Trauma Therapy’s Double-Edged Sword: How Healing Can Hinder Justice in Australia
For years, junior doctor Katie Bird grappled with the profound impact of alleged adolescent sexual abuse. Intrusive memories and debilitating flashbacks clouded her daily life, prompting her to seek professional help. A psychologist introduced her to Eye Movement Desensitisation and Reprocessing (EMDR) therapy, a treatment that Dr. Bird now unequivocally credits with “genuinely changing my life.” This therapeutic approach, which utilises bilateral stimulation, typically eye movements, to help individuals process distressing events, proved instrumental in her healing journey.
Dr. Bird found that EMDR “unlocked the ability for me to think about these things, to talk about these things.” This newfound capacity for processing her trauma not only enabled her to confide in family and friends but also empowered her to take the courageous step of reporting the alleged abuse to the police in 2021.
However, her pursuit of justice took a devastating turn in 2023 when she received disheartening news from the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (CDPP). The CDPP informed her that her case would be discontinued because she had undergone EMDR therapy. An email from the CDPP’s office stated, “…the circumstance of a critical crown witness having undergone EMDR therapy can have significant effect on the admissibility of the evidence of that witness.”
Dr. Bird described the news as shattering. “EMDR unlocked the ability for me to talk to the police, and here it was taking my avenues of legal justice away,” she lamented, finding the decision profoundly unfair.
The Widespread Impact of EMDR Exclusion
Dr. Bird’s experience, unfortunately, is not an isolated incident. Anthony Hurst, chairman of the EMDR Association of Australia, confirmed to the ABC that this is a recognised issue within the trauma therapy community. “If you speak to trauma therapists, EMDR therapists in particular across the country, we are all very aware of this issue,” Mr. Hurst stated. He explained that therapists often have to caution clients seeking EMDR treatment for past trauma that undergoing therapy could potentially impact their ability to pursue legal action in the future.
Dr. Bird found the CDPP’s decision, purportedly based on the Commonwealth Prosecution Policy, to be insulting. Despite seeking a review, she was unsuccessful. The underlying message she perceived was a lack of trust in her testimony, with the argument being that her recollections had been altered by the therapy. “All EMDR was allowing me to do was recall the memories without the overwhelming emotions that had taken me to seek psychological therapy in the first place,” she clarified. “I never had to change the memory during the process.”
A CDPP spokesman reiterated that each prosecution is assessed individually according to the prosecution policy, with a key consideration being the admissibility of evidence under both statute and common law.
Outdated Beliefs and Scientific Evidence
While Commonwealth and most state and territory prosecution guidelines do not explicitly mention EMDR evidence, New South Wales’ Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP) guidelines state that evidence obtained through EMDR, alongside hypnosis, “cannot be used in any case” without specific approval.
Professor Richard Bryant, director of the Traumatic Stress Clinic at the University of New South Wales, argues that this singling out of EMDR is rooted in an outdated belief that it “smelled a bit like hypnosis.” This view, now largely disproved, suggested EMDR could implant or tamper with memories. “If we look at the evidence, EMDR doesn’t lend somebody to having false memories any more than any other kind of intervention,” Professor Bryant asserted. “In essence, the scientific evidence doesn’t really support the notion that we should not be accepting EMDR-affected memories into evidence.”
A NSW ODPP spokeswoman, however, maintained that the office considers admissibility on a case-by-case basis, and that a complainant undertaking EMDR “will not necessarily have any bearing on their reliability or the admissibility of their evidence.”
Understanding EMDR Therapy
Discovered by American psychologist Francine Shapiro in 1987, EMDR therapy has gained significant traction, with notable proponents including Miley Cyrus and Prince Harry. Sydney psychologist Sarah Dominguez, an accredited EMDR trainer, has witnessed its profound impact. She described how the therapy can facilitate significant changes for clients “quite quickly.”
In a demonstration with clinical psychologist David Batten, who was trained in EMDR, he focused on the distressing memory of witnessing the aftermath of a car crash. Following the session, he reported the memories felt less overwhelming. Dr. Dominguez explained the theoretical underpinnings: “What we think happens is when we ask people to think about the memory, we put it into their working memory, when we get them to think about it as it is now. Then by focusing on something else, it helps the brain to process it in a way that it wasn’t able to at the time.”
Professor Bryant pointed to research indicating EMDR’s effectiveness in treating PTSD, comparable to other exposure-based therapies, although the precise mechanisms are still being explored. He highlighted that the act of recalling trauma memories and addressing associated thoughts is a crucial element across various evidence-based PTSD treatments. The distinctive eye movements in EMDR, however, remain a subject of scientific debate.
Professor Bryant strongly advocates for prosecution offices to re-evaluate their stance on EMDR evidence, given its proven efficacy and recommendations from major health organisations. “I certainly believe that the guidelines should be updated to reflect the latest evidence, because I don’t think current decisions about the role of EMDR is consistent with what we know,” he urged.
Dr. Bird, while acknowledging the end of her personal legal journey, hopes her story will be a catalyst for change. “EMDR therapy is incredible, and it’s life-changing, and I think more people are going to realise that, and I don’t want it to stop people from being able to seek legal justice,” she concluded, advocating for a future where healing and justice are not mutually exclusive.
