Gina Vale and Craig Webber
The landscape of youth involvement in violent extremism is increasingly complex, with recent findings highlighting a contentious yet compelling intersection with neurodivergence.[1] The recent Shawcross Review on the UK Prevent Strategy found that ‘a significant number’ of cases referred to the Channel programme for deradicalisation intervention involved ‘complex needs [including] young people on the autistic spectrum’ (Shawcross 2023, para. 4.96). Carried forward to conviction, diagnosed neurodivergence features in almost one third of cases of juvenile terrorism offending in England and Wales. When isolated to extreme right-wing offenders, the proportion rises to 12 out of 30, or 40 per cent (Vale and Rose 2025, Rose and Vale 2025). However, the detail behind these figures, and the processes and practices that underpin them, is significantly lacking.
Such cases have prompted a burgeoning literature to explore how characteristics and behaviours associated with, for example, autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) might exacerbate the vulnerability and risk factors for children being drawn into violent extremism.[2] Comparatively little scholarly attention has been paid to how the intersecting factors of youth and neurodivergence are navigated in counter-terrorism responses within the criminal justice system. Our research seeks to fill this timely gap, exploring how the criminal justice system constructs, understands, and responds to the vulnerabilities, needs, and risks related to neurodivergent children’s engagement in violent extremism. By drawing on the perspectives of policing, legal practitioners, and forensic psychologists, as well as court transcripts, we seek to highlight best practice of – and challenges to – neuro-inclusive and child-first counter-terrorism.
Youth, Neurodivergence, and (Counter-)Terrorism
Scholarship on the nexus of neurodivergence and violent extremism is relatively nascent, often reflecting an adult-normative approach and a focus on the aetiology of extremist behaviours and offending. However, it is important to emphasise that the extant literature does not definitively conclude, nor does it suggest, that neurodivergent individuals pose greater risk of engagement in violent extremism than their neurotypical counterparts (Druitt et al. 2023). To do so would only exacerbate stigmatisation (Walter et al. 2021). Yet, some scholars highlight characteristics of neurodivergence as contextual, rather than causal, to both vulnerability and risk (Woodbury-Smith et al. 2022). Neurodivergence can manifest in restricted or obsessional interests, a heightened need for rules and predictability, and difficulties forming relationships and discerning nefarious intent (Al-Attar 2020, Faccini and Allely 2016, Palermo 2013). When combined with the accessibility, parasocial connectivity, and anonymity of online platforms, such characteristics may heighten vulnerability to extremist narratives.
Neurodivergence has implications for an individual’s journey throughout the criminal justice system – “from police questioning and engagement in court proceedings through to risk assessment, formulation, therapeutic approaches, engagement with support services, and long‑term social and legal outcomes” (Woodhouse et al. 2024, p. 1). When the context of violent extremism is added, compounding vulnerabilities are evident. For children in particular, neurodivergence is significantly over-represented in institutional referrals to Prevent, reflecting a broader risk-oriented, rather than needs-oriented, approach. A review of children’s social care in the UK found that almost all children and young people referred for risk of radicalisation are male with underlying vulnerabilities including ASD and other neurodivergent learning needs, such as ADHD, obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), and language and communication difficulties (Langdon-Shreeve et al. 2021, p. 28). A recent Amnesty International report similarly found that in addition to a disproportionate number of referrals, interaction with Prevent and parallel criminal investigation affects neurodivergent children in specific ways. This includes securitising or even suspending access to vital support services, resulting in heightened mistrust of figures and institutions of authority, further stigmatisation, and barriers to support (2023, p. 37).
Responsive efforts should alleviate, rather than exacerbate, harm. Maria Lovegrove, Head of Interventions at UK Counter-Terrorism Police, reflects that the rising proportion of neurodivergent children in the counter-terrorism caseload represents “a real shift to the fact that people can present as being vulnerable and dangerous simultaneously” (cited in Warrell 2024). However, the compounding sensitivity of these cases – bringing together the trifecta of violent extremism, children, and neurodivergence – is not conducive to transparent practice. Currently, it is not clear whether and how such a nuanced approach is being implemented across the criminal justice system.
Beyond the Numbers: Examining Criminal Justice Practice
Trends in Prevent referrals, arrests, and subsequent terrorism convictions that capture disproportionately high numbers of neurodivergent children should prompt (re)consideration – across academia, policy, and practice – of what represents an extremist threat and how best to respond. This is the aim of our study: to look beyond the case statistics to explore how the criminal justice system constructs, understands, and responds to the vulnerabilities, needs, and risks related to neurodivergent children’s engagement in violent extremism.
Our research adopts a dual approach. First, we draw on semi-structured interviews with police, legal practitioners, and forensic psychologists engaged in cases concerning neurodivergent children who are arrested, charged, convicted, and sentenced for terrorism offences in England and Wales. This has enabled examination and centring of practitioner perspectives and processes of working with neurodivergent children across legal counsel, investigations, custody, and court. Second, this is supported by analysis of transcripts of sentencing remarks for all 14 relevant Crown Court cases since 2016, in order to understand how neurodivergence and youth are navigated and how these factors shape judicial outcomes.
Key Findings and Implications
Our preliminary analysis reveals significant systemic challenges in how the criminal justice system responds to neurodivergent children involved in violent extremism. Three primary trends emerge from our data. First, we identify pronounced siloed approaches across agencies, with limited cross-over expertise bridging neurodivergence, youth justice, and counter-terrorism. Practitioners consistently report operating within isolated domains of knowledge, lacking the integrated understanding necessary for effective intervention. Second, there exists a fundamental tension between adopting a child-first approach that prioritises welfare and developmental needs, and the securitised, risk-focused imperatives that characterise counter-terrorism policy and practice. This tension manifests in decision-making processes that struggle to reconcile therapeutic support with public protection concerns. Third, our findings highlight considerable geographical and institutional variation across England and Wales regarding both experience with such cases and readiness to provide nuanced, informed responses. Some regions demonstrate sophisticated understanding and tailored interventions, whilst others lack the expertise and resources to respond appropriately.
These findings underscore the urgent need for enhanced training, improved inter-agency coordination, and the development of specialist pathways that can simultaneously address the complex vulnerabilities of neurodivergent children whilst maintaining appropriate safeguards for individual and national security. Without such reforms, the criminal justice system risks perpetuating cycles of marginalisation and failing to provide the support needed to prevent vulnerable children from being drawn into violent extremism.
References
Al-Attar, Z., 2020. Autism spectrum disorders and terrorism: how different features of autism can contextualise vulnerability and resilience. The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, 31 (6), 926–949.
Amnesty International, 2023. ‘This is the Thought Police’: The Prevent duty and its chilling effect on human rights. London.
Druitt, F., Smith, D., Spaaij, R., Kernot, D., and Laver, A., 2023. Do autism spectrum disorders (ASD) increase the risk of terrorism engagement? A literature review of the research evidence, theory and interpretation, and a discussion reframing the research-practice debate. Journal of Policing, Intelligence and Counter Terrorism, 18 (3), 307–332.
Faccini, L. and Allely, C.S., 2016. Mass violence in individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorder and Narcissistic Personality Disorder: A case analysis of Anders Breivik using the “Path to Intended and Terroristic Violence” model. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 31, 229–236.
Langdon-Shreeve, S., Nickson, H., and Bright, C., 2021. Safeguarding and radicalisation: learning from children’s social care. Department for Education.
Palermo, M.T., 2013. Developmental Disorders and Political Extremism: A Case Study of Asperger Syndrome and the Neo-Nazi Subculture. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 13 (4), 341–354.
Pellicano, E. and den Houting, J., 2022. Annual Research Review: Shifting from ‘normal science’ to neurodiversity in autism science. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 63 (4), 381–396.
Rose, H. and Vale, G., 2025. Childhood Innocence Project Live Dataset.
Shawcross, W., 2023. Independent Review of Prevent.
UK Government, 2024. New definition of extremism (2024).
Vale, G. and Rose, H., 2025. Firm Convictions?: Unpicking Framings of Child Terrorism Offenders. Terrorism and Political Violence, 37 (7), 927–944.
Walter, F., Leonard, S., Miah, S., and Shaw, J., 2021. Characteristics of autism spectrum disorder and susceptibility to radicalisation among young people: a qualitative study. The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, 32 (3), 408–429.
Warrell, H., 2024. Home Office to review autism cases in anti-extremism unit. Financial Times, 21 Dec.
Woodbury-Smith, M.R., Loftin, R., Westphal, A., and Volkmar, F.R., 2022. Vulnerability to Ideologically-Motivated Violence Among Individuals With Autism Spectrum Disorder. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 13.
Woodhouse, E., Hollingdale, J., Davies, L., Al-Attar, Z., Young, S., Vinter, L.P., Agyemang, K., Bartlett, C., Berryessa, C., Chaplin, E., Deeley, Q., Freckelton, I., Gerry, F., Gudjonsson, G., Maras, K., Mattison, M., McCarthy, J., Mills, R., Misch, P., Murphy, D., and Allely, C., 2024. Identification and support of autistic individuals within the UK Criminal Justice System: a practical approach based upon professional consensus with input from lived experience. BMC Medicine, 22 (157), 1–30.
[1] Extremism is a contentious term that continues to defy definitional consensus. The UK government (2024) has recently revised its definition of extremism, which can be summarised as the ‘promotion or advancement of an ideology based on hatred or intolerance’ that aims to negate or undermine fundamental and UK-based rights, freedoms, and democracy, and the intentional support of others to do the same.
[2] A note on language used in this blog post. We acknowledge that terms such as disorder can be stigmatising and run counter to the neurodiversity paradigm that rejects the view of neurodivergent differences as a deficit. We are aware of ongoing debates regarding pathologising neurodiversity, which fall beyond the scope of our present discussion. In order to avoid confusion and remain consistent with the extant literature, we employ recognised clinical terms for neurodivergent variations (see Pellicano and den Houting 2022).
Defending Vulnerability 