Dr Felicity Gerry KC Presents on Trauma-Informed Practice to Bendigo Law Association on 4 August 2026 at the Bendigo Law Courts

On 4 August 2026, Dr Felicity Gerry KC presented a CPD session for the Bendigo Law Association at the Bendigo Law Courts on Trauma-Informed Practice: Procedural Fairness, Criminal Responsibility and Sustainable Legal Practice. The session brought together local practitioners to consider how an understanding of trauma should shape courtroom procedure, the assessment of criminal responsibility, and the wellbeing of the lawyers who work within the system.

Why trauma-informed practice matters

Felicity opened by reminding the room that courts deal with vulnerable people, and with people at their most vulnerable. On her analysis, trauma-informed practice is not a peripheral welfare concern but goes to the heart of procedural fairness, the legitimacy of proceedings, the integrity of the court, and public confidence in the justice system.

Trauma and participation

Giving examples from her 30 years of practice, Felicity explained how court processes can themselves exacerbate trauma. Felicity explained that trauma may affect a witness's or accused's recall, coherence, consistency, credibility, and emotional presentation in court, all qualities that courts have traditionally relied on to assess reliability. This creates real challenges in separating the effects of trauma from genuine questions of evidential reliability, compounded further where cultural and linguistic barriers are also in play.

The Victorian legal context

Felicity grounded the discussion in Victorian law, noting that ensuring all people can participate meaningfully in the criminal justice process gives effect to the right to a fair trial under section 24 of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic). She also pointed practitioners to the Victorian Family Violence Multi-Agency Risk Assessment and Management (MARAM) Framework and its Foundation Knowledge Guide as a key practical resource for identifying and responding to trauma and family violence risk.

Trauma-informed courts: a whole-of-court responsibility

A central theme was that trauma-informed justice cannot rest on any one participant. It is a whole-of-court responsibility. Felicity urged the audience to move beyond thinking only of victims, and to consider the accused, witnesses, police investigators, prosecutors, lawyers, judges, jurors, and court staff alike. A truly trauma-informed court is one that prioritises safety, participation, and respectful communication for everyone who passes through it.

Practical trauma-informed adjustments

Felicity set out concrete adjustments courts and practitioners can make, grouped under two headings:

Communication

• the use of intermediaries;
• clear judicial directions and ground rules;
• thorough witness preparation; and
• trauma-sensitive questioning techniques such as the PEACE model of investigative interviewing.

Environment

• options such as remote evidence;
• court support dogs;
• sensitive scheduling; and
• attention to waiting times, all of which can reduce the risk of re-traumatisation within the court building itself.

Understanding victim-survivor defendants

Felicity spoke to the growing recognition that many defendants are also victim-survivors. She pointed to trafficking victims prosecuted for offending committed because of their exploitation, cases involving forced and compelled criminality, and defendants whose offending is entangled with domestic and family violence or coercive control. Trauma, she emphasised, directly influences a person's agency, a factor courts must grapple with rather than overlook.

Trauma and criminal responsibility

This theme extended into the criminal law itself. Felicity explained that trauma raises fundamental questions about intent, voluntariness, agency and autonomy, capacity, and culpability. She discussed trauma-induced automatism and dissociation, referring to the High Court's decision in R v Falconer (1990) 171 CLR 30, which recognised that an act done in a state of dissociation caused by a sudden psychological shock to an otherwise sound mind may amount to automatism, going to the very voluntariness of the act.

The trauma-informed lawyer

Turning from clients to practitioners, Felicity observed that lawyers are rarely trained to deal with trauma, despite routine exposure to it. She named the real risks this poses: vicarious trauma and secondary stress, repeated exposure to traumatic material, compassion fatigue, and burnout—risks that affect the sustainability of a career in criminal and human rights law. She gave a few top tips on how to develop resilience and work on self-care.

Building sustainable, trauma-informed legal practice

Felicity argued that system reform and trauma-informed legal education are both required, but that individual practice also matters. She encouraged practitioners to consider manageable workloads, choices around scheduling, recognising their own trauma exposure, reflective practice, peer support, and regular feedback and debriefing as part of sustainable legal practice.

The bigger picture

Felicity closed by drawing the threads together: trauma-informed practice enhances participation and strengthens procedural fairness, improves the accuracy of assessments of criminal responsibility, and supports a more sustainable legal profession. Trauma-informed practice is not an optional extra, but a foundation for a fairer and more resilient criminal justice system.

You can read Felicity's slides here.