Search

Accessible summary • Many people with a learning disability are frightened when they are interviewed by the police. • They are worried that the police will not understand their story and sometimes keep quiet because they do not understand what is happening. • It can also be very worrying for a person with a learning disability if they have to attend court and give evidence. • The law allows for vulnerable witnesses to have access to support from a professional known as an intermediary. • The law does not yet support vulnerable offenders in this way, but It may now be possible to get professional support from an intermediary if you are an offender. • The intermediary might be able to help you communicate with the police and with people at court if you are a witness or an offender. Summary Being interviewed by the police as a witness or as a suspect can be a frightening experience for many people; these feelings can be multiplied for many people who have a learning disability and who do not understand the legal proceedings. Intermediaries were introduced by the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 as one of the special measures available to help facilitate communication between the police, the courts and the vulnerable witness. Research has shown that this measure has been valuable in assisting the vulnerable witness to testify. This study was an exploratory examination of the recent use of intermediaries with defendants. The defendant does not by law have the right to an intermediary; however the Coroner’s and Justice Bill (2008–09), is attempting to amend this situation. Meanwhile judges are starting to request an intermediary for vulnerable defendants, in the interests of justice. Using a mixed methods approach this study found that intermediaries were very positive about the need for vulnerable defendants to have support. The intermediaries also highlighted that they required additional training and they raised concerns about how their role was viewed by the courts when they were assisting defendants.

Aim To establish any differences between patients with and without a diagnosis of personality disorders, being treated in a secure inpatient service for offenders with intellectual disability (ID) in the UK. Method A cohort study involving a selected population of people with ID and offending behaviours. Results The study included a total of 138 patients, treated over a 6 year period – 77 with a dissocial or emotionally unstable personality disorder and 61 without. Women were more likely to be in the personality disorder group. Both groups had high prevalence of abuse with no significant differences. Depressive disorders and substance abuse were more common in the personality disorder group, while epilepsy and autistic spectrum disorders were more common in the non-personality disorder group. Rather than differences, what was more striking was the rate and range of these comorbidities across both groups. Although past histories of violence and institutional aggression were no different, compulsory detention under criminal sections and restriction orders were more common in the personality disorder group. There were no differences in treatment outcomes. Conclusions Although about half of patients detained in secure units for offenders with ID have a personality disorder, there were more similarities than differences between this group and the rest. While good treatment outcomes supported the case for specialised secure treatment units for people with ID, the case for establishing a more specialised ID–personality disorder unit was less convincing. There is also a need to explore whether there are alternative diagnostic models that can delineate better the group with personality difficulties in this population.