[Dis]Abled justice: Why reports of sexual assault made by adults with cognitive impairment fail to proceed through the justice system

Doctor of PhilosophyThis study considers why, despite increased prevalence of sexual assault perpetrated against adults with cognitive impairment, reports of sexual assault made by adults in this cohort to the police seldom progress beyond the investigation stage. The study is informed by a triangulation of theoretical perspectives consisting of radical feminist theory, symbolic interactionism and the social model of disability. A combined qualitative and quantitative methodological approach is underpinned by the social constructionist epistemology. Data was gathered through 13 focus group discussions conducted with Victoria Police members, including members of the Sex Offences and Child Abuse Unit, Criminal Investigation Unit and Sex Crimes Squad, as well as with staff from the Office of Public Prosecutions and advocates consisting of disability and victim support workers. The other main sources of data were 76 police case file narratives and a case study involving an adult victim whose report of sexual assault was successfully prosecuted. Qualitative data from focus group interviews and file narratives were subjected to thematic analysis and critical discourse analysis. Basic frequencies and correlations of the case file data were analysed using SPSS and the case study was analysed utilising Yin’s (2003) explanatory case study framework. The research indicates that there are seven points in the course of police investigations at which decisions are made about sexual assault reports. Discretion is applied by police at all stages of decision making. Decisions are informed by an influence cycle consisting of social forces, the justice system, the police organisation, and the culture of the police unit. Police decisions are therefore subject to a range of influences, which perpetuate negative patriarchal and ableist stereotypes and disabling generalised assumptions about adults with cognitive impairment. The primary assumption is they are not credible. The result is that opportunities for people with cognitive impairment to access justice are extinguished prematurely