Dr Sarah Kendall1
1Griffith University, Australia
Biography:
Dr Sarah Kendall is a Research Fellow at Griffith University’s Disrupting Violence Beacon. Prior to joining the Beacon, she led the Queensland Law Reform Commission’s review of the non-fatal strangulation offence. Sarah is an interdisciplinary scholar with expertise in justice responses to violence. She is particularly interested in trauma-informed justice approaches for victim-survivors of gender-based violence.
Abstract:
Non-fatal strangulation (NFS) can result in victim-survivor brain injury and/or post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). These conditions can impact memory and recall as well as other cognitive abilities and executive functions. This can have significant implications for victim-survivors’ engagements with the criminal justice system, creating a risk that they are dismissed, discredited or discounted. This can lead to re-traumatisation. As such, it is crucial that lawyers take a trauma-informed approach in NFS cases.
This presentation explores the results of a survey of Australian lawyers that examined the extent to which respondents applied the principles of trauma-informed practice in the prosecution and defence of NFS cases. It found that while prosecutors engage in some trauma-informed practices, defence lawyers tend to take an approach that is ‘trauma-denied’, generally exploiting the realities of NFS to establish reasonable doubt. Further, defence lawyers tend to eschew responsibility for ensuring the defence in trauma-informed, beyond their legal and ethical obligations.
These findings raise several important implications for lawyers, police, medical professionals and lawmakers. First, Australian lawyers may need further education on what it means to take a trauma-informed approach in NFS cases. Second, it is crucial that medical evidence on brain injury and PTSD is thoroughly collected and accurately documented by police and medical professionals in NFS cases. Third, legal and ethical rules play a central role in constraining the conduct of defence lawyers and consideration should be given to ensuring such rules aim to minimise victim-survivor re-traumatisation in the pursuit of the defendant’s interests.