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 et al. (Sun,) studied this question.