Irish policymakers have evinced a distinct willingness in recent years to reconstruct pre-trial and trial practices in order to demonstrate an increased sensitivity for the needs and concerns of victims of crime with intellectual disabilities. However, the same cannot be said for suspects with intellectual disabilities who remain subject to an unrevised custodial framework that is almost four decades old. In an effort to appraise this framework through the lens of Nils Christie's 'not-so-ideal offender' abstraction, this article surveys a number of discrete sites within Ireland's pre-trial landscape where a tension is arguably apparent between mainstream criminal procedure, on the one hand, and the ontological realities of intellectual impairment, on the other. Through this analysis the article highlights the need to reconstruct suspect identities at a policy and procedural level and, in doing so, makes the case for greater legislative activism with regard to the procedural treatment of suspects with intellectual disabilities.

At the forefront of efforts to enhance effective communication between vulnerable persons and stakeholders within the legal system has been the introduction of the intermediary. Embedding the role of the intermediary has presented complex challenges across jurisdictions. We report on phase one of a study involving a purposive sample ( n = 60) of diverse stakeholders across the Island of Ireland in which priorities for policy, research and practice were generated using a modified nominal group technique. We identified six priority areas: (i) formalising the role; (ii) building awareness and understanding; (iii) establishing mechanisms of professional development and support; (iv) undertaking service evaluation and research; (v) supporting cross-sectoral working; and (vi) ensuring equality of access to intermediaries. In the next phase of the study, priorities of individuals who have experience of using intermediary accommodations will be identified. Findings from both studies will be integrated to provide robust recommendations for policy makers to further advance the role of the intermediary in the justice system.

Pretrial criminal processes can prove challenging for suspects with intellectual and psychosocial disabilities. In recognition of this, the European Court of Human Rights has emphasized the importance of individualized assessments of vulnerability under Article 6. Yet, recent Strasbourg jurisprudence reveals a juridical willingness to define vulnerability narrowly with significant implications. This article analyses this jurisprudence to excavate the framing of vulnerability vis-a-vis fair trial rights during pretrial processes. Drawing upon a corpus of psychology and law literature, as well as the dissenting judgment in Hasalikova, it critiques the narrow formulation of vulnerability that has taken hold in Strasbourg and interrogates the Court's ostensible faith in the safeguarding capacity of lawyers. By using Ireland's weak pretrial procedural framework as a heuristic lens through which the shortcomings of this approach can be understood, it calls for a more generous conceptualization of vulnerability that is sensitive to the ontological and structural dimensions at play.

Despite increasing evidence on the exploitation of young people into criminal activity, their perspectives on and experiences of exploitative processes are not well understood. Despite progress in Great Britain with regard to ‘County Lines’ exploitation, and in the Republic of Ireland regarding youth criminality and grooming, the subjective accounts of how young people understand the phenomenon of child criminal exploitation (CCE) remain under-evaluated. This exploratory study captures the perspectives of Irish youth on CCE and draws on the theory of social capital to explore the social structures that enable CCE and the (limited) choices available to the young people.

It is well established internationally that children, as well as individuals with intellectual disabilities, face particular challenges in negotiating the forensic formalities adopted by police at the pre-trial stage of the criminal process. Owing to limitations in cognitive and linguistic development, the testimonial accuracy of police-elicited accounts yielded from these individuals has been found to attract a heightened risk of narrative bias which can vary depending upon the types of questions asked, the status of the person asking them and the formality of the arena in which the interrogation takes place. For persons suspected of crime, the distortive impact of these psychological vulnerabilities can result in serious punitive consequences. In recognition of the unique challenges facing vulnerable suspects in police custody across Europe, a distinct line of Strasbourg jurisprudence has emerged in recent years that emphasises the need for all states to facilitate meaningful access to a lawyer during a suspect's period of detainment. Most recently, this line of inculpatory logic found expression in the Chambers of Strasbourg in Doyle v Ireland (51979/17), where – although refusing to overrule the decision of Ireland's Supreme Court – the European Court of Human Rights was openly critical of the Supreme Court's failure to recognise Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights as incorporating a suspect's right to have a lawyer physically present during a police interview. Against the backdrop of such emergent juridical activism, this chapter calibrates the right to reasonable access to a lawyer in Ireland, with a particular emphasis on the position of vulnerable suspects of crime.

Objectives: Disability awareness training is mandated by the United Nations Convention on People with Disabilities (UNCRPD), but there is a paucity of evidence regarding the systematic evaluation of the effectiveness of such training. This study describes the evaluation of a pilot intellectual disability awareness programme for law enforcement officers (LEOs) in Ireland. Methods: Pre-and post-training Likert scales and a semi-structured survey were used to evaluate the effectiveness of an intellectual disabilities awareness programme delivered to LEOs. Quantitative differences in Likert scores and thematic analyses of practice-based responses were used in evaluation. Results: Twenty-two LEOs participated in the training and 11 completed the evaluation cycle. Statistically significant improvements were found in participants' self-rated knowledge of intellectual disability, their understanding of the challenges faced by people with intellectual disabilities in law enforcement interactions, their communication skills and their knowledge of how to approach a person with a disability in crisis. Thematic analysis excavated potential practical application of learning around pre-arrest considerations, recognition of disability, communication skills and need for procedural safeguards. Conclusions: An approach grounded in the views of people with intellectual disabilities and with emphasis on recognition of disability, communication, accessibility of information and providing appropriate support in custody, appears to promote improvement in self-reported knowledge and prospective application in LEOs. The findings of this study are potentially applicable to countries that have ratified the UNCRPD.

People with severe mental illness and intellectual disabilities are overrepresented in the criminal justice system worldwide and this is also the case in Ireland. Following Ireland’s ratification of the United Nations’ Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities in 2018, there has been an increasing emphasis on ensuring access to justice for people with disabilities as in Article 13. For people with mental health and intellectual disabilities, this requires a multi-agency approach and a useful point of intervention may be at the police custody stage. Medicine has a key role to play both in advocacy and in practice. We suggest a functional approach to assessment, in practice, and list key considerations for doctors attending police custody suites. Improved training opportunities and greater resources are needed for general practitioners and psychiatrists who attend police custody suites to help fulfill this role.

PurposeThis paper aims to critically evaluate contemporary Irish police practice, with an emphasis on emergent procedural innovations, in light of the needs of suspects with intellectual disabilities.Design/methodology/approachA review of published prevalence data in respect of people with intellectual disabilities in the Irish criminal justice system, of the Irish legal and policy landscape and the results of a recent empirical inquiry are used in critical evaluation.FindingsIn line with extant international research, the article identifies three sites of concern with respect to the protocols that exist within An Garda Síochána for identifying and responding to intellectual disability, including: (1) barriers to communication; (2) a need to build awareness and skills for police and persons with intellectual disabilities; and (3) a need for institutional change to secure equal access to justice for people with intellectual disabilities. Progress is being made at a systems level towards a human rights approach in Irish policing.Originality/valueIn representing the first international analysis of its kind, the article locates the barriers confronting suspects with intellectual disabilities in Ireland within a discourse that is sensitive to ongoing research-led, procedural reforms within An Garda Síochána (Ireland's national police service). Owing to the universalised nature of these barriers across policing systems internationally, the format of these reforms from this will be of relevance to many other policing states, in particular the 162 other signatories to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities.

An abstract is not available for this content. As you have access to this content, full HTML content is provided on this page. A PDF of this content is also available in through the 'Save PDF' action button.

Purpose: Individuals with communication disabilities often face barriers when engaging with justice systems. Such barriers pose a material risk to the individual in relation to their right of equal access to justice. These barriers also pose a risk to the relevant State in potentially breaching Sustainable Development Goal 16 peace, justice and strong institutions (SDG 16). To mitigate these risks, many adversarial criminal justice systems have identified the need for accommodations to facilitate the participation of individuals with communication disabilities. Result: At the forefront of this movement has been the introduction of intermediaries. By facilitating effective communication between vulnerable persons and stakeholders within the legal system, intermediaries play a pivotal role in ensuring active participation in legal processes. They can also improve the forensic accuracy of the fact-finding inquiry. In this article, we outline case examples of intermediary schemes across three common law countries. As various terms are used to describe the intermediary role including communication assistants and registered intermediaries, the term intermediary will be used throughout. Conclusion: Although the scope of the role of intermediaries varies across settings in line with policy and legislative frameworks, we draw on shared learning across these countries to guide others in designing an intermediary scheme. We highlight the importance of knowledge sharing across contexts to realise equal access to justice for all (SDG 16).

Background People with intellectual disabilities are over-represented in the criminal justice system. The United Nations' Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) enshrines a right to equal access to justice for persons with disabilities (Article 13, UNCRPD). Accessible information is a key aspect of exercising this right. Yet, many jurisdictions, including Ireland, are yet to develop accessible information for disabled people who may be arrested. Aims This paper describes the collaborative development through multidisciplinary and advocate consensus of an accessible (Easy -to- Read) Notice of Rights (ERNR) for people with intellectual disabilities in police custody in Ireland. Methods Guidelines developed by Ireland's representative organisation for people with intellectual disabilities and examples of international practice were used to develop a draft ERNR by the primary researcher in partnership with an expert from a representative organisation for people with intellectual disabilities. The ERNR was developed thereafter through two focus groups with a view to achieving consensus with a focus on accessibility, accuracy and layout. This included a multidisciplinary focus group with participants from a representative organisation for people with intellectual disabilities, psychology, speech and language therapy, the police force, public health, forensic psychiatry, mental health, law and, subsequently, a focus group of people with lived experience of intellectual disability. Results Progressive development of the ERNR resulted in incremental improvements in textual accuracy as well as the inclusion of more accessible language and imagery. Originality/value This is the first attempt at developing an easy-to-read document relating to the legal rights of suspects in police custody in Ireland and, accordingly, this procedural innovation promises to assist, not just persons with intellectual disabilities, but also those with limited literacy at the point of arrest. The methodology used in the preparation of the document, employing a focus group to achieve consensus with participation from both multiple disciplines and persons with an intellectual disability, is in harmony with the ethos of the UNCPRD. This methodology may usefully be employed by other member states that have ratified the Convention but have yet to develop accessible version of the legal rights and entitlements that extend to arrested persons under their domestic law.

That the process of delivering evidence orally in court can prove stressful and intimidating is a point well established within mainstream victimological discourse.1 However, what is insufficiently acknowledged, particularly within the Irish academy’s literature on this topic, is the extent to which this sense of distress is heightened for victims of crime with an intellectual disability. In seeking to address this research lacuna, this paper will consider the degree to which the procedural norms of Ireland’s adversarial trial system, and the epistemic values which underpin those norms, pose certain exaggerated barriers to the realisation of justice for members of this vulnerable victim constituency. Owing to their limited cognitive and linguistic development, these victims face significant biomedical or ontological difficulties in responding to experiences of victimhood. Crucially, however, these ontological difficulties are compounded both procedurally and attitudinally by an adversarial system of trial which is predicated upon a ‘contest morphology’ and controlled by a legal community that is overwhelmingly preoccupied with mainstream accounts of victimhood.

BACKGROUND:People with intellectual disabilities (PWID) are over-represented in criminal justice systems globally. This over-representation reveals itself at once in the demographic make-up of prison populations, as well as those detained in police settings as suspects of crime. While it is well-established in international literature that individuals who find themselves in the latter scenario face particular challenges in negotiating the forensic formalities routinely followed by the police at the pre-trial stage of criminal proceedings on account of their impairments, the specific difficulties experienced by PWID as suspects within Ireland's criminal justice system has yet to be explained, or indeed, understood. In seeking to address this research lacuna, this paper yields an account of a qualitative study which was aimed at identifying the unique challenges which PWID face in their interactions with Law Enforcement Officials (LEOs) in Ireland.AIMS:This study aimed to elicit perspectives across a range of disciplines with regard to barriers for PWID interacting with LEOs in Ireland, and sought viewpoints on the content of a proposed awareness programme.METHODS:A survey using purposive sampling was used to elicit viewpoints from people from representative organisations for PWID, people working with voluntary organisations for PWID, healthcare professionals working with PWID and professionals from the criminal justice system (including members of An Garda Siochana, lawyers, members of the Irish judiciary and officials within the Airport Police). Data were anonymised at the point of collection. Qualitative thematic analysis was conducted to extract themes based on the data retrieved through the survey.RESULTS:Ninety-five (n = 95) responses were received from individuals reporting a cumulative experience of 1537 person-years. Respondents identified themselves as members of one of three groups; people working in a voluntary or representative organisation for PWID (n = 42, 44.2%); people working in healthcare (n = 31, 32.6%); and people working in law enforcement (n = 22, 23.1%). Three themes were identified from the qualitative thematic analysis. The first theme, "Barriers to Communication", identified challenges which PWID and LEO experience in their mutual interactions and communications with one another. The second theme, "Building Awareness and Skills", identified elements of an ID awareness programme for LEOs. The third theme, "Institutional and System Change", identified possible lines of innovation with respect to contemporary police practice and the availability of supports for both PWID and the LEOs who work with them.ORIGINALITY/VALUE:This study represents the first dedicated qualitative inquiry conducted on a multidisciplinary level into the barriers which healthcare professionals, legal professionals and disability advocacy groups perceive to be faced by PWID in their interactions with LEOs in Ireland. Consequently, the findings from this study will act as a valuable template in the direction of informing the development of an ID awareness programme for LEOs in Ireland. In addition, these research findings are expected to usefully inform the development of national policy and protocols in areas related to health, disability and justice. In offering a rich evidence-base for future policy initiatives, the timing of this study is particularly significant. The recent ratification by Ireland of the UN Convention for the Rights of People with Disabilities (UNCRPD), together with the synchronous emergence of an evolving emphasis on human rights-based policing at a national level in Ireland, has meant that Irish policymakers have a unique opportunity to re-imagine the pre-trial formalities of Ireland's criminal process in order to demonstrate an increased sensitivity to the needs of PWID. Securing equal access to justice for such individuals, it is important to emphasise, is a legal requirement pursuant to Article 13 of the UNCRPD. To the extent therefore that this study yields unique insights into the barriers faced by PWID in their interactions with LEOs, the results of this study are potentially generalisable to other jurisdictions that have ratified the UNCRPD and are developing policy to accord with Article 13.

The prevalence of intellectual disabilities amongst adult prisoners in Ireland is higher than international estimates. There is little evidence that the development of diversion services has impacted such prevalence. The authors argue that Ireland's ratification of the UNCRPD presents a timely opportunity to address this problem through an awareness programme aimed at frontline law enforcement officials.

For over a quarter of century Ireland's statutory special measures framework, as originally enacted by the Criminal Evidence Act 1992, remained largely unchanged, falling beyond the reformative gaze of successive Irish governments. This period of political inertia, however, came to an abrupt end in 2017 when Irish policymakers, motivated by developments at a European Union level, introduced two landmark legislative instruments which promised to reimagine the availability and diversity of Ireland's store of statutory testimonial accommodations, namely the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2017 and the Criminal Justice (Victims of Crime) Act 2017. By interrogating these newly-commenced instruments in light of the experience of crime victims with intellectual disabilities, this paper surveys the current procedural landscape governing the treatment of vulnerable crime victims in Ireland and is intended to go some way towards exposing the embedded evidential barriers which continue to prejudice efforts aimed at securing their best evidence in court.

It is well established internationally that there is a high prevalence of intellectual disability (ID) among people in police custody. Some people with ID may face particular challenges in negotiating the forensic formalities adopted by police at the pre-trial stage of the criminal process. These challenges need to be acknowledged and mitigated through appropriate procedural safeguards in order to, at once, preserve the fact-finding accuracy of criminal investigations and minimise the risk of securing a wrongful conviction. And yet, despite the formative role which pre-trial procedures exert over the trajectory of proceedings, little is known about the experiences of people with ID during their initial interaction with law enforcement officers. In an attempt to address this research lacuna, we reviewed six databases systematically to identify studies that explore such experiences. Seven studies with a total of 1199 participants were identified. Frequently, participants with ID describe challenges in police custody, experiencing particular difficulties in understanding and communicating information. They report a paucity of appropriate supports generally in this setting and an unmet need for the provision of procedural and emotional supports. Consistent implementation of legal safeguards is necessary, along with consistent availability of accessible practical measures to support people with ID within the criminal justice system.

There is a high prevalence of people with intellectual disability (ID) among those in police custody. Consequently, law enforcement officers (LEOs) at the frontline of the criminal justice system are commonly required to interact with people who have ID. Notwithstanding the frequency of these interactions, research indicates that police exchanges with persons with ID frequently take place against a backdrop of tenuously-resourced disability awareness training. At the time of writing, a paucity of research data exists with respect to the experiences of LEOs operating within this training vacuum at an international level. A better understanding of their experiences could meaningfully inform research, training and improve support programmes for LEO's. We systematically reviewed six databases to identify studies published up to 1st December 2019 reporting the experience of LEOs interfacing with suspects who have an ID. Following a review of 670 abstracts, 16 studies were identified from five countries involving 983 LEOs. LEOs identified 1) a need for specialised training; 2) challenges in identifying people with ID; 3) a need to improve safeguards and 4) challenges in supporting/communicating with individuals who have ID through the investigation process.

Reviewed by: Inventing American Exceptionalism: The Origins of American Adversarial Legal Culture, 1800–1877 by Amalia D. Kessler Alan Cusack (bio) KEY WORDS Law, Legal history, Civil procedure Inventing American Exceptionalism: The Origins of American Adversarial Legal Culture, 1800–1877. By Amalia D. Kessler. (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2017. Pp. 464. Paper, $35.00.) The story of how adversarial procedure established itself as the dominant model of adjudication in American criminal justice procedure has been [End Page 733] told often enough in the work of John Langbein, Lawrence Friedman, and Stephen Landsman. However, what is insufficiently acknowledged in the literature of these scholars, and indeed within mainstream historical legal scholarship generally, is the complex interplay of legal, political, cultural, and socioeconomic factors that contributed to the adversarial paradigm’s emergence as the outstanding motif of American civil procedure. Amalia Kessler addresses this lacuna with Inventing American Exceptionalism, an eloquent and insightful work that offers readers a rigorous reinterpretation of America’s legal past and yields a long overdue exposition of the historical origins of America’s adversarial civil legal culture. Kessler’s overarching objective in undertaking this historical portrait is to dispel the widely promoted myth that American civil procedure has always embraced a distinctly accusatorial character. By elucidating the quasi-inquisitorial past of America’s civil justice machinery—in the guise of New York’s flourishing Chancery court scene and the political debates that surrounded the formation of conciliation courts in the nineteenth century—Kessler impressively dismantles this inaccurate generalization. Contrary to popular belief, the presence of adversarial sensibilities within American civil procedure, it would seem, is not inveterate. Indeed, in revealing the nuanced economic and social debates that gave birth to this procedural tradition, Kessler’s work is of immense value, not only in the sense of offering an important counter-narrative to the “grandiose, public-minded claims so often made in support of American adversarial procedure” (341) but also in the wider sense of architecting a culturally precise, historically rigorous framework from which the appropriateness of America’s continued subscription to this model can be appraised. As Kessler writes, “the fact that the United States has a significant quasi-inquisitorial past should, at least to some extent, help to reframe the boundaries of the imaginable” (341). In seeking then to reframe the boundaries of the imaginable, Kessler traces the evolution of adversarial civil procedure over the course of six insightful chapters. By opening in the burgeoning halls of the New York Chancery at the turn of the nineteenth century, Kessler roots the book’s narrative in a quintessentially non-adversarial context from the outset. Helmed by the civic republican Chancellor James Kent, these courts proved to be an exception to the democratic drift away from equity procedure that was taking hold elsewhere across common-law world in the nineteenth century. Designed around “an idealized, heroic conception of [End Page 734] the equity judge” (37)—an individual who was expected to resolve disputes through secret, written interrogatories in accordance with his own moral sensibility—these quasi-inquisitorial courts, Kessler argues, allowed equity judges to at once augment their reputation and stymie the democratic revolution that surrounded them. However, with the decision in 1817 to allow equity pleadings to proceed through oral, adversarial testimony, came a shift in the structure of the New York Chancery as lawyers colonized ownership of the courtroom narrative, replacing chancellors as the embodiment of the nation’s civic republican elite. The promulgation of the Field Code of Procedure shortly afterwards, Kessler writes, concretized the New York Chancery’s retreat from its quasi-inquisitorial past by effectively abolishing the law/equity divide and establishing a single, uniform mode of procedure that corresponded with the oral, adversarial tradition. Significantly, a similar drift toward adversarial justice was also apparent, Kessler points out, in the voluminous debates that surrounded the introduction of American conciliation courts in the late nineteenth century. A creature of Benthamite philosophy, these courts were intended to provide litigants with a lawyer-free forum that would allow them to settle grievances by having recourse to the judgement of a local authority figure. As evidenced, however, by the failed Freedmen’s Bureau courts experiment...