Taking trauma seriously

Date01 July 2017
Published date01 July 2017
DOI10.1177/1365712716655168
Subject MatterArticles
EPJ655168 183..208 Article
The International Journal of
Evidence & Proof
Taking trauma seriously:
2017, Vol. 21(3) 183–208
ª The Author(s) 2016
Critical reflections on the
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
criminal justice process
DOI: 10.1177/1365712716655168
journals.sagepub.com/home/epj
Louise Ellison
University of Leeds, UK
Vanessa E Munro
University of Leicester, UK; University of Warwick, UK
Abstract
Over the last two decades successive governments in England and Wales have stated a commit-
ment to placing victims of crime at the heart of the criminal justice agenda. A raft of polices and
reforming measures have been introduced with the declared aim of improving the experience
and treatment of victims within the criminal process. Despite these developments, the govern-
ment has recently conceded that the criminal justice process has continued to fall short—whether
in relation to helping victims to recover in the aftermath of a crime or supporting them through the
stresses of investigation and trial. In this article we argue that applying a trauma-informed lens
to evaluate victim-centred initiatives helps to explain the failure of victim policy in England and
Wales to fully deliver on its promise. We highlight the barriers that experiences of trauma can
present to effective victim participation and the extent to which current trial processes are often
liable to exacerbate rather than ameliorate trauma amongst a broad constituency of victims.
Keywords
criminal justice, mental health, post-traumatic stress disorder, trauma, victims
Over the last two decades, successive governments in England and Wales have stated a commitment to
placing victims of crime at the heart of the criminal justice agenda (Home Office, 2002; Ministry of
Justice, 2012). Though critics have questioned the true motivation behind this policy stance,1 improving
the responsiveness and accessibility of the criminal justice process to those who experience victimisation
has been a repeatedly stated objective of reform. The story to date in this regard has been a mixed one,
1. For example, many comments have been made about the potential for purported ‘victim-focused’ reforms and initiatives to
mask punitive policies and harsher measures against offenders, while offering few tangible effects or benefits for victims
(Ashworth, 2000; Jackson, 2003). For further discussion see Hall (2009) and Doak (2008).
Corresponding author:
Louise Ellison, School of Law, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK.
E-mail: l.e.ellison@leeds.ac.uk

184
The International Journal of Evidence & Proof 21(3)
however. Substantial strides have been made, for example, in the specific context of those designated as
vulnerable or intimidated witnesses, where provision has been made with increasing readiness to ensure
‘special measures’ that alleviate (some of) the stressors associated with giving testimony in court.2 In
addition, there has been an important recognition of the standing of the victim within criminal proceed-
ings, reflected—amongst other things—in the implementation of improved procedures for updating on
the progress of the investigation and prosecution process and the introduction of victim impact state-
ments. At the same time, however, and as the Ministry of Justice has acknowledged in its 2013 Strategy
and Action Plan, significant ongoing challenges remain to fully realising the government’s stated
objectives of providing appropriate support to victims of crime and improving their experiences of
evidence-giving (Ministry of Justice, 2013).
Without trivialising the dilemmas that too single-minded a focus on victims may provoke in relation
to securing equal access to criminal justice, our aim in this paper is to take seriously the government’s
declared commitment to a victim-centred approach, and to highlight the extent to which initiatives that
have been designed and implemented under its auspices to date can be seen to at best scratch the surface
of what it in fact entails. More specifically, our aim is to draw trauma into the frame; and to illustrate the
extent to which, given the pervasiveness of experiences of trauma amongst a wide constituency of crime
victims, any system that purports to be victim-orientated needs, as a priority, to pay considerably more
attention to the presence and impact of trauma, particularly where it leads to, or would merit, a diagnosis
of post-traumatic stress disorder (‘PTSD’). Such a focus, we will argue, inevitably takes us beyond the
parameters that have been set by existing procedural protections, and compels us to engage more
empathetically with the barriers that experiences of trauma can present to effective participation, the
ways in which it can mitigate against establishing credibility and the extent to which current trial
processes are often liable to increase rather than ameliorate trauma amongst a broad constituency of
victims and witnesses. More broadly, it places an obligation on the state to be more ‘responsive’ in its
handling of vulnerable participants in the criminal justice process, to take mental health as seriously as
physical health, and to acknowledge the extent to which strategies of crime prevention and investigation
bear significant public health ramifications.
In the first part of the paper, we briefly explore the ways in which emotional or psychological
reactions to certain stress events manifest as ‘trauma’ (and the relationship to ‘post-traumatic stress
disorder’ specifically), as well as the existing evidence which illustrates a scale and prevalence of trauma
amongst victims of crime that has barely been acknowledged to date by criminal justice policy-makers or
practitioners in the UK. Having done so, we devote a considerable amount of our discussion, in the
second part, to two key respects in which such pervasiveness of trauma amongst crime victims poses
particularly acute, and currently only partially redressed, challenges for the criminal justice process;
namely (i) the negative impact of trauma on memory recall and narrative coherence, and its implications
for the evaluation of credibility, and (ii) the ways in which criminal procedure—including its adversarial
structure, timescales for trial processing and distrust of therapeutic interventions—may entrench and
augment the vulnerabilities of traumatised witnesses. Given the specific procedural and contextual
issues that arise in relation to minors, we restrict our discussion to adult victims; but this, of course,
is in no way intended to deny that children also experience crime-related trauma, nor to trivialise the
extent to which participation in criminal proceedings often poses acute challenges for this population.3
Of course, the ramifications of applying a trauma-informed lens to criminal justice policy and
practice extend well beyond the treatment of victims. This is not a zero-sum game, and it will also have
tangible, and often progressive, implications for how many ‘vulnerable’ suspects and defendants are
dealt with. Moreover, it will cast light upon the phenomenon of ‘vicarious trauma’ and the complex ways
in which engaging with narratives of victimisation and brutality against others can take a psychological
2. Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999.
3. For further discussion, see for example, Kendall-Tackett et al., 1993; Kletter et al., 2009; UNICEF, 2006.

Ellison and Munro
185
toll on police, prosecutors, barristers, judges and—indeed—jurors, which in turn may impact negatively
upon their ability to engage with individual cases. Thus, in the third and final part of the paper, we reflect
more broadly on the implications of taking trauma seriously within the investigation and prosecution
process, highlighting the extent to which it requires a radical transformation of many of the norms,
procedures and ‘emotional cultures’ that currently frame the operation of criminal justice in England
and Wales.
Though, we accept that, in the final analysis, a fully trauma-driven response may be unachievable, we
maintain that greater acknowledgement of the pervasiveness of trauma, the challenges that it presents to
accessing justice, and the ways in which participating within the criminal justice process often comes at
the cost of an individual’s therapeutic recovery is crucial; and that applying this lens to evaluate the
failure of victim-centred initiatives to fully deliver on their promise offers fresh insight and a compelling
mandate for further reform. What is more, it opens up to critical reflection the ways in which criminal
justice professionals and jurors may be affected by their engagement with, and responsibility for
evaluating, the traumatic narratives of others, and highlights the urgent need to promote individual and
organisational-level strategies for coping with such emotional labour if justice is not to be put in
jeopardy.
Part I: The prevalence of trauma within the criminal justice process
A wide variety of experiences can provoke trauma, and psychological reactions to stressful events will
vary greatly between individuals, affected by a range of factors including the characteristics of the
originating stressor, the individual’s personal resilience, prior history of trauma, age or connection to
sources of economic/social/familial support. Nevertheless, it is clear that—for many people—the effects
of trauma can be both severe and debilitative. Common responses include feelings of emotional numb-
ness, confusion, shock, shame, anger and acute anxiety (Van der Kolk et al., 1996). In most cases,...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT