Scottish Government Equality Outcomes: Disability Evidence Review

10 Justice

10.1 This section reviews disabled people's experience of the justice system, their representation in its workforce, and their access to justice.

Experience of the justice system

10.2 According to the EHRC Triennial Review^[75], the analysis of 2007/08 British Crime Survey data undertaken for the Equality Measurement Framework suggests that disabled people are less likely than those without disabilities to experience stop and search: however, given the small sample size, it is difficult to know whether this was chance (possibly relating to disabled people spending less time outdoors) or a significant finding.

10.3 Regarding confidence in the criminal justice system, the same analysis found that disabled people or those with a limiting long-term illness are significantly less likely to believe that the criminal justice system meets the needs of victims: only 27% of those with a limiting long-term illness / disability believed this, compared to 39% of the rest of the population. Analysis of British Crime Survey data by the Office for Disability Issues suggests that the difference is more pronounced among young disabled people: in 2008/09, 39% of those with a limiting long-term illness /disability aged between 16 and 34 thought that the criminal justice system was effective, compared with 48% of those without. In addition, 53% in this group thought that the criminal justice system was fair, compared with 64% of those without disabilities.

10.4 The EHRC further reports that the Joint Committee on Human Rights^[76] has highlighted that people with learning disabilities are more likely to lack confidence in the criminal justice system than the general population: many may not know how to report a crime, and the police can be reluctant to accept that a crime has been committed if the victim has a learning disability.

Staffing

10.5 In 2010-11, across Scotland 2.5% of police officers declared they had a disability^[77]. The percentage of police support staff declaring that they had a disability is higher than for officers, at 4.9%.

10.6 The legal profession has few disabled members. This may have potential impacts on how disabled people interact with such services if their needs are not properly understood or met by those that are able to represent them. The Scottish Legal Aid Board's survey of solicitors in 2010^[78] found that 1% of respondents considered themselves to have a disability, including visual impairment, hearing impairment, physical co-ordination difficulties, chronic asthma, or dyslexia. The Law Society of Scotland^[79] reports that 2% of its members in 2006 considered themselves to have a disability, rising to 3% in 2009.

Access to justice

10.7 Regarding access to justice and legal aid, a survey in 2009 of applicants for civil legal aid found that 30% of respondents considered they had a long standing illness, health problem or disability^[80]- Scottish Health Survey data for 2009 report a figure of 25% for the population as a whole, although these two surveys may not be directly comparable. In a 2011 client satisfaction survey of the Public Defence Solicitors' Office (offering publicly-funded criminal defence in Scotland)^[81], 29% of the 135 respondents stated that they had a long standing illness, health problem or disability.

10.8 The EHRC (2009) reports that no attention is given to disability in crime statistics collected in Scotland, and formal assessment and diagnosis of learning disability or learning difficulty in secure settings is rare^[82]. However, there is evidence to suggest that a higher proportion of young offenders and prisoners have communication support needs than are found in the population as a whole (then Scottish Executive, 2007)^[83]. This report continues to explain the barriers that people with communication support needs face in engaging with the judicial system:

People with communication support needs are likely to have difficulty interacting with those involved in the criminal justice system. The verbal nature of the proceedings and the highly formulaic procedures involved are challenging for the public as a whole to negotiate, but for those who have difficulty in understanding what is being said to them or expressing themselves these problems are exacerbated. This group may also have their credibility as a reliable witness questioned due to common misconceptions regarding individuals with communication difficulty.