This panel brings together members from the BSC Vulnerability Research Network to present their research on vulnerability in the criminal justice system.

While the term ‘vulnerability’ can be problematic, it use is increasing in the discourse of academics, policy makers and practitioners across a range of disciplines and sectors including criminal justice, social policy and health (e.g. Brown et al, 2017; Enang et al, 2019). It informs a range of interventions and, as Brown (2015) points out, it has become a significant mechanism in the processing and management of certain individuals and groups. The rationales for such interventions or processes vary but include that vulnerable people may find criminal justice process more stressful, and are at risk of confusion, suggestibility and acquiescence. Moreover, they may not be sufficiently informed about the processes nor able to engage or participate in them. This is of concern when effective participation is considered as a cornerstone of a fair criminal justice system, and engagement is thought to promote resettlement and reduce the likelihood of reoffending. The problem is a large-scale issue and, while prevalence is difficult to measure, there are estimates that, for example, up to 40 per cent of suspects (McKinnon and Grubin, 2013) and up to 50 per cent of prisoners (Talbot, 2008) have mental health needs and/or learning disabilities. This panel discusses current thinking on defining and measuring vulnerability and then moves on to identify three groups of people - defendants with mental health or learning disabilities, criminal justice populations with low literacy levels and suspects with intellectual disabilities - and presents research on their experiences of the criminal justice system.

Non-registered intermediaries facilitate communication between the courts and defendants who require support to understand what is happening and give evidence during court proceedings. This can benefit defendants with mental health conditions or learning disabilities who may find it difficult to follow what is happening or give evidence in court due to disabling factors such as the complexity of the interviewer’s questioning style, the language used in court and court procedures (Ericson and Perlman, 2001; Murphy and Clare, 2006; Morrison et al, 2019). However, there are concerns that not all defendants who need this support can access it and those who do are not given enough support (Criminal Justice Joint Inspections, 2021). This study was undertaken to find out non-registered intermediaries’ and support providers’ perceptions of the barriers to effective intermediary appointments (or accessing and getting enough support from non-registered intermediaries) for defendants with mental health conditions or learning disabilities in England. An online focus group with five non-registered intermediaries and a support provider was held for this purpose. Judicial attitudes towards the role of non-registered intermediaries and a lack of uniformity in the application of the criteria for intermediary appointments were perceived as the main barriers to effective intermediary appointments. The participants also believed that these barriers could be addressed by increasing awareness of people with mental health conditions or learning disabilities and their support needs among judges and magistrates. This study demonstrates the need for training on disability issues and procedural accommodations among all those working in the legal system, as is required by Article 13 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

Literacy is rarely discussed in criminal justice research. Yet, it is hard to understand criminology’s absence when “reading and writing are central to almost every stage of the [criminal justice] process” (UserVoice, 2021, p. 12), and 65 per cent of adults in prison have literacy levels expected of an 11-year-old or below (Ministry of Justice, 2023).

In this paper, the findings from a document analysis, taken from a purposive sample of twenty prison and probation organisational policies will be presented. This was one element of a wider research project which considers the complex context of probation practice. This document analysis demonstrates the language and concepts which describe learning challenges evolved. Terms such as ‘dyslexia’, ‘neurodiversity’ and ‘neurodisability’ were not seen in policies before 2014. This shift in language potentially results in a loss of focus on literacy as it becomes integrated under the wider umbrella of neurodiversity. Literacy was also seen as an essential skill for criminal justice service users, helping them to access and understand information. The analysis suggests this is important for two reasons; first to reduce the likelihood of people with low literacy levels being unfairly disadvantaged and second to support compliance. The documents also showed literacy is viewed differently in prisons compared to the probation service. In prisons, reading was viewed as both a pleasurable and purposeful activity and emergent readers are a potentially vulnerable cohort who should be afforded specialist support. Several factors were identified to help explain this contrast in priorities between the two organisations: including resources, workforce development and accountability structures. However, recent prison inspections (HMI Prisons & Ofsted, 2023) show a gulf between policy and practice with many prisons performing inadequately around literacy.

In recent years, there has been a growing recognition of the importance of understanding and addressing the needs of persons with intellectual disabilities (‘PWID’) within the criminal justice system (Cusack et al 2022, Gulati et al 2020). Central to this recognition is early identification of intellectual disability. Early identification is critical in ensuring that PWID receive appropriate services and supports such as appropriate adults, intermediaries or diversion pathways. This paper undertakes a critical analysis of the policies and procedures employed by the Irish police force – An Garda Síochána – in identifying PWID in their custody. More specifically, the Garda Síochána Custody Record Risk Assessment, and the training and awareness programmes provided to police officers in Ireland will be interrogated. It is argued that while there have been some positive steps, such as a pilot training programme modelled on lived experience of disability, overall, there are significant challenges in identifying ID at this early stage in the criminal process. For example, in the absence of specialist training and formal procedures, police officers tend to rely on personal judgment and ‘gut instinct’ in making observations on vulnerability (Rooney et al 2021, p. 61). The challenges in identification have profound implications for PWID. This includes potential interferences with fundamental human rights such as the right to access justice, the right to accessible information and communication, the right to equality and non-discrimination, the right to a fair trial, and ultimately, the right to liberty and security. By delving into the intricacies of An Garda Síochána’s identification processes and training programs, this paper sheds light on the systemic barriers in recognising the unique needs of PWID in the Irish criminal justice system. It also underscores the pressing need for procedures to align with principles of inclusivity, equality and respect for the rights of PWID.

While it has its critics, the concept of vulnerability is gaining prominence in the work of academics, policy makers and practitioners across a range of disciplines and sectors including criminal justice, social policy and health (e.g. Brown et al, 2017; Enang et al, 2019). It informs a range of interventions and, as Brown (2015) points out, it has become a significant mechanism in the processing and management of certain individuals and groups. This paper reports on the findings from an evidence review of definitions of vulnerability and existing screening, assessment and measurement tools in the criminal justice sector and beyond. It identifies and classifies the risk factors considered to be associated with vulnerability, as well as providing a critique of this approach. The paper then moves on to critically analyse the available tools used identify vulnerability.