Introduction
This essay critically reflects on my observational visit to Kingston-upon-Hull & Holderness Court (Court 2) on 8 October 2025, exploring the complex dynamics of power, language, and courtroom culture within the criminal justice system of England and Wales. As a social work student transitioning from a legal background in Nigeria, this experience offered a unique opportunity to compare and contrast legal processes and to deepen my understanding of how these systems impact defendants, victims, families, and practitioners. Drawing on empirical insights from Jacobson, Hunter, and Kirby’s (2015) concept of “structured mayhem” and David Wright’s argument in The Conversation regarding linguistic barriers in court, this reflection evaluates the emotional and structural challenges observed. Furthermore, it considers how these insights inform my future social work practice through the lenses of anti-oppressive practice (AOP), the British Association of Social Workers (BASW) Code of Ethics, and Social Work England’s professional standards. The essay is structured around key themes—court environment, language and power imbalances, emotional impacts, and implications for practice—before concluding with a summary of learning and future directions.
Initial Impressions of the Court Environment
Entering Kingston-upon-Hull & Holderness Court, I was immediately struck by the formal and imposing nature of the space. The high ceilings, wood-panelled courtrooms, and the formal attire of court officials conveyed an unmistakable sense of solemnity and authority. This environment felt intimidating, even to me, an educated observer with prior legal training. In the waiting areas, individuals sat in tense silence, often accompanied by anxious family members or friends. The presence of security staff and the public accessibility of proceedings reinforced the notion of a space governed by oversight and social judgement.
These initial impressions align closely with Jacobson et al.’s (2015) portrayal of the Crown Court as “structured mayhem”—an environment that appears orderly on the surface but is emotionally chaotic for those involved. They argue that the physical layout and hierarchical dynamics of courts often amplify the gravity of the process, leaving defendants disoriented and emotionally strained. My own discomfort as a visitor highlighted their argument; if I felt uneasy in this setting, the distress experienced by defendants, often facing life-altering consequences, must be profoundly magnified. This observation underscores the importance of social workers preparing individuals for the intimidating nature of court settings, a point I will revisit later in relation to practice implications.
Public Nature of Proceedings and Emotional Impact
One of the most striking aspects of the court visit was the public and exposed nature of the proceedings. The principle of transparency allows anyone to enter and observe, yet this openness often comes at the cost of personal dignity. During the session, I witnessed a woman in her forties, charged with fraud involving £15,000 transferred from her grandmother’s account, break down in tears mid-proceeding. Her distress was palpable as she struggled to compose herself, while her friends cast anxious, protective glances around the room—at one point, directly at me. I felt as though I had intruded on a deeply private crisis, highlighting the tension between public justice and personal emotional harm.
This moment brought to life the BASW Code of Ethics (2021), which emphasises upholding the inherent dignity and worth of all individuals. Courts, however, are not designed as therapeutic environments. For individuals already grappling with shame, fear, and stigma, the public nature of proceedings can exacerbate trauma. Indeed, as a future social worker, I recognised the critical need to support individuals emotionally before, during, and after court appearances. This includes preparing them for the public scrutiny they may face and debriefing afterwards to mitigate distress, aligning with trauma-informed practice principles.
Language and Power Imbalances in Court
Throughout the proceedings, the use of language emerged as a significant gatekeeping mechanism. Legal terminology such as “mitigation,” “plea,” “probation involvement,” and “indictable” was employed frequently, often without explanation for defendants or observers. As someone transitioning from Nigerian legal practice, I encountered unfamiliar terms like “probation officer” and aspects of the “jury system,” which underscored the additional barriers faced by those without UK legal knowledge. This resonates with Wright’s (2017) argument, published in The Conversation, that legal language places ordinary people at a distinct disadvantage, hindering equal participation in court processes.
Moreover, I observed that lawyers spoke with authority and at length, while defendants were restricted to brief, factual responses—often limited to confirming their plea, address, or date of birth. Their voices were heavily constrained, reflecting Jacobson et al.’s (2015) findings that defendants frequently feel silenced and marginalised within courtrooms. From a social work perspective, this raises ethical concerns. Social Work England (2019) mandates practitioners to communicate accessibly, promote participation, and challenge barriers to understanding. Observing these dynamics reinforced the necessity for social workers to act as advocates, interpreting complex legal jargon and ensuring individuals comprehend the decisions affecting their lives.
Emotional Distress and Structural Oppression in Specific Cases
Two cases during my visit particularly highlighted the emotional and structural challenges within the court system. The first, involving the aforementioned woman charged with fraud, exemplified the emotional burden of public scrutiny. Her visible distress and the protective glares from her friends made me acutely aware of the intrusive nature of observation. This moment connected strongly with anti-oppressive practice principles, which urge recognition and minimisation of power imbalances (Dominelli, 2017). While public trials are deemed necessary for accountability, they can inadvertently perpetuate structural oppression through shame and loss of privacy.
The second case involved a young man, born in 2001, charged with driving above the legal alcohol limit and damaging a traffic pole. His lawyer disclosed a history of suicidal ideation and self-harm, and his physical presentation—clenched jaw, tapping foot, tense shoulders—suggested significant distress. The judge opted for a financial penalty deducted from his benefits and revoked his driving licence, seemingly showing leniency by avoiding probation involvement. However, this decision raises questions about the suitability of financial penalties for someone in mental and economic distress. Social work values, as outlined by BASW (2021), compel practitioners to consider structural factors such as poverty and trauma. This case highlighted the importance of advocating for holistic assessments that address the root causes of offending behaviour rather than merely punitive measures.
Power Dynamics and Implications for Social Work Values
The hierarchical structure of the courtroom was undeniable. Judges and lawyers occupied physically and socially elevated positions, while defendants’ contributions were minimal and tightly controlled. This dynamic echoes Jacobson et al.’s (2015) observation that courtrooms are emotionally disempowering spaces where individuals feel “acted upon” rather than engaged. Such hierarchies align with critiques in anti-oppressive practice literature, which argue that institutional processes often reinforce inequalities by limiting voice and choice (Dominelli, 2017).
Reflecting through the lens of social work values, the BASW Code of Ethics (2021) and Social Work England standards (2019) emphasise respect for human rights, empowerment, challenging injustice, and clear communication. My observation provided practical insights into enacting these principles. For instance, promoting voice and participation is critical when defendants speak minimally during hearings; social workers must ensure their perspectives are captured in reports and pre-court discussions. Additionally, the heavy reliance on legal jargon necessitates translating processes into accessible language, particularly for individuals with learning difficulties or mental health challenges. Lastly, the emotional distress witnessed underscores the need for trauma-informed support, including anticipatory guidance and post-hearing debriefing.
Implications for Future Social Work Practice
This court visit profoundly shaped my understanding of my future role as a social worker in the UK, particularly given my transition from a Nigerian legal background. Several key implications for practice emerged. Firstly, preparing service users for court is essential, which involves explaining the structure and purpose of hearings, exploring potential emotional triggers, and clarifying professional roles and possible outcomes. Secondly, advocacy plays a crucial role; I would highlight mental health needs, request reasonable adjustments, and ensure trauma histories are considered by liaising with relevant services like probation or solicitors.
Thirdly, emotional containment during court proceedings is vital. Sitting alongside service users, offering reassurance, and validating their feelings can mitigate distress, especially during breaks when isolation may heighten anxiety. Fourthly, debriefing and aftercare are necessary post-hearing to explain decisions, assess emotional impact, and signpost to mental health or financial support. Lastly, this experience identified areas for ongoing learning, including deepening my understanding of UK sentencing guidelines, probation functions, and youth offending pathways. These steps will enhance my ability to support vulnerable individuals navigating legal processes compassionately and effectively.
Conclusion
In conclusion, my observation at Kingston-upon-Hull & Holderness Court provided a powerful lens through which to examine the emotional, linguistic, and structural complexities of the criminal justice system. Drawing on academic literature such as Jacobson et al. (2015) and Wright (2017), alongside social work ethics, I gained a deeper appreciation of how intimidating and disempowering courts can be for defendants and their families. The visit highlighted the critical role of social workers in promoting dignity, challenging oppression through advocacy, and supporting individuals with trauma-informed approaches. As I develop my professional identity in the UK, this experience will shape my commitment to rights-based, compassionate practice, ensuring that I prioritise empowerment and participation in all aspects of my work.
References
- British Association of Social Workers (BASW). (2021) The Code of Ethics for Social Work. BASW.
- Dominelli, L. (2017) Anti-Oppressive Social Work Theory and Practice. 2nd edn. Palgrave Macmillan.
- Jacobson, J., Hunter, G. and Kirby, A. (2015) Inside Crown Court: Personal Experiences and Questions of Legitimacy. Policy Press.
- Social Work England. (2019) Professional Standards. Social Work England.
- Wright, D. (2017) Language puts ordinary people at a disadvantage in the criminal justice system. The Conversation.
