Understanding the impact of neurodiversity on witness credibility assessment in Courts Tribunals and Commissions

Abstract
This Australian-first study offers insights into how judges, magistrates, tribunal and
commission members assess neurodivergent witnesses’ credibility and the reliability of their
testimony. It presents their opinions about overt witness behaviours or presentations that
may impact the assessment of credibility and reliability. It also examines their knowledge of
and attitudes towards neurodiversity. Using a cross-sectional anonymous online survey, we
captured data from 23 respondent judicial and quasi-judicial officers appointed in
Queensland. The results highlight that they hold positive attitudes about neurodiversity and
have a desire to accommodate the needs of neurodivergent witnesses. They value being
open-minded, patient, accounting for human error, accommodating difference, and looking
beyond demeanour. However, some hold erroneous beliefs about some witness
presentations or behaviours. This suggests that they need to know more about
neurodiversity because of the risk that visible neuroatypical characteristics are negatively
perceived. The implications of this risk are described, and future avenues for researchers
and practitioners are discussed.

Bozin, D., Denault, V., Sullivan, K. A., Kennon, C., Cradduck, L., & Hews, R. (2026). Understanding the impact of neurodiversity on witness credibility assessment in Courts, Tribunals and Commissions. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajs4.70102