Manufactured Neutrality: When Equality of Arms Exists Only on Paper

Rethinking Fairness in Domestic Abuse Proceedings

Author: Samantha Avril-Andreassen
Founder, SAFECHAIN™

© 2026 Samantha Avril-Andreassen. All rights reserved.

Introduction: The Principle of Fairness

The concept of equality of arms is a foundational principle within the justice system.

It reflects the idea that all parties in legal proceedings should have a reasonable opportunity to present their case under conditions that do not place them at a substantial disadvantage.

In theory, this principle underpins fairness.

In practice, its application within domestic abuse proceedings raises complex structural questions.

When Equality Becomes Formal Rather Than Substantive

Domestic abuse cases often involve significant imbalances between parties.

These imbalances may not always be immediately visible within procedural frameworks.

One party may have greater financial resources, legal representation, or familiarity with institutional processes.

Another may be navigating trauma, housing instability, or ongoing safety concerns.

Procedural fairness may be formally applied.

However, substantive fairness — the ability to participate effectively — may still be compromised.

This creates a situation in which equality exists in principle, but not always in experience.

The Invisible Impact of Coercive Control

Coercive control complicates traditional understandings of fairness.

Unlike discrete incidents of violence, coercive control often involves patterns of behaviour that influence a person’s ability to function, communicate, and participate in institutional processes.

These effects may include:

• heightened anxiety or fear during proceedings
• difficulty recalling or articulating events clearly
• reduced confidence in engaging with professionals
• ongoing psychological pressure linked to the opposing party

Such factors can affect how individuals present within legal settings.

Yet procedural frameworks may not always account for these dynamics in a structured way.

Participation and Structural Disadvantage

Legal systems are designed to operate through structured procedures.

However, participation within those procedures is not always experienced equally.

An individual affected by trauma may not engage with proceedings in the same way as someone operating without those constraints.

Differences in communication style, presentation, and responsiveness can influence how credibility is perceived.

This raises an important structural question:

Does procedural equality ensure meaningful participation?

Institutional Neutrality and Its Limits

Neutrality is often understood as the absence of bias.

In safeguarding contexts, however, neutrality may also require awareness of structural inequalities between parties.

When systems apply identical procedures to individuals in materially different circumstances, the outcome may unintentionally reinforce imbalance.

This is not necessarily the result of individual decision-making.

It is often a consequence of structural design.

Manufactured Neutrality

The term manufactured neutrality describes a situation in which procedural equality is maintained, but underlying disparities remain unaddressed.

In such contexts:

• both parties are given the same procedural opportunities
• but not the same capacity to utilise them effectively

This distinction is critical.

Because fairness is not only about access to process.

It is about the ability to engage with that process meaningfully.

The Role of Safeguarding Frameworks

Safeguarding systems play a key role in addressing these dynamics.

Frameworks that recognise vulnerability, trauma, and coercive control can help ensure that procedural fairness is accompanied by substantive fairness.

This may involve:

• identifying participation barriers early
• adapting procedures to support effective engagement
• ensuring that patterns of coercive control are recognised within proceedings
• maintaining awareness of structural imbalances between parties

Such approaches support a more holistic understanding of fairness.

SAFECHAIN™ and Participation Integrity

SAFECHAIN™ approaches this issue through the concept of participation integrity.

Participation integrity recognises that fairness requires more than equal procedural access.

It requires conditions that allow individuals to engage effectively with safeguarding and legal processes.

Within this framework, safeguarding systems are encouraged to consider:

• how trauma affects participation
• how coercive control influences behaviour and communication
• how institutional processes can be adapted to reflect these realities

The goal is not to alter legal principles.

It is to ensure that those principles operate effectively in practice.

Rethinking Fairness in Safeguarding Systems

As domestic abuse policy continues to evolve, so too must our understanding of fairness within safeguarding environments.

Equality of arms remains an essential legal principle.

However, its application must reflect the realities of cases involving coercive control and trauma.

This requires moving beyond formal equality toward context-aware procedural fairness.

Conclusion: From Formal Equality to Real Protection

Safeguarding systems are tasked with protecting individuals in complex and often highly sensitive situations.

Ensuring fairness within these systems requires recognising that individuals may not enter proceedings on equal footing.

When procedural equality is applied without consideration of structural differences, fairness may become formal rather than substantive.

Addressing this challenge is not about abandoning neutrality.

It is about strengthening it.

By ensuring that safeguarding systems recognise and respond to the realities of coercive control, institutions can move closer to delivering fairness in practice — not only in principle.

© 2026 Samantha Avril-Andreassen. All rights reserved.