Disabled Victims session 2 – Risks and safety, access to justice. Professor Louise Ellison University of Leeds

Disabled Victims session 2 – Risks and safety, access to justice. Professor Louise Ellison University of Leeds

• 1.
  Criminal Justice andPSD: the Long Road to Equality Louise Ellison, University of Leeds Vanessa Munro, University of Nottingham Katrin Hohl, City University London Paul Wallang, St Andrew’s Healthcare
• 2.
  A note onterminology  “psychosocial disability” - expresses a social rather than medical model of conditions and experiences labelled as ‘mental illness’  Highlights fact that treatment of this population within the scope, and potential protection, of disability equality duties
• 3.
  Victimization amongst adultswith PSD MIND 2007 survey of 300 people living with mental distress  71% victimised at least once in the past two years  34% victim of theft /other financial crime  22% physically assaulted  10% sexually assaulted
• 4.
  Pettitt et al(2013) survey of 361 victims with SMI  44% any crime in past year  18% victims of assault  23% theft/ criminal damage  40% of women a victim of rape/attempted rape in adulthood  43% experienced more than one type of crime in the past year
• 5.
   Australia, Chappleet al (2004) (962 participants with a psychotic disorder) 1 in 6 suffered violent victimisation in the previous year, a rate 3.5 times higher than the general figures from the country  USA, Teplin et al (2005) (936 participants with SMI) more than one quarter had been victims of one or more violent crimes within the past year - incidence more than 4 times greater compared to general population.
• 6.
  Impact of victimisation Pettitt et al report -  98% reported emotional or MH problems as a result of victimisation  Relationship breakdown, financial hardship, housing related problems  40% female victims (23% male victims) of sexual/domestic violence had attempted suicide
• 7.
  Barriers to reporting Fear of disbelief  Previous dismissive treatment by police  Fear of being sectioned  Discouraged by third parties  Intimidation
• 8.
  Unmet need forsupport  Problems with identification / reluctant to disclose PSD  Needs not assessed  Denied access to special measures  Criminal justice personnel lack training to deal with victims with complex needs
• 9.
  A question ofcredibility?  Perception amongst victims of prejudicial attitudes existing within the police  Inaction following police report  Reports of improper use of medical records in court  Perception amongst some lawyers / judges that few cases reach court due to credibility concerns
• 10.
  PSD and attrition:a known unknown  Police / prosecutors do not routinely monitor or keep records of people with PSD as victims of crime  impact of mental health on case progression has generally not been subject to systematic analysis
• 11.
  MPS Rape Study London MPS: comprehensive dataset of all allegations of rape received in April and May 2012 (n=679)  Full police records of each rape complaint in the sample coded  Complainant mental health included as an analytical category = 23% of sample
• 12.
  Method  Multivariate logisticregression analysis of data set. Significance tests used to identify differences between cases involving complainants with/ without recorded mental health conditions  Limitations: nature and severity of the MHC not recorded; variable may be under/over inclusive
• 13.
  Findings Recorded MHC No recorded MHC No-crime 11%5% NFA 45% 38% Referred to CPS 1% 21% Charged 4% 10%
• 14.
  Findings: other ‘vulnerabilities’ Recorded MHC Norecorded MHC Intellectual disability 13% 2% Homeless/ missing 9% 2% Alcohol/drug dependency 14% 4% False report 9% 2%
• 15.
  Findings: case characteristics Recorded MHC Norecorded MHC Physical resistance 28% 37% Inconsistency 17% 9% Intoxicated 22% 31%
• 16.
  Findings: perceived credibility Recorded MHC Norecorded MHC Police noted doubts about the case 54% 24% Police noted doubts about V credibility 37% 17%
• 17.
  Findings: victim cooperation Recorded MHC Norecorded MHC Police noted difficulty contacting V 28% 21% Police noted poor V cooperation 39% 30%
• 18.
  Summary Rape complainants withrecorded MHCs significantly more likely to:  experience additional, circumstantial vulnerabilities  have their credibility explicitly doubted by police officers  see their case discontinued by the police / CPS
• 19.
  Remaining data gaps PSD and attrition – a known unknown  Absence of reliable evidence base inconsistent with obligations imposed by equality legislation and international human rights obligations
• 20.
  Key references  EllisonL. Ellison, K. Hohl, V. Munro, P. Wallang, ‘Challenging Criminal Justice? Psychosocial Disability and Rape Victimisation’ Criminology and Criminal Justice Online First 1 August 2014  Ellison, L., ‘Responding to the needs of victims with psychosocial disabilities: challenges to equality of access to justice’ [2015] 1 Criminal Law Review 28-47  Mind (2007) Another Assault. London: Mind.  B. Pettitt et al (2013) At Risk Yet Dismissed, the Criminal Victimisation of People with Mental Health Problems. London: Victim Support/Mind.