The Truth Will Set You Free! … Unless It’s Your Mental Health on Trial

Imagine this: the trauma you have fought to overcome – your deepest struggles – becomes a weapon used against you in the very place meant to deliver justice.

For many victims of assault, this grim reality is all too familiar. A history of mental illness or trauma is often exploited to discredit their testimony, regardless of its truth. Take the case of B v. DPP (2009): despite the victim’s clear account of a violent assault, including part of his ear being bitten off, the prosecution focused on his history of psychosis and hallucinations, nearly dismissing the case.^[1] This troubling example highlights a pervasive pattern in the English legal system: when a victim’s mental health history enters the courtroom, it unfairly invites doubt about their credibility, even when the evidence is outdated or irrelevant.^[2] Instead of protecting survivors, the system frequently transforms their vulnerabilities into liabilities, distorting the truth, and undermining the pursuit of justice.

The credibility of assault victims is often the key to securing justice, but it is clouded by personal biases and assumptions – especially when mental health is involved. In B v. DPP, the victim’s ability to recall and identify the assailant was never in question. Yet, the overemphasis on his mental health history wrongfully halted the case. Defense attorneys often misuse psychiatric evidence to undermine victims’ credibility by challenging their memory, presenting their sexual history (in sexual assault cases), or suggesting ulterior motives.^[3] This approach portrays victims as unreliable or responsible for their victimization, undermining credibility, discouraging reporting, and fostering victim-blaming.

One of the most challenging aspects of using mental health evidence in sexual assault trials is balancing the victim’s privacy with the defendant’s right to a fair trial.^[4] In Ballard v. Superior Court, the Californian Supreme Court allowed psychiatric exams for victims, presuming that some might falsely believe they were assaulted due to mental health issues.^[5] Although this decision was later overturned, it set a precedent for using psychiatric evidence to challenge victim credibility. Similarly, in Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, the U.S. Supreme Court emphasized that when a defendant seeks confidential records, such as counseling or medical records, the judge must privately review them to assess their relevance to the defense.^[6] While such rulings aim to protect victims’ privacy and fairness for defendants, they often result in the exploitation of mental health evidence, complicating the pursuit of justice.

The repercussions of this practice extend beyond the courtroom. Survivors are frequently subjected to invasive questioning that re-traumatizes them.^[7] Chanel Miller, a rape survivor, described this horrible experience: ‘And then it came time for him to testify, and I learned what it meant to be revictimized’.^[8] Her words encapsulate the emotional devastation of a legal process that questions the survivor’s integrity and weaponizes their mental health.^[9] This re-traumatization intensifies the initial harm and discourages others from coming forward.^[10]

The harm goes beyond emotional distress; the manipulation of mental health evidence can directly affect trial outcomes by undermining a victim’s credibility. Research shows that when the defense has access to the victim’s psychiatric history, it often leads to cases being dropped.^[11] In R v. O’Connor, the Canadian Supreme Court ruled that therapy records could only be disclosed if deemed relevant to the case, with judges privately reviewing them to assess their admissibility.^[12] While this approach aims to balance victim privacy and defendant rights, it also opens the door to exploiting personal histories, shifting focus away from the crime and potentially weakening the prosecution’s case.

In sexual assault cases, expert testimony can significantly impact how a victim’s credibility is viewed, with both the prosecution and defense using psychological evidence to either support or question the victim’s account. For instance, in State (of Tennessee) v. Heath, expert testimony suggested the victim might have fabricated the assault due to psychological instability.^[13] Similarly, prosecutors can use expert testimony to bolster a victim’s credibility, as evidenced in State (of Arizona) v. Norfleet, but this also allows the defense to challenge the expert, turning the victim’s psychological health into a central issue in the trial.^[14] These strategies not only disrupt justice but perpetuate damaging stereotypes about mental illness. Furthermore, even legal protections can fall short. In People v. Williams, an Illinois court upheld a law prohibiting psychological examinations of sexual assault victims.^[15] Still, it allowed the defense to challenge the victim’s PTSD diagnosis and ability to identify the perpetrator.^[16] While laws such as these aim to protect survivors, they also illustrate how mental health evidence remains a focal point for questioning their truthfulness.

This manipulation of mental health in courtrooms is more than a legal strategy; it’s a profound injustice. As Chanel Miller shared in her victim impact statement: ‘I had no power, I had no voice, I was defenseless. My memory loss would be used against me. My testimony was weak, incomplete, and I was made to believe that perhaps, I am not enough to win this. That helplessness was traumatizing.’^[17] Her words reflect the overwhelming sense of powerlessness that many survivors endure when their mental health is used as a weapon.

As the weaponization of mental health distorts the courtroom experience for countless victims, the system often favors convenience over truth. When justice is manipulated to exploit a survivor’s trauma, it’s not just the victim who suffers – it’s justice itself. They say mental health is a weakness to be exploited, a story to be twisted in court. But when the system turns a victim’s trauma into a weapon, who will guard the guards themselves?

^[1] The decision to drop charges of wounding with intent and witness intimidation, based on the victim’s mental illness affecting credibility, was ruled irrational. The court found a breach of Article 3 obligations to ensure justice for serious violence and awarded £8,000 in compensation (see Mental Health Law Online, ‘R (B) v DPP [2009] EWHC 106 (Admin)’ <https://www.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/R_(B)_v_DPP_(2009)_EWHC_106_(Admin)>); B v. Director of Public Prosecutions (2009) EWHC 106 (Admin).

^[2] Julianna Hale, ‘“It’s A Gut Feeling”: The Craft of Diagnosing Victim Credibility and Case Convictability’ (2019) Arizona State University Paper <https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/200249847.pdf> accessed 5 December 2024, 17.

^[3] Amber J. Powell, ‘Blaming the Victim: A Look at Sexual Assault Adjudication in the Milwaukee County Courthouse’ (2013) Ronald E. McNair Scholars Program <https://epublications.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1015&context=mcnair_2013> accessed 5 December 2024, 8.

^[4] Tess Wilkinson-Ryan, ‘Admitting Mental Health Evidence to Impeach the Credibility of a Sexual Assault Complainant’ (2005) All Faculty Scholarship <https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/faculty_scholarship/1196> accessed 5 December 2024, 1380.

^[5] Ballard v. Superior Court (Cal. 1966), 410 P.2d 838.

^[6] Wilkinson-Ryan (n 4), 1380-1381; Pennsylvania v. Ritchie (1987), 480 U.S. 39.

^[7] Negar Katirai, ‘Retraumatized in Court’ (2020) 62(1) Arizona Law Review <https://arizonalawreview.org/pdf/62-1/62arizlrev81.pdf> accessed 5 December 2024, 88.

^[8] Katie J.M. Baker, ‘Here’s the Powerful Letter the Stanford Victim Read to Her Attacker’ (BuzzFeed, 4 June 2016) <https://www.buzzfeed.com/katiejmbaker/heres-the-powerful-letter-the-stanford-victim-read-to-her-ra> accessed 5 December 2024.

^[9] Katirai (n 7), 84-86.

^[10] ibid.

^[11] Denise Lievore, ‘Victim Credibility in Adult Sexual Assault Cases’ (2004) 288 Trends and Issues In Crime and Criminal Justice <https://www.aic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-05/tandi288.pdf> accessed 7 December 2024, 1-6.

^[12] R v. O’Connor (1995) 4 S.C.R. 411; Wilkinson-Ryan (n 6).

^[13] State v. Heath (N.C. 1986), 341 S.E.2d 565.

^[14] Wilkinson-Ryan (n 4), 1387.

^[15] People v. Williams (1991), 581 N.E.2d 228.

^[16] ibid.

^[17] CBS News, ‘Chanel Miller Delivers Her Full Victim Impact Statement’ CBS News (9 August 2020) <https://www.cbsnews.com/news/chanel-miller-reads-her-entire-victim-impact-statement-she-wrote-to-address-brock-turner-60-minutes-2020-08-09/> accessed 6 December 2024.