Communication Barriers in the Criminal Courts of England and Wales: Experiences of Defendants with Mental Health Conditions or Learning Disabilities
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis is a well-researched and well-written article. It covers an important topic, the accommodation of defendants with disabilities in UK criminal procedure. The study is sound, and it is clearly described. It is based on the author’s PhD dissertation, therefore it is carefully researched. I am satisfied about the quality of the article overall, I only have a few minor issues to point out.
The author overuses the word “however”. It signifies a contrast, but in the text it is used without a contrast. For example line 11, or 39.
Line 108: “The CRPD was the first international human rights treaty to recognise disabled people as rights holders” – this sentence requires some explanation. Persons with disabilities hold rights under earlier human rights treaties (e.g. there were cases won by persons with disabilities before the European Court of Human Rights pre-CRPD). I know the Degener article, which argues for the human rights model of disability, but I think the sentence as it is written would be confusing and unclear for many readers.
Line 155: “is a cross-cutting,” – grammar problem, probably “issue” is missing from the sentence
Lines 699-701: these lines repeat lines 679-681. It would be better to cut the repetition and just refer to the earlier description of the situation.
The language is generally very good and clear, there are only a few minor typos which should be corrected.
Overall, I think this is a very carefully researched and written article on a worthwhile topic, which reports on a research conducted in accordance with the required scholarly standards.
Author Response
Comment 1: The author overuses the word “however.” It signifies a contrast, but in the text it is used without a contrast (e.g., lines 11, 39).
Response: I appreciate this observation and carefully reviewed all instances of the word “however.” After close examination, I retained the usage in lines 11 and 39 because, in both cases, it accurately introduces a contrast.
- In line 11, “However” contrasts the growing attention to the issue with the continued inconsistency in practical support.
- In line 39, “However” contrasts the benefits of available support with the disadvantages resulting from its absence.
Therefore, I have not modified these instances, as they are contextually appropriate.
Comment 2: Line 108 – The sentence “The CRPD was the first international human rights treaty to recognise disabled people as rights holders” requires clarification. Persons with disabilities already held rights under earlier treaties.
Response: I understand the reviewer’s concern and have expanded the explanation to clarify the intended meaning. The revised text now emphasizes that the CRPD was the first international treaty to explicitly and formally recognise disabled people as active holders of rights, rather than as objects of charity or welfare (lines 113-115). I am concerned that a more detailed explanation may overshadow the main purpose of the section, which is to set out the relevant human rights standards. I recognise that there are disabled people won cases before the European Court of Human Rights pre-CRPD, but disability was treated as part of a broader human rights issue (e.g., conditions of detention, equality, or privacy) in these judgments. Thus, although earlier human rights instruments protected disabled people, these instruments did not explicitly frame disabled people as a distinct group of rights holders with specific entitlements.
Comment 3: Line 155 – “is a cross-cutting,” has a grammar problem. The word “issue” seems to be missing.
Response: I have corrected the grammar by adding the missing word. Instead of “issue,” I have used “duty,” which better fits the intended meaning of the sentence (line 161).
Comment 4: Lines 699–701 repeat lines 679–681. The repetition should be removed.
Response: I have deleted the repeated quotation and added a cross-reference to the earlier description (see revised lines 689–691 and 708–710).
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn my opinion, this is a very good paper on support for defendants with mental health conditions or learning disabilities in criminal cases, which combines a study of the legal framework on the subject with an empirical research. I would only do some small suggestions:
1) The author uses both the phrases "disabled people" and "people/persons with disabilities". In my opinion, the only correct denomination is "persons with disabilities", because it places the person in the first place and views disability only as a circumstance, and because it is the phrase used by the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. If the author does not share this opinion, an explanation should be given, at least in a footnote, to specify why the author prefers one or another use.
2) The structure of the article should be slightly modified. First, there is a mistake in numbering, because there is no chapter 3. Besides, I think the chapter which now has number 4 (Methods) should be previous to number 2 (Human rights framework), because chapter 4 tells us that the study is based on the doctoral research of the author and explains the methodology not only of the empirical research but also of the doctrinal research, which is summarized in chapter 2.
3) In my opinion, the empirical research has two strong limitations: the low number of defendants with disabilities that have been interviewed (only 9), and the fact that The participants reported that they had last appeared in court until 30 years before the interview, which is a very long time, not only because they might have forgotten the circunstances of their trials (30 years is specially a very long time for persons with intellectual disabilities), but also because the approach of society and Law to persons with disabilities have evolved deeply during the last 30 years. I suggest that the author should specifiy the number of years each one of the participants has last appeared in court, and above all I consider essential that the author acknowledges these limitations of the empirical study.
4) Finally, there seems to be a mistake when the author writes that "While there are differences in how Magistrates’ and Crown Courts arrange and provide support to defendants, these differences are the focus of this research" (lines 81-82). The context suggests rather that the word "not" is missing ("these differences are not the focus of this research").
Author Response
Comment 1: The author uses both “disabled people” and “persons with disabilities.” The reviewer suggests using “persons with disabilities” consistently or explaining the choice of terminology.
Response: I apologise for not having clarified this earlier. Throughout the manuscript, I intentionally use the term “disabled people,” while retaining “people/persons with disabilities” in direct quotations and legal titles. I have now added a short explanation (lines 102–107) justifying my choice of terminology, with supporting references added to the reference list.
Comment 2: The structure should be revised: there is no chapter 3, and the “Methods” section (currently chapter 4) should precede the “Human rights framework” section (currently chapter 2).
Response: I have corrected the section numbering error (the missing Chapter 3). However, I have retained the current structure because introducing the human rights framework before the methods section provides conceptual clarity for the reader and aligns with similar approaches in related literature (e.g., Gjecaj et al., 2023, Laws, 12(2):21). Nevertheless, I remain open to rearranging these sections if the editor believes it would improve the manuscript’s overall structure.
Comment 3: The empirical research has limitations related to the small number of participants (nine defendants) and the long time since their court experiences (up to 30 years). The author should specify the years since last court appearance and acknowledge these limitations.
Response: I have now included the specific number of years since each participant last appeared in court (lines 379–381). In addition, I have acknowledged and discussed these limitations in the discussion section (lines 908–922).
Comment 4: Line 81–82 contains a likely typo: “While there are differences in how Magistrates’ and Crown Courts arrange and provide support to defendants, these differences are the focus of this research.” The word “not” appears to be missing.
Response: Thank you for catching this. I have corrected the sentence to read: “While there are differences in how Magistrates’ and Crown Courts arrange and provide support to defendants, these differences are not the focus of this research” (line 83).
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI am satisifed about how the author took my small comments and recommendations into account. They rectified the small mistakes I pointed out, and I do not see any other issues or concerns with the article. I am confident that the article is a very well-researched, well-written one on an important topic, which will be an important contribution to the literature on securing the rights of persons with disabilities.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe author has made the changes I suggested in my previous review. Thus, I think the paper is now ready for publication.
