VR成人视频

Autistic people are overrepresented in the Criminal Justice System (CJS) as victims/witnesses, and suspects/defendants 鈥� despite no evidence that they commit crimes at a higher rate than the general population.

Their experiences within the CJS are largely negative, with autistic people feeling that they do not receive adequate support to enable them to provide their best evidence, precluding their access to justice 鈥� including at court.

鈥樷�� enable adaptations to how evidence is gathered and presented in criminal courts in England and Wales. In practice, however, the use of these measures has been reported to be inconsistent by legal professionals, and there is scant empirical evidence to date on their use with autistic individuals in court.

Project overview and resources

This Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC)-funded project has examined the impact of standard courtroom proceedings and the provision of special measures for autistic witnesses and defendants. The project began in April 2023 and has been extended until February 2027.

Across the project, we carried out five studies using surveys, interviews, simulated court proceedings, experimental designs and co-design workshops. We also conducted public engagement activities, including producing the .

We worked with autistic court users, justice professionals (including barristers, solicitors, intermediaries, and judges), and mock jurors. Our work has benefitted from a Stakeholder Advisory Board of autistic people, family members of autistic people, and justice professionals.

Alongside autistic court-users and justice professionals, we co-designed resources for (i) autistic people who will be going to criminal court, and (ii) professionals who will be working with autistic people at court.

These resources are available below:

Project team

This project is a collaboration between the VR成人视频, the University of Birmingham and the University of Chester.

• , Principal Investigator (VR成人视频)
• , Postdoctoral Researcher (VR成人视频)
• , Co-Investigator (University of Birmingham)
• , Expert Consultant (University of Chester)

Study 1: Autistic people鈥檚 real-life experiences of court

In the first part of the project, we examined autistic people鈥檚 experiences of taking part in court and tribunal proceedings in England and Wales. We also explored the views of people who support autistic court users, and justice professionals who work with autistic people in court.

We collected data through online surveys and semi-structured interviews.

Participants

Overall, 112 people took part:

• 66 autistic adults
• 12 supporters of autistic people, such as family members or friends
• 34 justice professionals, including intermediaries, barristers, judges, tribunal members, solicitors, magistrates and witness support

Preliminary findings

Autistic court users described the court process (before, during, and after completion) as emotionally demanding, unfamiliar, and often difficult to navigate. Many had an autism diagnosis during their case and had disclosed this to the justice system. However, most reported receiving no preparation before court and no support while at court.

Cross-examination was often reported as the most difficult stage. Participants described difficulties with understanding questions, knowing what information was being asked for, managing anxiety, and coping with the sensory and social demands of court.

Justice professionals identified barriers to the provision of support, including limited autism understanding, inconsistent knowledge of Special Measures, uncertainty about individual needs, limited resources, and variation between courts. Facilitators included better understanding of autism, earlier identification of needs, judicial support, and intermediary involvement.

In summary, Study 1 emphasises that autistic people need support to better understand and be prepared for the court process, but crucially courts need to understand and be better prepared to support the autistic person.

Study 2: Simulating Crown Court proceedings with autistic witnesses

In Study 2, we examined autistic people鈥檚 experiences of giving evidence in simulated .

We ran a series of eight mock hearings in a replica Crown Court. Autistic mock witnesses gave evidence about a staged crime (witnessed in person one month earlier). At court, the mock witnesses were questioned by real-life qualified barristers, proceedings were overseen by retired judges, and mock jurors observed the hearings.

Half of the autistic mock-witnesses gave evidence with Special Measures and broader support, including intermediary assessment, court familiarisation, and individually recommended adaptations 鈥� including for questioning. The other half gave evidence without these Special Measures.

Participants

This study involved:

• 8 autistic mock witnesses who gave evidence in court
• 4 additional autistic 鈥渂ack-up鈥� witnesses, who observed hearings from the benches and were interviewed afterwards
• 12 justice professionals, including barristers, intermediaries, and judges
• 99 mock jurors who observed proceedings

Autistic participants took part in interviews immediately after court, and again one week later using a 鈥榲ideo-elicitation鈥� method, where they reflected on footage of themselves giving evidence. Justice professionals were interviewed after proceedings. Mock jurors completed written feedback and took part in focus groups.

Preliminary findings

Autistic participants broadly described the courtroom as unfamiliar, intense, and difficult to read. Challenges were reported with uncertainty, knowing how much detail to provide, managing anxiety, and processing questions under pressure.

Special Measures and broader support were helpful in different ways for different autistic participants, increasing familiarity, reducing social and environmental intensity, or helping witnesses focus on the questions being asked. However, Special Measures were often viewed as having both benefits and limitations which required weighing to decide whether to use them.

Mock juror responses suggested that the presence of Special Measures did not negatively impact their perceptions of autistic witnesses. Indeed, there was also some indication that witnesses with Special Measures were perceived more positively, although these findings are preliminary.

In summary, Study 2 highlights the importance of individually tailored support, rather than assuming that one form of adaptation will work for all autistic court users.

Studies 3 and 4: Examining cross-examination with autistic witnesses

These focused specifically on cross-examination. This is a central part of court proceedings involving the testing of witness evidence by an opposing lawyer, but it can be particularly difficult for vulnerable witnesses. We experimentally compared two approaches:

• The 鈥楾raditional鈥� advocacy model of cross-examination 鈥� which often includes complex, leading, or adversarial questions.
• The more recent 鈥楤est Evidence鈥� model of cross-examination 鈥� which takes more of an investigative approach, using clearer, shorter, non-leading questions designed to help vulnerable witnesses provide their best evidence.

Study 3: Autistic witnesses

Autistic participants watched a mock crime video, gave a witness statement, and one week later underwent cross-examination by a trainee barrister. Autistic participants were randomly assigned to receive either Traditional or Best Evidence cross-examination.

Participants

56 autistic adults took part:

• 28 in the Traditional cross-examination
• 28 in the Best Evidence cross-examination

We measured witnesses鈥� perceived difficulty, anxiety, and testimony quality (accuracy and completeness).

Study 4: Lay juror perceptions

A separate group of lay jurors watched videos from the cross-examinations and rated their perceptions of the witnesses, the quality of their evidence, and the way in which they were questioned.

Participants

860 lay jurors took part:

• 460 jurors viewed Traditional cross-examination videos
• 400 jurors viewed Best Evidence cross-examination videos

Jurors rated witness coherence, witness credibility, and question clarity.

Preliminary findings

We found that:

• autistic mock-witnesses who underwent Best Evidence cross-examination gave a much higher number of accurate details than those who underwent Traditional cross-examination.
• no overall difference between Traditional and Best Evidence cross-examination in autistic witnesses鈥� live ratings of difficulty or anxiety. However, when autistic participants subsequently compared equivalent written questions, they rated Best Evidence questions as much easier to answer than Traditional questions.
• higher anxiety during cross-examination was linked to greater difficulty with Traditional questions, but not Best Evidence questions. This suggests that Best Evidence questioning may be especially helpful for more anxious witnesses.

For lay jurors, Best Evidence questioning did not negatively affect their perceptions of witnesses. Jurors did not rate witnesses as less coherent or less credible when they were questioned using Best Evidence. Jurors also rated Best Evidence questions as slightly easier to understand.

Studies 3 and 4 further emphasise the importance of individualised questioning approaches for autistic people in court, alongside broader strategies to assist with managing anxiety.

Study 5: Co-designed court guidance and a Theory of Change

Across studies 1 to 4, we found that effective participation requires autistic people to have a better understanding of court processes, and the courts to understand the autistic person鈥檚 communication, sensory, emotional, and questioning-related needs.

In the final part of the project, Study 5 focuses on developing and evaluating practical resources to assist autistic people with their participation in court.

We worked with autistic court users and justice professionals to co-design a Theory of Change and guidance materials for both autistic people attending court and for court professionals working with autistic people. A Theory of Change is a way of mapping what needs to change, what activities could help produce that change, and what outcomes should follow.

Participants

This part of the project involved:

• 10 autistic court users, including people with experience as witnesses and defendants
• 15 justice professionals, including judges, barristers, intermediaries, and others working in the justice system

Contributors took part through online focus groups, interviews, and surveys. We used flexible, autism-affirming participation methods so that people could choose to contribute verbally, in writing, individually, or in groups.

What we produced

We co-designed:

• a visual Theory of Change map
• a written Theory of Change narrative
• practical guidance for autistic court users
• practical guidance for court professionals
• an evaluation framework

The guidance for autistic court users includes information about preparing for court, asking for support, disclosing an autism diagnosis/identity, understanding court roles and language, managing stress and sensory challenges, and looking after oneself after court.

The guidance for court professionals focuses on autism-informed communication, reasonable adjustments, Special Measures, identifying individual needs, avoiding misinterpretation of autistic behaviour, and improving coordination between professionals.

These guidance materials for autistic court users and professionals are available below:

Evaluation

We are currently evaluating these guidance materials, using surveys and interviews.

The evaluation will examine whether the guidance is relevant, useful, and likely to support better court practice.

A Witness: a short film based on the project

As part of the project, we also produced a short narrative film, A Witness, to communicate our research findings to wider audiences.

The film is inspired by the real-life experiences of autistic people giving evidence in court. Drawing particularly from Autism in Court Studies 1 and 2, it highlights common themes from the research, including sensory overload, anxiety, and the difficulty of giving evidence in an unfamiliar and high-stakes environment.

The film follows a fictional autistic witness giving evidence in court, showing both the external courtroom process and the witness鈥� internal experience of processing questions, managing distress, and providing their account.

A Witness was developed by the core Autism in Court research team and an entirely autistic core filmmaking team, including writers and directors Linda Ludwig and James Curle, producer Tim Willrich, and lead actor Emily Carey.

The film is intended to show the human stories behind the research, and to prompt discussion about how court processes can better support autistic people to participate and give their best evidence.

Conferences and presentations

Across 2023-2026, we have presented findings from the Autism in Court project at multiple conferences, sharing our work with autism researchers, legal professionals, practitioners, and policy-focused audiences.

These conferences include:

• International Society for Autism Research 鈥� 2026
• Advocacy and Vulnerability: Rights, Participation and Reform 鈥� 2026
• International Investigative Interviewing Research Group 鈥� 2026
• Faculty of Forensic & Legal Medicine conference 鈥� 2026
• The General Dental Council 鈥� 2025
• International Society for Autism Research 鈥� 2025
• The Vulnerable Accused Conference 鈥� 2025
• Autism Europe 鈥� 2025
• Kingsley Napley LLP 鈥� 2025
• European Association of Psychology and Law 鈥� 2024
• The Association of Regulatory and Disciplinary Lawyers Annual Conference 鈥� 2024
• Stone King LLP Annual Conference 鈥� 2024
• The British Psychological Society Expert Witness Advisory Group (EWAG) conference 鈥� 2024
• The Access to Justice Conference 鈥� 2023

Across these presentations, we shared findings on autistic people鈥檚 real-life experiences of court, simulated Crown Court proceedings, cross-examination with autistic witnesses, juror perceptions, and co-designed court guidance through a Theory of Change approach.

Next steps

The project is now in its final stages. We are writing up the research for publication, evaluating the guidance materials, and looking forward to sharing our findings with a broad range of audiences - autistic people, court professionals, researchers, policymakers, and justice organisations.

As findings are published, we will update this page with links to papers, guidance resources, events, and other project outputs.