There are about 2,000 new cases of sexual abuse reported each year¹ committed by and against people with learning difficulties. But no action is taken in more than half of these cases.² Even where incidents are investigated, the Crown Prosecution Service seldom decides that the criteria for going to trial are satisfied.³ When they do reach court, conviction rates are low.⁴

Generally, the judicial system does not afford people with learning difficulties equal access or appropriate support. Lack of knowledge and understanding about learning difficulties have led to reports of sexual abuse being seen as a social or staffing problem, leading to what some refer to as "almost decriminalisation" of offences.

There have been widely held assumptions that cases would not result in prosecution, and that people with learning difficulties could not make credible witnesses. Moreover, there is a belief that to prosecute in such cases is not in the public interest.

Consequently, many people question whether there is any point in reporting cases to the police and beyond, something that further impedes access to justice for people with learning difficulties. This led one expert to say: "The police do not record crimes because they believe the CPS will not prosecute, staff do not report to the police because they 'do nothing', and victims do not tell staff because they say the police won't help."⁵

Several government reports⁶ have been published in the past five years which confirm these deficiencies and make suggestions, though change in the legal system is painfully slow.

But perhaps the mood is changing. A project in Southwark, south London, developed a joint police and social services policy of early and positive reporting and conducted joint investigations. It convinced police officers that people with learning difficulties had equal rights within the law.

A conference held recently by Voice UK - a support group for people with learning difficulties - heard that, of the 1,400 cases reported each year, only 6 per cent resulted in convictions. But an unusually high rate was reported in Liverpool - 15 convictions from 17 cases.⁷

In one project in the North West, clinical work and staff training carried out by clinical psychologists unearthed information about a large number of unlawful sexual acts being committed on and by people with learning difficulties. But no action was taken, other than referral for clinical input. The clinical psychologists took this information to the social services team manager, who notified the police family support unit (FSU). A multi-disciplinary meeting decided that the police and social services should carry out a joint investigation.

The detective who headed the investigation recognised the seriousness of the alleged offences and was aware that, historically, the police had often failed to investigate allegations because it was felt that the quality of evidence would be deficient. Their belief was compounded by a lack of guidance on interview technique. However, they recognised that victims could be doubly affected by receiving restricted access to the judicial system, and they continued to investigate for more than a year despite major difficulties.

Also, they knew of cases where alleged offenders with learning difficulties "got away with it", implying that they could act with impunity. The investigating team felt that, regardless of outcome, it was important to continue to raise the level of awareness throughout the judicial system locally. They recognised that this would be an important contribution to the impetus for change relating to the standard of evidence required by the courts.

The social services adult protection policy featured the manager of the learning difficulties care management team as the first referral point in the process of responding to allegations of abuse. Consequently, the manager set up the multi-disciplinary meeting and, once the decision to investigate had been taken, a care manager from the team with detailed knowledge of adult protection issues was seconded to the FSU. When alleged perpetrators were interviewed, other trained members of the team acted as the appropriate adult to avoid the risk of contamination of evidence.

The care manager's function was to support the witnesses in interviews. She met them before the formal interview, familiarised them with the FSU environment and the interviewing team and explained what would happen. As a decision had been made to video them during the interview, they were familiarised with the equipment. During formal interviews she provided continuing support and pointed out any difficulties the witness was having, such as not understanding the question, needing a break or losing concentration. This process contributed to the investigating team's greater understanding of people with learning difficulties, which was reinforced during de-briefing meetings after each interview.

Meanwhile, the clinical psychologists contributed to pre-interview strategy meetings about specific individuals and the debriefing meetings with the police. They provided information for continual risk assessments and observed video interviews involving individuals with whom they had worked. As well as offering advice on issues of comprehension and communication, they identified signs of anxiety, distress, confusion or avoidance in the witness's behaviour. Finally, because it was recognised that this type of work has an emotional impact on investigating staff, a forum was provided for the team to talk about how the investigation was affecting them and possible coping strategies.

This multi-agency approach worked because, first, there was effective communication between the agencies and good working relationships were developed. Second, it was a joint investigation with input from the police, CPS, the social services learning difficulties team and clinical psychologists. Third, the interviews were carefully planned in strategy meetings, in which information about the witnesses, such as level of ability, comprehension, communication skills and specific risks, was shared with the investigating officers. This enabled the best evidence to be obtained from the witnesses. Fourth, the police recognised the seriousness of the alleged offences and engaged in the pursuit of cases in a dedicated way, which assisted the CPS's decision to prosecute in a number of cases. Finally, the existence of the FSU was crucial.

It is recognised that this has been a first step in addressing the inequality of people with learning difficulties in accessing justice. But without this first step none of the other barriers to justice can start to be broken down.

The Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 addresses some of the barriers. But so far the timescale for the implementation of these recommendations has not been strictly followed, further delaying progress to equality.

Dr Shelagh MacKinnon is consultant clinical psychologist and Dr Barbara Bailey is principal clinical psychologist, 5 Boroughs Partnership NHS Trust; Una Devlin and Lillian Johnson are social workers in St Helens social services department

References

¹ E Harbridge, "Getting Sex Offenders to Court", Community Living, April 1996

2 A Holman (Ed), "A Fairer Hearing?", Community Living, April 1998

³ A.Sanders, J Creaton, S Bird and L Weber, Victims with Learning Disabilities: Negotiating the Criminal Justice System, University of Oxford Centre for Criminological Research, 1997

⁴ C Williams, Invisible Victims: Crime and Abuse against People with Learning disabilities, Jessica Kingsley, 1995

⁵ See Williams, above

⁶ Home Office, Speaking up for Justice,1998, Action for Justice: Implementing the Speaking Up for Justice Report, 1999, and Setting the Boundaries: Reforming the Law on Sex Offenders, 2000; Voice UK, Competent to Tell the Truth, a report of the Voice UK working party, 1998.

⁷ Voice UK, Witnesses with Learning Disabilities, Supporting Best Evidence conference, London, February 2002