Investigating Court Accommodations for Persons with Severe Communication Disabilities: Perspectives of International Legal Experts

Robyn White; Ensa Johnson; Juan Bornman

doi:10.16993/sjdr.779

Investigating Court Accommodations for Persons with Severe Communication Disabilities: Perspectives of International Legal Experts

Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research

Volume 23 (2021): Issue 1

By: Robyn White , Ensa Johnson and Juan Bornman

Open Access

|Sep 2021

Abstract

Globally, persons with disabilities, specifically individuals with severe communication disabilities, require a range of court accommodations to enable them access to the court system, thereby realizing their right to access to justice. This study aimed to investigate the perspectives of nine international experts on possible universal court accommodations for these individuals. An asynchronous, online focus group discussion with four questions was conducted over five days. Through deductive thematic analysis, four themes related to Article 13 of the CRPD were identified: Accommodations related to procedural fairness (e.g., testifying via CCTV camera); accommodations related to ensuring equality (e.g., specific international and local legislation); accommodations related to non-discrimination (e.g., developing appropriate questioning techniques); and accommodations related to legal practitioners (e.g., disability sensitivity training). The range of identified court accommodations could act as the impetus needed to ensure access to justice, a basic human right, for persons with disabilities internationally.

References

Baker, John, Karina Lovell, and Neil Harris. 2006. “How Expert Are the Experts? An Exploration of the Concept of ‘expert’ within Delphi Panel Techniques.” Nurse Researcher 14(1): 59–70. DOI: 10.7748/nr2006.10.14.1.59.c6010
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Beqiraj, Julinda, Lawrence Mcnamara, and Victoria Wicks. 2017. “Access to Justice for Persons with Disabilities: From International Principles to Practice.” International Bar Association.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Beukelman, David R., and Janice C. Light. 2020. Augmentative and Alternative Communication: Supporting Children and Adults with Complex Communication Needs. Fifth. Baltimore, Maryland: Paul H. Brookes Publishing.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Biedermann, Narelle. 2018. “The Use of Facebook for Virtual Asynchronous Focus Groups in Qualitative Research.” Contemporary Nurse 54(1): 26–34. DOI: 10.1080/10376178.2017.1386072
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Bornman, Juan, Robyn White, Ensa Johnson, and Diane Nelson Bryen. 2016. “Identifying Barriers in the South African Criminal Justice System: Implications for Individuals With Severe Communication Disability.” Acta Criminologica: Southern African Journal of Criminology 29(1): 1–17.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Bowen, Phil, and Emily Gold LaGratta. 2014. “To Be Fair: Procedural Fairness in Courts.” Criminal Justice Alliance. http://www.justiceinnovation.org/better-courts/publications/be-fair-procedural-fairness-courts.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Braun, Virginia, and Victoria Clarke. 2019. “Reflecting on Reflexive Thematic Analysis.” Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health 11(4): 589–97. DOI: 10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Braun, Virginia, and Victoria Clarke. 2020. “One Size Fits All? What Counts as Quality Practice in (Reflexive) Thematic Analysis?” Qualitative Research in Psychology, 1–25. DOI: 10.1080/14780887.2020.1769238
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Brems, Eva, and Laurens Lavrysen. 2013. “Procedural Justice in Human Rights Adjudication: The European Court of Human Rights.” Human Rights Quarterly 35(1): 177–200. DOI: 10.1353/hrq.2013.0000
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Bryen, Diane Nelson. 2014. “Ending the Silence of Violence: A View from the United States.” In Stop Violence against People with Disabilities: An International Resource, 19–39. Pretoria: Pretoria University Law Press.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Chan, Jeffrey, Phillip French, Colin Hudson, and Lynne Webber. 2012. “Applying the CRPD to Safeguard the Rights of People with a Disability in Contact with the Criminal Justice System.” Psychiatry, Psychology and Law 19(4): 558–65. DOI: 10.1080/13218719.2011.615777
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Cortini, Michela, Teresa Galanti, and Stefania Fantinelli. 2019. “Focus Group Discussion: How Many Participants in a Group?” Encyclopaideia 23(54): 29–43. DOI: 10.6092/issn.1825-8670/9603
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Cremin, Kevin M. 2016. “What Does Access to Justice Require? — Overcoming Barriers to Invoke the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.” Frontiers of Law in China 11(2): 280–322. DOI: 10.3868/s050-005-016-0017-7
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Creswell, John W., and Vicki L. Plano Clark. 2018. Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks. CA: Sage Publications.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Dagut, Helen, and Ruth Morgan. 2003. “Barriers to Justice: Violations of the Rights of Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing People in the South African Justice System.” South African Journal on Human Rights 19(1): 27–56. DOI: 10.1080/19962126.2003.11865171
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Degener, Theresia. 2016. “Disability in a Human Rights Context.” Laws 5(3): 35. DOI: 10.3390/laws5030035
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Doak, Jonathan, and Lauran Doak. 2017. “Non-Verbal Victims in the Adversarial Criminal Process: Communication, Competency, and Credibility.” Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly 68. https://heinonline-org.uplib.idm.oclc.org/HOL/Page?public=true&handle=hein.journals/nilq68&div=40&start_page=451&collection=journals&set_as_cursor=102&men_tab=srchresults. DOI: 10.53386/nilq.v68i4.59
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Dorfman, Doron. 2017. “Re-Claiming Disability: Identity, Procedural Justice, and the Disability Determination Process.” Law and Social Inquiry 42(1): 195–231. DOI: 10.1111/lsi.12176
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Ellem, Kathy, and Kelly Richards. 2018. “Police Contact with Young People with Cognitive Disabilities: Perceptions of Procedural (In)Justice.” Youth Justice 18(3): 230–47. DOI: 10.1177/1473225418794357
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Etikan, Ilker, Sulaiman Abubakar Musa, and Rukayya Sunus Alkassim. 2016. “Comparison of Convenience Sampling and Purposive Sampling.” American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics 5(1): 1–4. DOI: 10.11648/j.ajtas.20160501.11
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Flynn, Eilionóir. 2016. Disabled Justice? Access to Justice and the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. New York: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Goldschmidt, Jenny E. 2017. “New Perspectives on Equality: Towards Transformative Justice through the Disability Convention?” Nordic Journal of Human Rights 35(1): 1–14. DOI: 10.1080/18918131.2017.1286131
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Gooding, Piers, Anna Arstein-Kerslake, Sarah Mercer, and Bernadette McSherry. 2017. “Supporting Accused Persons with Cognitive Disabilities to Participate in Criminal Proceedings in Australia: Avoiding the Pitfalls of Unfitness to Stand Trial Laws.” Law in Context: A Socio-Legal Journal 35. DOI: 10.26826/law-in-context.v35i2.15
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Holness, Willene. 2014. “Equal Recognition and Legal Capacity for Persons with Disabilities: Incorporating the Principle of Proportionality.” South African Journal on Human Rights 30(2): 313–44. DOI: 10.1080/19962126.2014.11865111
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Home Office: National Appropriate Adult Network. 2011. “Guide for Apprioprate Adults.” London. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/guide-for-appropriate-adults.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Jensen, Mark P., Kendra S. Liljenquist, Fraser Bocell, Arnold R. Gammaitoni, Carey R. Aron, Bradley S. Galer, and Dagmar Amtmann. 2017. “Life Impact of Caregiving for Severe Childhood Epilepsy: Results of Expert Panels and Caregiver Focus Groups.” Epilepsy and Behavior 74: 135–43. DOI: 10.1016/j.yebeh.2017.06.012
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Johansson, Elin. 2019. “How Can Remote Communication Be Made More Accessible to People with Communication Disabilities?” Chalmers University of Technology.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Kermit, Patrick, Odd Morten Mjøen, and Terje Olsen. 2011. “Safe in the Hands of the Interpreter? A Qualitative Study Investigating the Legal Protection of Deaf People Facing the Criminal Justice System in Norway.” Disability Studies Quarterly 31(4). DOI: 10.18061/dsq.v31i4.1714
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Kuosmanen, Jari, and Mikaela Starke. 2015. “Access to Sweden’s Legal System of Crime Victims With Intellectual Disability Involved in Prostitution Activities.” Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities 12(4): 255–65. DOI: 10.1111/jppi.12135
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Lijadi, Anastasia Aldelina, and Gertina Johanna Van Schalkwyk. 2015. “Online Facebook Focus Group Research of Hard-to-Reach Participants.” International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 1–9. DOI: 10.1177/1609406915621383
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Lord, Janet E., and Rebecca Brown. 2011. “The Role of Reasonable Accommodation in Securing Substantive Equality for Persons with Disabilities: The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.” Critical Perspectives on Human Rights and Disability Law 117: 273–308. DOI: 10.1163/ej.9789004189508.i-552
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Minkowitz, Tina. 2017. “CRPD and Transformative Equality.” International Journal of Law in Context 13. https://heinonline-org.uplib.idm.oclc.org/HOL/Page?public=true&handle=hein.journals/injwcext13&div=10&start_page=77&collection=journals&set_as_cursor=1108&men_tab=srchresults. DOI: 10.1017/S1744552316000483
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Msipa, Dianah. 2015. “How Assessments of Testimonial Competence Perpetuate Inequality and Discrimination for Persons with Intellectual Disabilities: An Analysis of the Approach Taken in South Africa and Zimbabwe.” African Disability Rights Yearbook 3: 63–90. DOI: 10.17159/2413-7138/2015/v3n1a3
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Murphy, Wendy. 2014. “Traumatized Children Who Participate in Legal Proceedings Are Entitled to Testimonial and Participatory Accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act.” Roger Williams University Law Review 19. https://docs.rwu.edu/rwu_LR/vol19/iss2/3.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Nowell, Lorelli S., Jill M. Norris, Deborah E. White, and Nancy J. Moules. 2017. “Thematic Analysis: Striving to Meet the Trustworthiness Criteria.” International Journal of Qualitative Methods 16(1): 1–13. DOI: 10.1177/1609406917733847
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Olsen, Terje, and Patrick Kermit. 2015. “Disability and Justice.” Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research 17: 1–6. DOI: 10.1080/15017419.2015.1064029
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Pennington, Liana. 2015. “A Case Study Approach to Procedural Justice: Parents’ View in Two Juvenile Delinquency Courts in the United States.” British Journal of Criminology 55. https://heinonline-org.uplib.idm.oclc.org/HOL/Page?public=true&handle=hein.journals/bjcrim55&div=72&start_page=901&collection=journals&set_as_cursor=2920&men_tab=srchresults. DOI: 10.1093/bjc/azu109
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Reisner, Sari L., Renee K. Randazzo, Jaclyn M. White Hughto, Sarah Peitzmeier, Zachary Dubois, Dana J. Pardee, Elliot Marrow, et al. 2018. “Sensitive Health Topics With Underserved Patient Populations: Methodological Considerations for Online Focus Group Discussions.” Qualitative Health Research 28(10): 1658–73. DOI: 10.1177/1049732317705355
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Skelton, Kara, Retta Evans, Jenna Lachenaye, Jonathan Amsbary, Martha Wingate, and Laura Talbott. 2018. “Utilization of Online Focus Groups to Include Mothers : A Use-Case Design, Reflection, and Recommendations.” Digital Health 4: 1–6. DOI: 10.1177/2055207618777675
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Stewart, David W., and Prem Shamdasani. 2017. “Online Focus Groups.” Journal of Advertising 46(1): 48–60. DOI: 10.1080/00913367.2016.1252288
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Tates, Kiek, Marieke Zwaanswijk, Roel Otten, Sandra Van Dulmen, Peter M. Hoogerbrugge, Willem A. Kamps, and Jozien M. Bensing. 2009. “Online Focus Groups as a Tool to Collect Data in Hard-to-Include Populations: Examples from Paediatric Oncology.” BMC Medical Research Methodology 9(1): 1–8. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2288-9-15
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Tyler, Tom R. 2008. “Procedural Justice and the Courts.” Court Review: The Journal of the American Judges Association 44(1/2): 25–31.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Tyler, Tom R., Phillip Atiba Goff, and Robert J. MacCoun. 2015. The Impact of Psychological Science on Policing in the United States: Procedural Justice, Legitimacy, and Effective Law Enforcement. Psychological Science in the Public Interest 16. DOI: 10.1177/1529100615617791
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
United Nations. 2006. “Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.” Treaty Series 2515: 3. http://www.un.org/disabilities/.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
White, Robyn, Juan Bornman, Ensa Johnson, and Dianah Msipa. 2020a. “Court Accommodations for Persons with Severe Communication Disabilities: A Legal Scoping Review.” Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, no. Advance online publication. DOI: 10.1037/law0000289
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
White, Robyn, Juan Bornman, Ensa Johnson, Karen Tewson, and Joan van Niekerk. 2020b. “Transformative Equality: Court Accommodations for South African Citizens with Severe Communication Disabilities.” African Journal of Disability 9: 1–12. DOI: 10.4102/ajod.v9i0.651
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Williams, Sarah, Maria Giatsi Clausen, Ann Robertson, Susi Peacock, and Kerri McPherson. 2012. “Methodological Reflections on the Use of Asynchronous Online Focus Groups in Health Research.” International Journal of Qualitative Methods 11(4): 368–83. DOI: 10.1177/160940691201100405
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Wood, George, Tom R. Tyler, and Andrew V. Papachristos. 2020. “Procedural Justice Training Reduces Police Use of Force and Complaints against Officers.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 117(18): 9815–21. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1920671117
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article

Articles in this issue

DOI: https://doi.org/10.16993/sjdr.779 | Journal eISSN: 1745-3011

Journal RSS Feed

Language: English

Page range: 224 - 235

Submitted on: Nov 18, 2020

Accepted on: Aug 13, 2021

Published on: Sep 14, 2021

Published by: Stockholm University Press

In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services

Keywords:

Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD),

court accommodations,

disability,

equality,

human rights,

severe communication disabilities,

procedural justice

© 2021 Robyn White, Ensa Johnson, Juan Bornman, published by Stockholm University Press
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Volume 23 (2021): Issue 1