16-20 March marks Neurodiversity Celebration Week – a time for us to challenge stereotypes and misconceptions about neurological differences, and celebrate the ways in which thinking differently can be a strength.
Neurodiversity is often used as an umbrella term to describe alternative thinking styles such as Dyslexia, DCD (Dyspraxia), Dyscalculia, Autism and ADHD.
To help raise awareness that anyone with the right qualities can be a magistrate, we asked one of our members, Charlotte Fordyce, about being a neurodiverse magistrate, as well as her tips for her fellow magistrates to help them support their neurodivergent colleagues on the bench.
How long have you been a magistrate and what made you apply?
I have been a magistrate for four years and sit as a winger in both the adult and youth criminal courts, joining the youth bench last summer.
I first became aware of the magistracy through my father, who became a magistrate a few years before I did after being approached by a family friend. When I learnt that anyone over the age of 18 could apply, but that many magistrates tended to join later in life after retirement, it prompted me to reflect on representation within the magistracy and our judicial system as a whole.
I felt very strongly that our justice system benefits when those making decisions reflect a much broader range of life stages and experiences and that, if I believed that younger people should be more widely represented on the bench, it was important that I was willing to actively contribute myself rather than simply hold that view. With that in mind, I applied and was sworn in at the age of 29.
How does being neurodivergent impact your role?
I was diagnosed at university with Meares-Irlen Syndrome, a form of visual dyslexia, and subsequently with dyslexia a few months later. My dyslexia is primarily linked to a slower processing speed and medium to longer-term retention of written information.
Growing up, I masked it effectively through structure and colour-coding, and, as I did not fit the stereotype associated with dyslexia at the time, it was only through formal testing that I understood how my brain processes information differently.
In court, this means I am particularly conscious of pacing and clarity. I read quickly, but retention can require re-reading and structured note-taking. I have a good short-term memory which helps support the individual cases and I make sure not to read through everything first thing in the retiring room, to make sure the cases don’t all blend into one.
I do not use formal adjustments, but I have pink-tinted glasses which I can wear if needed. They make text darker and reduce glare from white space, which improves visual clarity.
Every bench benefits from diversity, including different cognitive styles, and our bench is infinitely stronger when perspectives vary.
Neurodivergence also brings strengths. I am methodical, attentive to body language, tone, and the linguistic choices of both the defendants and witnesses, and I am conscious of how systems can feel for those navigating them. When sitting in youth court in particular, that awareness is valuable.
Every bench benefits from diversity, including different cognitive styles, and our bench is infinitely stronger when perspectives vary.
How best can magistrates support their neurodivergent colleagues?
In my professional life as an HR Consultant, I work extensively with companies on reasonable adjustments and inclusive practices. A consistent principle is that people should not have to struggle silently in order to appear capable, and that making reasonable adjustments doesn’t give people an advantage, but instead supports everyone with starting from an equitable position.
As magistrates, we are trained to consider how to support vulnerable defendants and witnesses. We are less accustomed to considering how to support one another. A simple but effective step, particularly for Presiding Justices, is to begin the day by asking:
“Is there anything I need to be aware of or anything that you need, so that we can all perform at our best?”
This normalises adjustment, avoids singling anyone out, and recognises that needs may vary day to day. Adjustments are not only about neurodiversity. A colleague may need more regular and planned comfort breaks, a particular seating position due to hearing problems, or simply a slightly slower pace of discussion.
Creating space for those conversations strengthens collective performance and ultimately supports better decision-making, whilst helping to normalise the conversation.
Is there more than can be done to ensure the magistracy is accessible to all?
Currently, there is no specific distinction within judiciary records identifying neurodivergence separately within broader disability data. This means we do not have visibility on how many magistrates are neurodivergent or whether systemic support aligns with need.
One approach would be cultural and educational: increasing awareness training, embedding neurodiversity into existing inclusion work, and encouraging benches to have open conversations about adjustments without requiring formal disclosure, especially as waiting lists to receive a formal diagnosis are very long.
A more structural approach would involve clearer data collection and formalised pathways for requesting and implementing adjustments. Greater visibility would allow the magistracy to assess whether additional guidance or support mechanisms are required. However, this approach would need to be tailored to the individual as a dyslexia diagnosis can present very differently in others than it does for myself.
Both approaches have merit. What is clear is that neurodiversity is often invisible, and invisibility makes it harder to design proportionate support, especially when many magistrates only sit once a month on average.
What advice would you give to someone who is neurodiverse and interested in becoming magistrate?
Do not assume that neurodivergence disqualifies you. It does not.
The magistracy requires analytical reasoning, balance, empathy, and structured thinking. Many neurodivergent individuals bring strong pattern recognition, attention to detail, depth of thought, and a strong sense of justice. These qualities enhance deliberation.
Be clear about what helps you perform at your best and ask for reasonable adjustments if needed both at the interview process and in court. Many adjustments are straightforward and easy for the Presiding Justice to implement on the day, as long as they are aware.
Most importantly, recognise that neurodiversity is part of human diversity. A bench that reflects different ways of thinking is far better equipped to deliver fair and considered justice.
