergence, and be a source of social justice reform which, in turn, could greatly improve outcomes both
for young adults, their families/whānau, and society as a whole.
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data were created or analysed in this study.
ORCID
Betony Clasby https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7104-4308
REFERENCES
Baker, J., Lovell, K., & Harris, N. (2006). How expert are the experts? An exploration of the concept of ‘expert’ within Delphi
panel techniques. Nurse Researcher, 14(1) , 59–70.
Bornstein, B. H., Tomkins, A. J., & Neeley, E. M. (2011). Reducing courts’ failure to appear rate: A procedural justice approach. US
Department of Justice.
Brems, E., & Lavrysen, L. (2013). Procedural justice in human rights adjudication: The European Court of Human Rights.
Human Rights Quarterly, 35, 176–200.
Brown, J., Long-McGie, J., Oberoi, P., Wartnik, A., Wresh, J., Weinkauf, E., & Falconer, G. (2013). Confabulation: Connections
between brain damage, memory, and testimony. Journal of Law Enforcement, 3(5).
Catroppa, C., Godfrey, C., Clasby, B., & Anderson, V. (2017). Paediatric traumatic brain injury. In B. A. Wilson, J. Winegardner,
C. M. van Heugten, & T. Ownsworth (Eds.), Neuropsychological rehabilitation: The international handbook. Psychology
Press.
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), § Article 13 (2006).
Dorfman, D. (2017). Re-claiming disability: Identity, procedural justice, and the disability determination process. Law & Social
Inquiry, 42(1), 195–231.
Edwards, C., Harold, G., & Kilcommins, S. (2012). Access to justice for people with disabilities as victims of crime in Ireland. In
Centre for Criminal Justice and Human Rights (pp. 1–189). University College Cork.
Ericson, K. I., & Perlman, N. B. (2001). Knowledge of legal terminology and court proceedings in adults with developmental
disabilities. Law and Human Behavior, 25(5), 529–545.
Foster, T. R., & Young, R. L. (2021). Brief report: Sentencing outcomes for offenders on the autism spectrum. Journal of Autism
and Developmental Disorders, 1–7.
Holness, W. (2014). Equal recognition and legal capacity for persons with disabilities: Incorporating the principle of propor-
tionality. South African Journal on Human Rights, 30(2), 313–344.
Johnson, S. B., Blum, R. W., & Giedd, J. N. (2009). Adolescent maturity and the brain: The promise and pitfalls of neuroscience
research in adolescent health policy. Journal of Adolescent Health, 45(3), 216–221.
Kirby, A. (2021). Neurodiversity–a whole-child approach for youth justice. In Academic Insights 2021/08 (pp. 1–13). Her
Majesty’s Inspectorate of Probation.
Komro, K. A., Flay, B. R., Biglan, A., & Wagenaar, A. C. (2016). Research design issues for evaluating complex multicomponent
interventions in neighborhoods and communities. Translational Behavioral Medicine, 6(1), 153–159.
LaGratta, E. G., & Jensen, E. (2015). Measuring Perceptions of fairness: An evaluation toolkit. Center for Court Innovation
Mikkelsen, B. E., Novotny, R., & Gittelsohn, J. (2016). Multi-Level, multi-component approaches to community based inter-
ventions for healthy living – A three case comparison. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health,
13(10), 1023.
Ministry of Education. (2020). About dyslexia supporting literacy in the classroom. CORE Education.
Morie, K. P., Jackson, S., Potenza, M. N., Dritschel, B., & Dritschel, B. (2019). Mood disorders in high-functioning autism: The
importance of alexithymia and emotional regulation. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 49(7), 2935–2945.
Ortoleva, S. (2010). Inaccessible justice: Human rights, persons with disabilities and the legal system. ILSA Journal of Interna-
tional and Comparative Law, 17, 284.
Papachristos, A. V., Meares, T. L., & Fagan, J. (2012). Why do criminals obey the law? The influence of legitimacy and social
networks on active gun offenders. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 397–440.
211
CLASBY et AL.
Price, P. C., Jhangiani, R. S., Chiang, I. A., Leighton, D. C., & Cuttler, C. (2017). Research methods in psychology. (3rd ed.).
Pressbooks.
Tyler, T. R. (2007). Court review: Volume 44, issue 1/2-procedural justice and the courts. The Journal of the American Judges
Association, 217.
UN. (2006). United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. United Nations. https://www.un.org/
development/desa/disabilities/convention-on-the-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities.html
UN. (2021). Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities (CRPD) status of treaties. Retrieved from https://treaties.
un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY%26mtdsg_no=IV-15%26chapter=4%26clang=_en
Viljoen, E., Bornman, J., Wiles, L., & Tönsing, K. M. (2017). Police officer disability sensitivity training: A systematic review.
Police Journal, 90(2), 143–159.
White, R. M., Bornman, J., Johnson, E., Tewson, K., & Van Niekerk, J. (2020). Transformative equality: Court accommodations
for South African citizens with severe communication disabilities. African Journal of Disability (Online), 9, 1–12.
White, R., Johnson, E., & Bornman, J. (2021). Investigating court accommodations for persons with severe communication
disabilities: Perspectives of international legal experts. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research, 23(1), 224–235.
SUPPORTING INFORMATION
Additional supporting information can be found online in the Supporting Information section at the end of this article.
How to cite this article: Clasby, B., Mirfin-Veitch, B., Blackett, R., Kedge, S., & Whitehead, E. (2022).
Responding to neurodiversity in the courtroom: A brief evaluation of environmental accommodations to
increase procedural fairness. Criminal Behaviour & Mental Health, 32(3), 197–211. https://doi.org/10.1002/
cbm.2239
