Judicial Perspectives on Neurodiversity in Queensland Courts, Tribunals and Commissions: Experiences With Disclosure and Witness Credibility

ABSTRACT

Little is known about the impacts of the disclosure, or the non-disclosure, of medical conditions associated with neurodiversity in the context of court proceedings and hearings before tribunals and commissions. This paper examines the experiences of twenty-three Queensland Judges, Magistrates, and Tribunal and Commission Members with disclosure in their courtrooms and hearing rooms. A cross-sectional online survey captured data about how they assess witness credibility and the reliability of testimony when there is disclosure of such a condition and when they suspect a witness appearing before them has an undisclosed condition. Our findings show that disclosure is important for procedural fairness. Absent disclosure of a diagnosis, there is a risk that overt neuroatypical characteristics may be attributed erroneous meaning, negatively impacting witness credibility. Access to accommodations is also dependent on the judicial or quasi-judicial officer knowing that the witness has a condition or being perceptive enough to identify if assistance is needed despite non-disclosure. Given the potential vulnerability of neurodiverse witnesses, additional support is desirable to ensure procedural fairness and equality before the law. This should include continuing judicial education, expert neuro-inclusion specialist services, and socially safe disclosure practices.

Bozin, D., K. A.Sullivan, V.Denault, C.Kennon, L.Cradduck, and R.Hews. 2026. “Judicial Perspectives on Neurodiversity in Queensland Courts, Tribunals and Commissions: Experiences With Disclosure and Witness Credibility.” Australian Journal of Social Issues1–12. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajs4.70102.