Trauma-Blind Misinterpretation in Legal Systems

Executive Summary

Credibility Distortion and Procedural Fairness in Domestic Abuse Litigation

This paper introduces and defines the concept of “Trauma-Blind Misinterpretation” within the context of UK litigation. The term refers to the systemic failure to interpret trauma-related behavioural and cognitive variability accurately within adversarial proceedings.

In domestic abuse and coercive control litigation, courts routinely assess credibility using traditional markers such as consistency, chronological precision, and demeanour. However, psychological research demonstrates that exposure to chronic stress and threat may affect memory encoding, recall stability, and behavioural presentation under pressure.

Where trauma-related variability is misinterpreted as fabrication, exaggeration, or evasiveness, credibility distortion may occur. This has direct implications for procedural fairness under Article 6 ECHR and for reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010.

The paper proposes that participation capacity should be understood as variable rather than fixed. It introduces a descriptive Participation Capacity Variability (PCV) framework to assist in analysing fluctuating engagement under adversarial stress.

The central argument is not for reduced evidential scrutiny, but for refined interpretive accuracy. Structured recognition of participation variability strengthens evidential reliability, reduces appeal risk, and aligns litigation practice with compliance obligations.

This paper forms part of a developing procedural fairness and litigation safeguarding framework.

© 2026 Samantha Avril-Andreassen. All rights reserved.
The term “Trauma-Blind Misinterpretation” is introduced and defined by Samantha Avril-Andreassen (2026) within the context of procedural fairness analysis in UK litigation.