Published on 12, July, 2020
I am totally prepared to start a campaign if there is not one to support ASD Adults going to court on criminal convictions. There are NO specialist solicitors. The Police are dreadful not trained completely for ASD. The courts need to improve advocate support inside then just a solicitor alone then generally get guilty pleas instead of looking at the whole. ASD sadly do not always have a voice and always go along with solicitors bad advice. I would like to see solicitors and courts support cases where ASD and social isolation to be taken seriously in any charges and always seek reports as protocol when is known ASD person is before the courts. Can anyone help me know how to improve the system where guilty pleas are forced then the truth and innocence is lost due to ASD going along with early guilty pleas when innocent to criminal convictions then the entire?
I really admire your courage and determination. My only qualm is that the so-called Legal System is just another dysfunctional spoke in the larger neurotypical wheel. As some have pointed out: there are already provisions for defendants with autism, but like all institutions—because neurotypicals run them, they also choose when and to whom they apply these provisions. As long as Police Officers, Judges, Jurors and the CPS are neurotypical, it would require nothing short of a major evolutionary shift to make it treat autistic people fairly.That said, I fully support any attempt you make to improve the system.
Autistic "mens rea " is totally different from neurotypicals and they should never have been prosecuted. There was NO crimnal intent .See Gary McKinnon and Lauri Love.
Criminal intent is required for a crime
Who are Gary McKinnon and Lauri Love?
I'm sorry but what you're suggesting is almost certainly not possible. Schedule 3 section 3 of the equality act reads as follows
(1) Section 29 does not apply to—
(a) a judicial function;
(b) anything done on behalf of, or on the instructions of, a person exercising a judicial function;
(c) a decision not to commence or continue criminal proceedings;
(d) anything done for the purpose of reaching, or in pursuance of, a decision not to commence or continue criminal proceedings.
(2) A reference in sub-paragraph (1) to a judicial function includes a reference to a judicial function conferred on a person other than a court or tribunal.
section 29 is the part of the act where it says it applies to services and public functions. #notlegaladvice
Actually questions like mens rea, intent and automatism are highly relevant to criminal cases involving autism. Dr Beardon has written at length about this. You may wish to skip to chapter 6.