Dr Christopher Rudge1, Mr Anthony Hurst2
1University of Sydney, , Australia, 2Systemic Psychology; University of Melbourne; EMDR Association of Australia (EMDRAA), , Australia
Biography:
Dr Christopher Rudge (BA Hons I, LLB Hons, PhD Sydney) is a sociolegal scholar and lecturer at Sydney Law School, and deputy director of Sydney Health Law. His research examines therapeutic goods regulation, health practitioner law, mental health law and health technology law, extending to social welfare law, tort law and theories of criminal responsibility. His PhD presented a sociological and literary history of psychopathology. Christopher has held postdoctoral fellowships at the University of Tasmania's Centre for Law and Genetics and the University of Melbourne. He is an Associate Editor of Current Issues in Criminal Justice.
Abstract:
This presentation examines how the concerns addressed in the preceding talks have taken hold within the justice system. Its purpose is to set out, accurately and specifically, the current state of play, so that the case for reform rests on a clear picture of the problem. We outline the issues now being experienced across the system, including the effect on trauma survivors who may be deterred or delayed from accessing effective treatment, and on clinicians who may practise defensively as a result. The talk's specific contribution is to map how the memory-contamination concern is expressed across Australian prosecution guidelines, including provisions that group EMDR alongside hypnosis, and to examine the key case law in which therapy and witness evidence have been treated as being in tension. We consider how these matters arise in practice beyond the guidelines, and how they shape decisions made by prosecutors, clinicians and complainants. The issue under consideration is whether the treatment of EMDR within the justice system is proportionate to the evidence, or whether a well-supported therapy is being constrained on an insecure basis. We conclude that the current position creates real and identifiable harms, and that these provide the starting point for the reform directions considered in the final presentation. This analysis is offered as a clinician-informed reading of the legal landscape rather than as legal advice.