It was evident from the data that the participants thought it essential that when CJP work with clients that have learning difficulties, they do not overlook the fact that their clients, in whatever capacity, should be considered as individuals with LDs, yet still be treated equally. As part of an ethical approach to their work, equality should be inherent in the daily practice of CJP. Below, various professionals offer an insight into how they would exemplify this in their practice.
108 3a: Focus on the individuality of the client
There was a general consensus amongst the CJP interviewed that, although clients should be treated equally, they do have differing needs that should be accommodated, depending on the case. Participant 12 (a Barrister, Line 55) states: “Everyone’s needs are different” and so “In my belief, each case is case-specific to the individual” (Line 47). Participant 3 (a Barrister) shares a similar view on individuality by saying that: “It’ll be on a case-by-case basis” (Line 90), and “If you need expert advice, you need it tailored to that particular client" (Line 100).
Furthermore, when asked what changes in communication they would make towards a client with learning difficulties, participant 8 (a Case Managing Practitioner) responded with: “it’s then about applying different resources and seeing which work for that individual and tailoring it to their need and if they work then great” (Line 106-107). This participant suggests that in order to provide a supportive environment for his/her young client, he/she must use trial and error to see what works well, not only to provide it because they have learning difficulties, but also to enable he/she to progress through the system and increase his/her engagement with the process. It may be difficult not to treat those with learning difficulties differently to those who do not have learning difficulties, because certain adjustments need to be made for those who are otherwise vulnerable due to being inexperienced and disadvantaged if they do not have the necessary provision.
Participant 12 (a Barrister) expressed the lengths he would go to for clients with learning difficulties stating: “in my experience, I tend to be more understanding of their misbehaviour. I think I’d be more forgiving and I would work harder to make them understand” (Line 126- 127). It could therefore be argued that the participants are of the opinion that ensuring individuals can access systems is crucial to equality.
109
3b: Importance of support in accessing The Justice System and processes
During their work with clients, it appears that CJP have the attitude that they must remain fair and strive not to treat any client more favourably or unfavourably than another.
Participant 7 (a Barrister) offers this view: “One of the key things about doing this job is to be able to communicate and understand people” (Line 116-117). This suggests identifying whether young clients have learning difficulties is paramount. This is also similar to the view of participant 8 (a Case Managing Practitioner) as he uses identification of learning difficulties as a basis for encouraging interaction and the engagement of YPLDs:
If I was aware of that, prior to meeting them I think it would be about the
determination of resources and the interaction and hopefully marrying that with the knowledge of how to work with, if it’s say for a statement, to read the statement and understand it and then present and be appropriate in those resources and support the young person (Line 102-105).
When asked about how they promote a supportive environment, participant 8 (a Case Managing Practitioner) added: “By trying to choose appropriate engagement techniques and tailoring it to the young person's needs” (Line 116).
Participant 11 (a Solicitor) argued that a learning difficulty should not relinquish a client’s right to equality by stating that:
I think that’s [equality] important. That’s, that, that’s an important part of self- development isn’t it for any person er, so why should by virtue of the fact that they have a learning difficulty, should they not have the opportunity to receive the right support? (Line 359-361).
Participant 11 also cited that YPLDs should be empowered: “And the right support can help, I think it’s important that they are able to achieve that sense of development and progress themselves and be able to make decisions for themselves” (Line 366-368). Participant 8 (a Case Managing Practitioner) voiced a similar view, by stating: “I think for the young people you
110
generally meet, they often make their own choices um, and sometimes try to present other choices and options they have” (Line 175-176). This quote expresses the point that YPLDs are capable of being autonomous and so opportunity should be available and not withdrawn from them. Giving their thoughts on the segregation caused by labelling, participant 11 (a Solicitor) says: “So just from a, erm, ethical point of view I think that’s very wrong. I would ALWAYS agree with integration” (Line 170-171).
3c: Non-judgemental attitude
Participant 2 (a Volunteer Witness Support Worker) outlines how pre-existing conceptions impact treatment of YPLDs: “Erm...and I think my motivation and interests have meant that I’m quite non-judgemental which assists the process, where you have 10 seconds to be able to get on with somebody or not, yes or no” (Line 85-87). He also supported the notion that learning difficulties should not be seen as a difficulty or negatively:
I mean I think of myself as a slow learner, you know what I mean in a sense that, erm, it took me three attempts to get O-Level English. You, and you know...but that’s not bad. So if one is to label there’s a stigma ha and the fact that actually it is positive; dyslexia is not negative (Line 233-235).
Participant 10 (a Police Officer, Line 106) comments on the prevalence of judgmental attitudes in the police force: “I’d like to think not, I mean I’ve never seen evidence of it myself”. Participant 5 (a Police Officer) shared a similar view, stating: “Certainly not in the police force no, no, you don’t hear of it [judgemental attitude] at all” (Line 78).
Two barristers seemed to have views that there should be a respectful, non-prejudicial attitude towards learning difficulties and that their work personifies their attitude, with participant 7 (a Barrister) stating: “If I was to use that word [learning difficulties] I wouldn’t be implying anything disrespectful in using it” (Line 90).
111