Context

Recent years have seen increased attention to both Neurodiversity as a general concept and social concern, and specifically to the way in which the CJS engages with individuals who are neurodivergent. Interest (and to some extent, action) in this area has been catalysed by an exponential increase in inter-disciplinary scholarship and policy level engagement, not least because of the landmark evidence review by the Criminal Justice Joint Inspectorate in 2021.

While often used interchangeably, ‘Neurodiversity’ refers to the natural variation in the neurodevelopmental profiles of the general population; that is, the variations in types of human brain. In contrast, ‘Neurodivergence’ commonly describes cognitive development which varies or diverges from the typical, related primarily to learning, attention, social and sensory processing, and mood regulation differences. Neurodivergence includes (but is not limited to) Autism, Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), Learning Disabilities, and Dyslexia, with types of neurodivergence often overlapping and intersecting.

Individuals drawn into the CJS – as suspects, defendants, victims or witnesses – generally face significant challenges due to the stressful, complex and specialised nature of criminal proceedings. The inherent differences in how neurodivergent individuals engage with the world around them combined with the, arguably, neurotypical bias of the CJS can create barriers to fair and effective criminal proceedings. There is a well-established concern that neurodivergent people are both overrepresented within and under-served by the CJS, experiencing poorer justice outcomes than their neurotypical counterparts.

This review has been created by the Neurodivergence in Criminal Justice Network (NICJN) – a group of researchers, practitioners and community members interested in the challenges faced by neurodivergent individuals drawn into criminal justice systems (both in England and Wales, and globally). The review provides a snapshot of several areas of the CJS, drawing on a range of research literature and evidence (including the research of NICJN members in their respective fields, several of whom have very kindly contributed to this review). While the summaries are brief, they offer key insights into specific topics, complimented by recommended further reading. Equally, the network and the individual section authors can be contacted for further information.

Resources

Readers will of course want to focus on their own areas of operation be that Youth Justice, policing or prison and probation, but perhaps the most valuable section for many people will be the final chapter by Tom Smith & Nicole Renehan which focuses on how organisations can make their service more friendly to neurodivergent people. 

Alongside better awareness and understanding (which this review aims to offer, as a starting point), professionals and organisations can make their practice and services more neurodivergent friendly in a variety of ways. Very helpfully, these are often low or no cost, practical, and simple – yet can be highly effective in addressing the various issues discussed in this review.

The authors provide both general and more specific suggestions for criminal justice professionals to more effectively support and engage neurodivergent individuals. These suggestions are underpinned by some really helpful resources available at the click of a hyperlink.

For people who are interested in sharing and learning about good practice, receiving newsletters and hearing about events,  criminal justice practitioners can easily join the NiCJN via this link.