The Use of Therapy Dogs to Support Court Users in the Waiting Room

• Date: 01 September 2019
• Author: Elizabeth Spruin,Anke Franz,Tammy Dempster,Nicole Holt,Katarina Mozova,Susanna Mitchell,Ana Fernandez
• Published date: 01 September 2019
• DOI: 10.1177/1057567719827063
• Subject Matter: Articles

Article

The Use of Therapy Dogs

to Support Court Users

in the Waiting Room

Elizabeth Spruin

1

, Katarina Mozova

2

,

Anke Franz

1

, Susanna Mitchell

2

,

Ana Fernandez

1

, Tammy Dempster

1

,

and Nicole Holt

1

Abstract

The use of animals to support individuals’ well-being has been documented across a variety of

disciplines. It has been over a decade since dogs have also started to be used within the criminal

justice setting in America to support vulnerable people, but this practice is not common in the

United Kingdom. Globally, empirical evidence to support the benefits of utilizing dogs within the

criminal justice system is lacking. The present interdisciplinary study aimed to explore one aspect of

the criminal justice journey, the impact a therapy dog can have on UK court users waiting to give

evidence at a magistrate’s court. One hundred and seventeen court users and eight court staff were

interviewed to explore their perceptions of a therapy dog service offered at a local magistrate’s

court. Using thematic analysis, three main themes were discovered: (1) context of the court

environment, (2) effect of the therapy dog on well-being, and (3) issues relating to therapy dogs in

court waiting areas. Results suggest that therapy dogs have a number of benefits to court users.

Long-term, the human–canine interaction positively translates into the court waiting room envi-

ronment, and so it should be further explored, evaluated, and then appropriately implemented in the

UK’s legal system.

Keywords

therapy dog, criminal justice, court, witness support

In England and Wales, the information provided by witnesses is crucial to almost any type of

criminal investigation and the court proceedings that may follow (Dando, Wilcock, & Milne, 2009;

Milne & Bull, 2006). Without witnesses, the majority of cases would fall at the first hurdle.

1

Department of Psychology, Canterbury Christ Church University, Canterbury, United Kingdom

2

Department of Policing, Canterbury Christ Church University, Canterbury, United Kingdom

Corresponding Author:

Elizabeth Spruin, Department of Psychology, Canterbury Christ Church University, Canterbury, Kent CT1 1QU, United

Kingdom.

Email: liz.spruin@canterbury.ac.uk

International CriminalJustice Review

2019, Vol. 29(3) 284-303

ª2019 Georgia State University

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/1057567719827063

journals.sagepub.com/home/icj

However, it is important to note that, on average, 54%of witnesses in criminal cases could be

classified under the Victims’ Code (2015) as “vulnerable” (Burton, Evans, & Sanders, 2006). In

circumstances where witnesses are deemed as vulnerable, they are eligible for a range of measures,

collectively known as “special measures,” as they may require additional support in order to provide

their best evidence. This was formally recognized in the 1998 Home Office report Speaking up for

Justice, which recommended the introduction of a number of special measures designed to assist

vulnerable and intimidated witnesses in giving evidence (Home Office, 1998). Special measures

were incorporated into the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 and include options such

as the use of a prerecorded interview as evidence in chief, giving evidence from behind screens, the

use of video linking a witness from another location to the court room, and the use of intermediaries

(K. Smith & Tilney, 2007). Overall, it has been shown that vulnerable witnesses are able to com-

municate evidence far more effectively if measures are put in place to protect their emotional well-

being and to support any communication needs they may have (O’Mahony, Creaton, Smith, &

Milne, 2016).

That being said, special measures are not accessible to everyone—only those who fulfill the

Victims Code criteria for a vulnerable person are eligible. As such, although the criminal justice

system in the UK has made improvements to help minimize the stress of going to court, such as

introducing special measures for vulnerable people, many witnesses who do not fit the criteria for

vulnerable, still describe the experience of going to court and giving evidence as an intimidating and

traumatic event (Beckett & Warrington, 2015; Lawrence, Neyroud, & Starmer, 2015). Research

further supports these types of negative reactions, showing that the hardship suffered by witnesses in

providing testimony increases the risk of retraumatization and negative recall (Goodman, Levine,

Melton, & Ogden, 1991).It could therefore be argued that minimizing stress and trauma during

criminal proceedings is important for all those going through the criminal justice system, not just

those deemed most vulnerable.

Recent government initiatives have also emphasized the need to improve the support offered to

all witnesses. For example, the Getting it Right for Victims and Witnesses proposal published by the

Ministry of Justice (MoJ, 2012) focused on the need to ensure that witnesses receive the support

required to deal with the stresses of going to court and giving evidence. The report also welcomed

initiatives to further assist witnesses, emphasizing their complex needs. Similar views were further

supported by Callanan, Brown, Turley, Kenny, and Roberts (2012), who carried out a review

commissioned by the MoJ exploring the support for victims and witnesses. The research emphasized

the importance of client-led approaches to identifying and meeting the specific needs of this pop-

ulation. It is thus apparent that supplementary support methods may hold value within the criminal

justice system in the UK.

One such approach that has been successfully introduced in a number of legal settings across

North America is the use of specially trained facility dogs (also known as “justice facility dogs” or

“court facility dogs”) to calm victims and witnesses during stressful legal proceedings (Spruin, Holt,

Fernandez, & Franz, 2016). First introduced in 2003, these dogs are able to accompany witnesses

through the whole criminal justice system process, from initial forensic interviews, through medical

examinations, to court proceedings, in order to assist those who may be frightened or anxious about

giving evidence (Bowers, 2013; Sandoval, 2010; Spruin et al., 2016). Anecdotal support from court

evidence has indicated that these dogs can be valuable resources of support for witnesses. Dellinger

(2009) notes how court cases have shown these dogs to have a calming effect on witnesses who

otherwise might be too distraught to give evidence. Weems (2013) and Spruin, Holt, Fernandez, and

Franz (2016) further theorized, based on case evidence, how these dogs can be particularly useful for

witnesses who are stressed or anxious about going to court. Similarly, Bowers (2013) contended that

lawyers across North America have been encouraging the introduction of specially trained canines

into the system, as they seem to help individuals communicate with more ease. With that, as many

Spruin et al. 285