Chloe MacDonald (Cardiff University), Dr Thomas Smith (University of the West England Bristol), Dr Roxanna Dehaghani (Cardiff University)
Autism, Access to Justice and Criminal Defence
Although autistic individuals are more likely to encounter the criminal justice system (CJS) as victims, when they encounter the CJS as suspects they face greater barriers to accessing justice and have an increased risk of negative consequences, such as trauma and self-harm (Slavny-Cross et al., 2022). Research has focused upon identifying prevalence of autistic individuals in the CJS (Chown, 2010) and their experiences (Maras et al, 2017), but there has been less focus on how autistic individuals access justice. Crucially, there has been little research on how autistic people engage with legal representation – a crucial means of accessing justice – though existing literature provides some insight into experiences of engaging with legal professionals generally (Maras et al, 2017).
To address this gap, the current piece of research – conducted by Dr Roxanna Dehaghani (Cardiff), Dr Thomas Smith (UWE) and Chloe Macdonald (Cardiff), funded by the British Academy[1] – seeks to understand the role and experience of criminal defence professionals when advising and representing autistic individuals, and to thereby improve our understanding of how autistic individuals access justice. Specifically, it seeks to explore and, ultimately, articulate what is and is not effective in terms of criminal defence representation for autistic individuals accused of crime, and to critically comment on broader CJS practices, processes, and procedures through this lens. Consequently, the project aims to propose what, if any, changes ought to be introduced to improve the provision of criminal defence services for autistic people and better support lawyers in providing access to justice for their autistic clients.
This blog explores a key stage of the project: data collection and methods. It focuses specifically on the key challenges that emerged as part of this process in recruiting interview participants and securing responses to the survey. The blog shares the ways in which we adapted which may be useful to other researchers seeking to conduct similar research with individuals and professions who are chronically time poor ( criminal defence (and the justice system as a whole) is stretched in the current context of austerity, see Newman and Dehaghani, 2022; Bellamy Review 2021).
Research Rationale
The current research engages the full range of criminal defence practitioners including solicitors, barristers and Accredited Police Station Representatives (hereafter, APSRs) to understand how autistic suspects and defendants access justice. By doing so, we aim to better understand how autistic individuals access justice in police stations and criminal courts, exploring potential barriers both they and their legal representatives may face during criminal justice processes and procedures.
Process and Practicalities
The current study utilises a mixed methods design. Mixed methods studies, though rare in legal literature, offer significant value by combining qualitative and quantitative approaches and provide deeper insights into complex socio-legal phenomena, overcoming past limitations of socio-legal research lacking empirical focus (Blackham, 2022). For the current project, the principal aim is to better understand how effectively autistic suspects and defendants access justice through their legal representation. This led the research team to adopt a mixed method approach to ascertain both breadth and depth of information relating to the topic, thus using survey and interview methods respectively.
Accessing and Engaging Criminal Defence Practitioners
Recruiting criminal defence solicitors, barristers, and APSRs has proven to be challenging. The research team compiled a potential participant contact list using both publicly available emails and professional contacts who were invited to participate by email. Details about the research project and a link to the survey was also shared on social media.
At the time of writing, combining both methods, there are 91 participants (although data collection is still ongoing). For the survey, there are currently 63 participants (27 Solicitors; 15 Barristers; 21 APSRs). For the interviews, there are currently 28 participants (11 Solicitors; 10 Barristers; 7 APSRs). Whilst it was not a requirement for participation in the research, an overwhelming majority of current participants have direct experience of advising or representing autistic clients; 98% of those surveyed (N = 62) and 100% of those interviewed. Participants were primarily recruited through convenience sampling, involving outreach to solicitors and barristers known to the research team. Additional recruitment involved identifying relevant firms, chambers, and organisations, and contacting staff via publicly available email addresses or professional networking platforms such as LinkedIn. Despite our efforts to share the call for participants on X (formerly known as Twitter), engagement was limited. This may be partly attributed to the platform’s recent transformations. Since rebranding and shift in functionality, many researchers and practitioners appear to have either reduced their activity or left the platform altogether. Therefore, the main social media platform used in recruitment was LinkedIn, in which there was frequent and steady engagement from criminal defence lawyers. To expand the sample, each participant was asked to refer other potential participants, thereby incorporating elements of snowball sampling.
Through both stages of data collection, the research team has faced periods of non-response and slow uptake, which whilst not uncommon in data collection still presented challenges to progress of the project (Bryman, 2021). For the surveys, data collection improved once the survey was re-designed and re-published, which is explained further below. For the interviews, there was skewed uptake. Initially, many barristers showed interest and engaged with interviews; in contrast, it was significantly harder to engage solicitors in interviews. However, after a few months this reversed; barristers became more difficult to engage and there was increased engagement from solicitors. Eventually, the initial goals of obtaining at least 10 solicitors and barristers were met, notwithstanding the inconsistent patterns of engagement. The team considered the most likely factor for inconsistent engagement to be the time pressures and workload for defence lawyers impacting upon their decision to participate.
A consistent theme throughout data collection was difficulty gaining access to APSRs, with few responding to requests for interview. The few that engaged cited time constraints as the major barrier for non-participation. Interestingly, the proportion of APSRs completing the survey (33%) is significantly higher than the proportion taking part in interviews (21%). As such, we conclude that the significantly smaller time commitment required by the survey (see below) encouraged participation – though not without an impact on the ‘richness’ of data collected.
A Sluggish Survey
The initial survey the research team designed– with invaluable feedback from the autistic community via the Neurodivergence in Criminal Justice Network – consisted of both closed and open-ended questions on various aspects of criminal defence representation for autistic individuals including knowledge, experience, training, and adaptations. In light of the variety of novel issues it initially sought to explore, the survey was around 30 questions long and estimated to take approximately 15-20 minutes to complete (although if participants wanted to include more detailed free-text answers, this would, consequently, increase the time taken to around 30-40 minutes depending on the level of detail provided). The original survey was launched in the Summer of 2023.
Unfortunately, despite sustained efforts to disseminate the survey through more proactive methods (e.g. contacting more individuals) and passive methods (e.g. resharing the survey weekly on social media), initial uptake was incredibly low (N=4). Macdonald’s analysis of the survey indicated that survey attrition (that is, the survey was started but progress stopped prior to completion) occurred on average at page four. The research team surmised that a combination of factors was likely causing this. It was felt that the necessary time and cognitive demand of the survey was deterring completion beyond the initial questions (see, e.g., Clark, 2021). In short, participants were likely enthused initially but quickly exhausted either their time or their energy.
In October 2023, the survey was paused to assess its utility and design. Despite initial disappointment, the experience underscored the importance of flexibility in research. Early interview trends revealed the value of survey data, leading to a leaner, more focused redesign. This process of pausing, reflecting, and adapting resulted in a more effective research tool.
Re-launching the survey
In June 2024, the team decided to significantly revise the survey structure, content and, ultimately, length; and to launch it in September 2024. The second version of the survey removed many of the qualitative components initially included, redirecting its focus to quantitative data collection. This decision was made for two reasons. First, following the low uptake of the original survey, it was rationalised that the quantitative focus would mean a much smaller time/energy commitment for participants, thus enabling wider engagement and lower attrition. Second, it was surmised that a primarily quantitative focus would provide meaningful results in a way the interviews did not, thereby enabling the two methods to better complement each other.
Macdonald was responsible for launching the revised survey using social media networking sites as before (X, formerly Twitter, and LinkedIn). Direct messages were sent to firms, Chambers and organisations that the research team were aware of, as well as individuals found through social media sites or who had previous engagement with the research team. Within a week of doing so, the new survey had already achieved double the response rate of the first version. During an initial period of around eight weeks after re-launch, it was reposted on social media intermittently (a few times a week) to generate and sustain interest amongst participant populations, after this period it was shared weekly.
The team was delighted to see such a positive response to the new survey in terms of uptake, demonstrating the value in remaining open to changing approach when conducting empirical research. At the same time, the research team recognised the limitations of the new survey in terms of the ‘richness’ of the data collected, which will be explored further below.
Intermittent Interviews
The interviews (28 at the time of writing) were semi-structured and primarily qualitative in approach. They used a pro forma designed around the project questions. This gave the researchers a consistent, structured guide for conducting each interview whilst allowing participants’ flexibility to answer questions and introduce concepts the researchers may not have accounted for in the guide. Interviews were conducted remotely via Microsoft Teams and took on average of one hour to complete. The shortest interview was 28 minutes, and the longest interview was one hour and ten minutes. Participants were recruited in a similar manner to the surveys, by using the list created by the research team and contacting any individuals/organisations/Chambers on social media. The first interview was conducted by Smith and observed by Macdonald, and all subsequent interviews were conducted by Macdonald. Each interview has provided invaluable data, not only demonstrating a variety of common issues but also unique insights.
As mentioned previously, the relaunch of the survey, whilst a success in terms of engagement, was limited in its ‘richness’ of data collected. In fact, two interview participants initially became known to the research team after an email with critical feedback on the survey. Before entering the interview, it was reflected upon how easy those interviews would be to navigate, and whether any critical feedback of the questions may occur. However, keeping an open mind and using the interview schedule as a guide (as with all interviews) the participants in these interviews offered free flowing and intricate accounts of their experiences, making a valuable contribute to data collection. Therefore, what had been a limitation – the lack of a qualitative element in the revised survey – was converted into a strength. This experience thus demonstrated the importance of reflecting upon and engaging constructively with critical feedback as a project develops.
In the spring of 2024, more solicitors responded to interview invitations, with 11 interviewed at the time of writing. Concurrently, it became harder to engage barristers and APSRs remained a difficult population to engage. Fortunately, in late spring to early summer 2024 more barristers were contacted through LinkedIn who agreed to take part in the interviews, with initial targets for participation being met. At time of writing, Macdonald is still trying to engage with APSRs to increase their representation within the interview and meet the goal of ten participants from each participant cohort.
Managing fluctuating engagement and intermittent interviews has been a valuable learning experience. Spikes in engagement were unpredictable, even with identical social media posts across the team to engage more participants. These fluctuations allowed time for reflection, survey adjustments, and qualitative analysis. The team explored new engagement methods, such as reaching out via LinkedIn. Patience, persistence, and team support were crucial, and the team remains grateful for the participation of busy criminal defence practitioners.
What’s next for Autism, Criminal Defence and Access to Justice
This blog has sought to explore the main challenges faced in the research process, particularly data collection, and will we hope to serve as a useful resource for researchers working in cognate areas. We are currently in the process of writing several outputs from the research and planning disseminating of our findings and recommendations. Part of that will involve engaging with a variety of stakeholders, including legal professionals, the Autistic and neurodivergent community, public, private, and third sector organisations and media, to ensure the research has maximum reach and impact. We would therefore welcome inquiries into the research.
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to the solicitors, barristers, and APSRs who have been generous in sharing their thoughts, experiences, and (ever-dwindling) time with us. We are also grateful to the British Academy/Leverhulme for funding this research and to several Neurodivergence in Criminal Justice Network members for their feedback on survey and interview questions.
References
Bellamy, C. 2021. Independent Review of Criminal Legal Aid. Ministry of Justice. Available from https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1041117/clar-independent-review-report-2021.pdf.
Blackham, A. 2022. When law and data collide: the methodological challenge of conducting mixed methods research in law. Journal of Law and Society 49(S1). doi: 10.1111/jols.12373.
Chown, N. 2010. ‘Do You Have Any Difficulties That I May Not Be Aware of?’ A Study of Autism Awareness and Understanding in the UK Police Service. International Journal of Police Science and Management 12(2). doi: 10.1350/ijps.2010.12.2.174.
Clark, T., Foster, L., Sloan, L. and Bryman, A. 2021. Bryman’s Social Research Methods.
Dehaghani, R. and Newman, D. 2022. Criminal legal aid and access to justice: an empirical account of a reduction in resilience. International Journal of the Legal Profession 29(1). doi: 10.1080/09695958.2020.1868474.
Maras, K.L., Crane, L., Mulcahy, S., Hawken, T., Cooper, P., Wurtzel, D. and Memon, A. 2017. Brief Report: Autism in the Courtroom: Experiences of Legal Professionals and the Autism Community. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 47(8). doi: 10.1007/s10803-017-3162-9.
Slavny-Cross, R., Allison, C., Griffiths, S. and Baron-Cohen, S. 2022. Autism and the criminal justice system: An analysis of 93 cases. Autism Research 15(5). doi: 10.1002/aur.2690.
[1] https://www.thebritishacademy.ac.uk/news/the-british-academy-and-leverhulme-trust-award-over-2-million-in-small-research-grants-to-support-shape-researchers/
Defending Vulnerability 