By Dr Sarah Kendall -
Snapshot
- Trauma-informed practice is a nebulous concept, bandied about by commissions, inquiries and committees, and, because of this, is perhaps losing its normative weight.
- The legal system, especially criminal trials, has inherent tensions and challenges in addressing the re-traumatisation of its participants while staying true to its adversarial nature.
- This article unpacks the practicalities of what it means to be trauma-informed and proffers a framework for operationalising the principles of trauma-informed practice into trial work.
‘Trauma-informed’ seems to be one of the latest buzzwords, thrown around by many in legal and non-legal spheres. I am sure you have heard of ‘trauma-informed lawyering’, ‘trauma-informed courts’ and ‘trauma-informed sentencing’, just to name a few. But, what does it actually mean to be trauma-informed? Why should it matter to you as legal professionals? And, most importantly, how can you apply it in your work, particularly in trial contexts?
Recent data suggests 75 per cent of Australian adults have experienced a traumatic event at some point in their lives. A traumatic event (or series of events) exposes a person to actual or threatened death or harm, whether that be physical or emotional. While each person responds differently to trauma, often survivors will experience adverse effects on their mental, physical, social, emotional and/or spiritual wellbeing. These effects can be long-lasting.
