*/
As the world becomes more digital, Barbara Vinagre Mota examines international research into the mental health consequences of judges’ exposure to graphic and immersive evidence, highlighting the importance of support systems
Judges are often assumed to be emotionally insulated from the cases over which they preside. Legal training, professional distance and institutional authority are thought to provide a buffer against the distressing material that enters the courtroom. Yet this assumption is increasingly difficult to sustain. Modern courts rely heavily on graphic and immersive evidence – digital images, video recordings and detailed testimony – that repeatedly exposes judges to others’ experiences of violence, abuse and death. A growing body of research suggests that this exposure carries significant psychological risks.
Trauma research has traditionally focused on frontline professions, such as emergency responders, healthcare workers and military personnel, but in recent years attention has turned to legal professionals. Judges occupy a distinctive position: although physically removed from the site of harm, they are required to engage deeply and repeatedly with traumatic material to assess credibility and determine sentencing outcomes.
While many of the themes explored here will be relevant to barristers, who are also routinely exposed to traumatic material, the article is based on a report developed by the author following conversations with the Ministry of Justice, reflecting a growing institutional recognition of judicial wellbeing as a significant occupational issue. Such engagement represents a positive step, and also underscores the importance of preventative support systems for judges exposed to traumatic material as part of their routine work.
The recognition that judges may be affected by trauma exposure reflects broader developments in psychology. Diagnostic criteria for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) now explicitly recognises repeated or extreme exposure to aversive details of traumatic events as a pathway to the disorder, even when there is no direct personal threat. This shift acknowledges that trauma can arise not only from lived experience, but also from sustained engagement with others’ suffering, such as through victim testimonies, case files or graphic visual evidence.
In judicial work, this exposure is both routine and cumulative. Cases involving sexual violence, child abuse, homicide and exploitation are not exceptional; for many judges, they form a regular part of their caseload. Unlike jurors, whose exposure is limited to a single case, judges may engage with traumatic material repeatedly over many years, often under significant time pressure and with substantial responsibility for outcomes.
Research in this area draws on several overlapping psychological constructs, which are sometimes used interchangeably. Understanding their distinctions is important for interpreting the evidence:
Although research specifically focused on judges’ exposure to traumatic material remains limited, available evidence paints a concerning picture. Studies involving judges, lawyers and other criminal justice professionals consistently report that many feel psychologically unprepared for the intensity and realism of modern evidentiary material. The increasing use of graphic video evidence has been identified as a source of distress due to its immersive and sensory nature (Birze et al., 2022).
While judges describe their work as meaningful, they recognise it’s emotionally demanding. Qualitative research has found that cases involving crimes against children, sexual violence and murder are among the most emotionally taxing, and result in poorer mental health, particularly when combined with responsibility for the wellbeing of vulnerable individuals in the courtroom (Flores et al., 2009).
Quantitative studies reinforce these findings. Over 60% of judicial workers experienced mild to high levels of STS, with more than 13% reporting severe symptoms (Schrever et al., 2019). In the United States, Sprang et al. (2021) found that 44% of judges dealing with child sex trafficking cases reported intrusive thoughts, sleep difficulties, physical distress and rumination. Earlier qualitative work documents vicarious trauma symptoms among judges, including fatigue, nightmares, cynicism and feelings of helplessness. As one judge reflected: ‘Cases of horrible, sexual predatory exploitation of children haunt me’ (Jaffe et al., 2003).
It is important to note that these symptoms are not attributed solely to exposure to traumatic material. High caseloads, time pressure, perceived stress among colleagues and the moral weight of decision-making also play a role. Nevertheless, repeated exposure to traumatic evidence appears to be a central contributing factor.
Broader judicial wellbeing research underscores the scale of the issue. Research has found that 97% of judges believed greater prominence should be given to judicial wellbeing, yet 76% reported insufficient time to maintain optimal mental and physical health (Schrever, 2025). A further 83% indicated that support for judicial officers was inadequate. These findings suggest professionals acutely aware of risks to their wellbeing but constrained by institutional barriers to addressing them.
While most empirical evidence on exposure to traumatic material has been conducted in Australia and the United States, assuming that UK judges are less vulnerable due to stronger institutional safeguards may be premature. UK-based research on judges is limited, but studies of other trauma-exposed professionals, such as police officers investigating childhood sexual abuse, indicate that organisational support, while beneficial, does not fully prevent the psychological effects of repeated trauma exposure (Bourke & Craun, 2014; Hurrell et al., 2018). Although these studies do not focus on judges, they highlight the limits of institutional support in occupations characterised by repeated engagement with traumatic material. Given the increasing use of graphic evidence in UK courts and structural similarities in judicial processes, it is plausible that UK judges face comparable risks to their international counterparts.
Further evidence comes from the 2021 UK Judicial Wellbeing Survey, which found that 23% of judges experienced moderate stress, 13% significant stress, and 2% extreme stress. Symptoms ranged from irritability, disrupted eating and sleeping patters, social withdrawal, and overreliance on unhealthy coping mechanisms, such as alcohol and tobacco use.
The UK Judicial Attitude Survey, conducted by the Judicial Institute of University College London led by Professor Cheryl Thomas KC (Hon), is particularly valuable due to its high response rates: 90%-99% participation among salaried judges since its inception in 2014. The most recent survey, conducted in 2024, included specific questions on sources of stress: ‘types of evidence I have to deal with’ was cited by 35% of salaried judges, 21% of fee-paid judges and 26% of coroners; ‘sole focus of death in coronial work’ was cited by 16% of coroners. Very large proportions of judges reported stress-related symptoms associated with their work. The most prevalent were sleep disturbance (77%), irritability (57%), and headaches (52%), which are indicative of chronic occupational stress.
And these pressures are likely to intensify. The same survey highlighted a looming recruitment and retention crisis within the Crown Court. Significantly more Circuit Judges plan to leave the judiciary in the coming years than there are Recorders willing to apply to replace them. Proposals to introduce judge-only trials (without juries), if implemented, are likely to accelerate departures further. Judges who remain will face responsibility for an estimated 80,000 outstanding jury trials, increasing workload, time pressure and further exposure to traumatic evidence – this could mean judicial work is not only emotionally demanding but could also become increasingly unsustainable.
Despite growing awareness of these issues, judicial systems around the world often remain poorly equipped to respond. Judicial culture has traditionally emphasised resilience, emotional control and impartiality, which can discourage acknowledgement of vulnerability and limit help-seeking. Many judges report limited access to formal psychological support, leaving them vulnerable to cumulative trauma over time (Birze et al., 2022). The UNODC Global Judicial Integrity Network survey (2021), covering 758 judicial officers from 102 countries, further reinforced this – more than 69% believed discussions of mental health and stress remained taboo within their judiciary. A further 83% reported inadequate support structures, and 89% were aware of colleagues experiencing stress, anxiety or sadness without access to appropriate support.
Yet, research consistently identifies social and occupational support as key protective factors. Higher perceived workplace support is associated with lower burnout and greater job satisfaction, and for male judges, reduced perceived stress (Miller et al., 2018). Although research on the role of social support for judges remains limited, findings from other trauma-exposed professions reinforce its potential value. Evidence from other professions, such as analytical and investigative roles, further suggests that supervisory support plays a particularly important role by reducing symptoms of STS and to support resilience (Duran & Woodhams, 2022; Strickland et al., 2023). Although such research has not yet examined judicial settings, it highlights potential avenues for support that warrant exploration.
The establishment of International Judicial Wellbeing Day, observed globally on 25 July – a date chosen to commemorate the adoption of the Nauru Declaration on Judicial Wellbeing in 2024 – reflects a growing acknowledgement that judges, like other trauma-exposed professionals, require structured support to manage the psychological demands of their role. Although England and Wales has not formally adopted the international Nauru Declaration on Judicial Wellbeing, the Lady Chief Justice stated in 2025 that its objectives closely align with work already being undertaken by the judiciary on mental health and wellbeing (Law Society Gazette, 2025).
The available evidence worldwide points to a clear conclusion: judicial work carries underrecognised psychological risks arising from repeated, in-depth engagement with traumatic material. Treating judicial exposure to trauma as an issue of individual resilience rather than institutional responsibility risks normalising harm and obscuring occupational risk factors, such as heavy caseloads and unsociable hours. Addressing these risks requires both further research and immediate action. There is a pressing need for specific research to examine how trauma symptoms develop over time and to identify key risk and protective factors, including exposure frequency, case type, workload and access to support.
At the same time, courts need not wait for further evidence to act. Existing research from other trauma-exposed professions demonstrates that organisational acknowledgement, peer and supervisory support, and access to confidential psychological resources can meaningfully reduce harm. Developing institutional policies and long-term support structures that recognise the psychological burden of judging is essential to protecting wellbeing and sustaining the capacity to administer justice with empathy, fairness and resilience.
Birze, A., Regehr, K., & Regehr, C. (2023), ‘Workplace Trauma in a Digital Age: The Impact of Video Evidence of Violent Crime on Criminal Justice Professionals’, Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 38(1–2)
Flores, D., Miller, M., Chamberlain, J., Richardson, J., & Bornstein, B. (2009), ‘Judges’ Perspectives on Stress and Safety in the Courtroom: An Exploratory Study’, Court Review: Journal of the American Judges Association
Schrever, C., Hulbert, C., & Sourdin, T. (2019), ‘ The psychological impact of judicial work: Australia’s first empirical research measuring judicial stress and wellbeing’, Journal of Judicial Administration, 28(3)
Sprang, G., Cole, J., & Leistner, C. (2021), ‘In Their Own Words: The Impact of Indirect Trauma Exposure on Judges Presiding Over Cases Involving Minors Involved in Sex Trafficking’, Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 72(3)
Jaffe, P. G., Crooks, C. V., Dunford-Jackson, B. L., & Town, J. M. (2003), ‘Vicarious Trauma in Judges: The Personal Challenge of Dispensing Justice’, Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 54(4)
Schrever, C. (2025), ‘Judicial well-being: from an “unmentionable topic” to global conversation’, Judicature, 109(1)
Bourke, M., & Craun, S. (2014), ‘Coping With Secondary Traumatic Stress: Differences Between U.K. and U.S. Child Exploitation Personnel’, Traumatology, 20, 57
Hurrell, A.-K., Draycott, S., & Andrews, L. (2018), ‘Secondary traumatic stress in police officers investigating childhood sexual abuse’, Policing, 41(5)
Miller, M. K., Reichert, J., Bornstein, B. H., & Shulman, G. (2018), ‘ Judicial stress: The roles of gender and social support’, Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 25(4)
Duran, F., & Woodhams, J. (2022), ‘Impact of Traumatic Material on Professionals in Analytical and Secondary Investigative Roles Working in Criminal Justice Settings: A Qualitative Approach’, Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 37(4)
Strickland, C., Kloess, J. A., & Larkin, M. (2023), ‘An exploration of the personal experiences of digital forensics analysts who work with child sexual abuse material on a daily basis: “You cannot unsee the darker side of life”’, Frontiers in Psychology, 14
‘LCJ snubs international judicial wellbeing pact’, Law Society Gazette, Monidipa Fouzder, 21 February 2025
Barbara Vinagre Mota is a second-year CENTRE-UB PhD student at the University of Birmingham. Her current work investigates psychological distress in professionals working with violent and extremist content.
Judges are often assumed to be emotionally insulated from the cases over which they preside. Legal training, professional distance and institutional authority are thought to provide a buffer against the distressing material that enters the courtroom. Yet this assumption is increasingly difficult to sustain. Modern courts rely heavily on graphic and immersive evidence – digital images, video recordings and detailed testimony – that repeatedly exposes judges to others’ experiences of violence, abuse and death. A growing body of research suggests that this exposure carries significant psychological risks.
Trauma research has traditionally focused on frontline professions, such as emergency responders, healthcare workers and military personnel, but in recent years attention has turned to legal professionals. Judges occupy a distinctive position: although physically removed from the site of harm, they are required to engage deeply and repeatedly with traumatic material to assess credibility and determine sentencing outcomes.
While many of the themes explored here will be relevant to barristers, who are also routinely exposed to traumatic material, the article is based on a report developed by the author following conversations with the Ministry of Justice, reflecting a growing institutional recognition of judicial wellbeing as a significant occupational issue. Such engagement represents a positive step, and also underscores the importance of preventative support systems for judges exposed to traumatic material as part of their routine work.
The recognition that judges may be affected by trauma exposure reflects broader developments in psychology. Diagnostic criteria for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) now explicitly recognises repeated or extreme exposure to aversive details of traumatic events as a pathway to the disorder, even when there is no direct personal threat. This shift acknowledges that trauma can arise not only from lived experience, but also from sustained engagement with others’ suffering, such as through victim testimonies, case files or graphic visual evidence.
In judicial work, this exposure is both routine and cumulative. Cases involving sexual violence, child abuse, homicide and exploitation are not exceptional; for many judges, they form a regular part of their caseload. Unlike jurors, whose exposure is limited to a single case, judges may engage with traumatic material repeatedly over many years, often under significant time pressure and with substantial responsibility for outcomes.
Research in this area draws on several overlapping psychological constructs, which are sometimes used interchangeably. Understanding their distinctions is important for interpreting the evidence:
Although research specifically focused on judges’ exposure to traumatic material remains limited, available evidence paints a concerning picture. Studies involving judges, lawyers and other criminal justice professionals consistently report that many feel psychologically unprepared for the intensity and realism of modern evidentiary material. The increasing use of graphic video evidence has been identified as a source of distress due to its immersive and sensory nature (Birze et al., 2022).
While judges describe their work as meaningful, they recognise it’s emotionally demanding. Qualitative research has found that cases involving crimes against children, sexual violence and murder are among the most emotionally taxing, and result in poorer mental health, particularly when combined with responsibility for the wellbeing of vulnerable individuals in the courtroom (Flores et al., 2009).
Quantitative studies reinforce these findings. Over 60% of judicial workers experienced mild to high levels of STS, with more than 13% reporting severe symptoms (Schrever et al., 2019). In the United States, Sprang et al. (2021) found that 44% of judges dealing with child sex trafficking cases reported intrusive thoughts, sleep difficulties, physical distress and rumination. Earlier qualitative work documents vicarious trauma symptoms among judges, including fatigue, nightmares, cynicism and feelings of helplessness. As one judge reflected: ‘Cases of horrible, sexual predatory exploitation of children haunt me’ (Jaffe et al., 2003).
It is important to note that these symptoms are not attributed solely to exposure to traumatic material. High caseloads, time pressure, perceived stress among colleagues and the moral weight of decision-making also play a role. Nevertheless, repeated exposure to traumatic evidence appears to be a central contributing factor.
Broader judicial wellbeing research underscores the scale of the issue. Research has found that 97% of judges believed greater prominence should be given to judicial wellbeing, yet 76% reported insufficient time to maintain optimal mental and physical health (Schrever, 2025). A further 83% indicated that support for judicial officers was inadequate. These findings suggest professionals acutely aware of risks to their wellbeing but constrained by institutional barriers to addressing them.
While most empirical evidence on exposure to traumatic material has been conducted in Australia and the United States, assuming that UK judges are less vulnerable due to stronger institutional safeguards may be premature. UK-based research on judges is limited, but studies of other trauma-exposed professionals, such as police officers investigating childhood sexual abuse, indicate that organisational support, while beneficial, does not fully prevent the psychological effects of repeated trauma exposure (Bourke & Craun, 2014; Hurrell et al., 2018). Although these studies do not focus on judges, they highlight the limits of institutional support in occupations characterised by repeated engagement with traumatic material. Given the increasing use of graphic evidence in UK courts and structural similarities in judicial processes, it is plausible that UK judges face comparable risks to their international counterparts.
Further evidence comes from the 2021 UK Judicial Wellbeing Survey, which found that 23% of judges experienced moderate stress, 13% significant stress, and 2% extreme stress. Symptoms ranged from irritability, disrupted eating and sleeping patters, social withdrawal, and overreliance on unhealthy coping mechanisms, such as alcohol and tobacco use.
The UK Judicial Attitude Survey, conducted by the Judicial Institute of University College London led by Professor Cheryl Thomas KC (Hon), is particularly valuable due to its high response rates: 90%-99% participation among salaried judges since its inception in 2014. The most recent survey, conducted in 2024, included specific questions on sources of stress: ‘types of evidence I have to deal with’ was cited by 35% of salaried judges, 21% of fee-paid judges and 26% of coroners; ‘sole focus of death in coronial work’ was cited by 16% of coroners. Very large proportions of judges reported stress-related symptoms associated with their work. The most prevalent were sleep disturbance (77%), irritability (57%), and headaches (52%), which are indicative of chronic occupational stress.
And these pressures are likely to intensify. The same survey highlighted a looming recruitment and retention crisis within the Crown Court. Significantly more Circuit Judges plan to leave the judiciary in the coming years than there are Recorders willing to apply to replace them. Proposals to introduce judge-only trials (without juries), if implemented, are likely to accelerate departures further. Judges who remain will face responsibility for an estimated 80,000 outstanding jury trials, increasing workload, time pressure and further exposure to traumatic evidence – this could mean judicial work is not only emotionally demanding but could also become increasingly unsustainable.
Despite growing awareness of these issues, judicial systems around the world often remain poorly equipped to respond. Judicial culture has traditionally emphasised resilience, emotional control and impartiality, which can discourage acknowledgement of vulnerability and limit help-seeking. Many judges report limited access to formal psychological support, leaving them vulnerable to cumulative trauma over time (Birze et al., 2022). The UNODC Global Judicial Integrity Network survey (2021), covering 758 judicial officers from 102 countries, further reinforced this – more than 69% believed discussions of mental health and stress remained taboo within their judiciary. A further 83% reported inadequate support structures, and 89% were aware of colleagues experiencing stress, anxiety or sadness without access to appropriate support.
Yet, research consistently identifies social and occupational support as key protective factors. Higher perceived workplace support is associated with lower burnout and greater job satisfaction, and for male judges, reduced perceived stress (Miller et al., 2018). Although research on the role of social support for judges remains limited, findings from other trauma-exposed professions reinforce its potential value. Evidence from other professions, such as analytical and investigative roles, further suggests that supervisory support plays a particularly important role by reducing symptoms of STS and to support resilience (Duran & Woodhams, 2022; Strickland et al., 2023). Although such research has not yet examined judicial settings, it highlights potential avenues for support that warrant exploration.
The establishment of International Judicial Wellbeing Day, observed globally on 25 July – a date chosen to commemorate the adoption of the Nauru Declaration on Judicial Wellbeing in 2024 – reflects a growing acknowledgement that judges, like other trauma-exposed professionals, require structured support to manage the psychological demands of their role. Although England and Wales has not formally adopted the international Nauru Declaration on Judicial Wellbeing, the Lady Chief Justice stated in 2025 that its objectives closely align with work already being undertaken by the judiciary on mental health and wellbeing (Law Society Gazette, 2025).
The available evidence worldwide points to a clear conclusion: judicial work carries underrecognised psychological risks arising from repeated, in-depth engagement with traumatic material. Treating judicial exposure to trauma as an issue of individual resilience rather than institutional responsibility risks normalising harm and obscuring occupational risk factors, such as heavy caseloads and unsociable hours. Addressing these risks requires both further research and immediate action. There is a pressing need for specific research to examine how trauma symptoms develop over time and to identify key risk and protective factors, including exposure frequency, case type, workload and access to support.
At the same time, courts need not wait for further evidence to act. Existing research from other trauma-exposed professions demonstrates that organisational acknowledgement, peer and supervisory support, and access to confidential psychological resources can meaningfully reduce harm. Developing institutional policies and long-term support structures that recognise the psychological burden of judging is essential to protecting wellbeing and sustaining the capacity to administer justice with empathy, fairness and resilience.
Birze, A., Regehr, K., & Regehr, C. (2023), ‘Workplace Trauma in a Digital Age: The Impact of Video Evidence of Violent Crime on Criminal Justice Professionals’, Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 38(1–2)
Flores, D., Miller, M., Chamberlain, J., Richardson, J., & Bornstein, B. (2009), ‘Judges’ Perspectives on Stress and Safety in the Courtroom: An Exploratory Study’, Court Review: Journal of the American Judges Association
Schrever, C., Hulbert, C., & Sourdin, T. (2019), ‘ The psychological impact of judicial work: Australia’s first empirical research measuring judicial stress and wellbeing’, Journal of Judicial Administration, 28(3)
Sprang, G., Cole, J., & Leistner, C. (2021), ‘In Their Own Words: The Impact of Indirect Trauma Exposure on Judges Presiding Over Cases Involving Minors Involved in Sex Trafficking’, Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 72(3)
Jaffe, P. G., Crooks, C. V., Dunford-Jackson, B. L., & Town, J. M. (2003), ‘Vicarious Trauma in Judges: The Personal Challenge of Dispensing Justice’, Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 54(4)
Schrever, C. (2025), ‘Judicial well-being: from an “unmentionable topic” to global conversation’, Judicature, 109(1)
Bourke, M., & Craun, S. (2014), ‘Coping With Secondary Traumatic Stress: Differences Between U.K. and U.S. Child Exploitation Personnel’, Traumatology, 20, 57
Hurrell, A.-K., Draycott, S., & Andrews, L. (2018), ‘Secondary traumatic stress in police officers investigating childhood sexual abuse’, Policing, 41(5)
Miller, M. K., Reichert, J., Bornstein, B. H., & Shulman, G. (2018), ‘ Judicial stress: The roles of gender and social support’, Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 25(4)
Duran, F., & Woodhams, J. (2022), ‘Impact of Traumatic Material on Professionals in Analytical and Secondary Investigative Roles Working in Criminal Justice Settings: A Qualitative Approach’, Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 37(4)
Strickland, C., Kloess, J. A., & Larkin, M. (2023), ‘An exploration of the personal experiences of digital forensics analysts who work with child sexual abuse material on a daily basis: “You cannot unsee the darker side of life”’, Frontiers in Psychology, 14
‘LCJ snubs international judicial wellbeing pact’, Law Society Gazette, Monidipa Fouzder, 21 February 2025
As the world becomes more digital, Barbara Vinagre Mota examines international research into the mental health consequences of judges’ exposure to graphic and immersive evidence, highlighting the importance of support systems
Update from the Chair of the Bar
By David Green
Mário Barroso, Head of R&D and Method Development at AlphaBiolabs, examines the forensic science underpinning hair drug testing, its evidential scope and limitations, and why it remains the gold standard for evidencing patterns of drug use in family proceedings
Unlocking your aged debt to fund your tax in one easy step. By Philip N Bristow
Clement Cowley, Partner at The Penny Group, discusses the upcoming changes to pensions and Inheritance Tax and the potential impact on your financial future
Save the Children UK is the latest charity to benefit from a £500 donation from AlphaBiolabs via the company’s Giving Back initiative
The Chief Legal Officer to the Metropolitan Police, barrister Brett Welch, tells Anthony Inglese CB about his mission and the work to turn the Met around
Barrister apprenticeships – shortly to provide the fourth pathway to the Bar – are an ideal opportunity to support local talent and ‘grow your own’, say Tim Coulson and Dr Jane Dennehy
Grok around and find out – or not? Mariya Peykova investigates the nudification scandal, what the law has to say about sexually explicit deepfakes, and whether stronger regulation is needed
Oliver Lewis spotlights an overlooked yet rapidly evolving area of law – coercive and controlling behaviour within care contexts
For one night only at Middle Temple Hall (Sunday 26 July 2026) – Abigail Bright introduces the famed annual fundraising theatrical event. This year, Martin Shaw and Jason Watkins perform John Mortimer’s The Dock Brief, a mixture of farce and pathos and all in support of the work of the Kalisher Trust in its 30th year
