Centre for the Study of Emotion and Law

Centre for the Study of
Emotion and Law

Jane Herlihy

Clinical Psychologist; Honorary Research Fellow, CSEL; Honorary Lecturer UCL

 

Jane was the co-founder and executive director of the Centre for the Study of Emotion & Law in the charitable sector (2005-2017), prior to its adoption into RHUL. She has published in the scientific and law literature and presented widely to clinicians, lawyers, judges and state decision-makers, examining and interrogating the contribution that psychological science can make to fair and just refugee status decision-making. Jane continues to promote and develop research examining the role of psychological processes in refugee status determination.  Jane is currently working with Hilary Evans Cameron to bring the field of cognitive psychology to the law of evidence to improve the law and practice of Canadian refugee status decision-making funded by Bridging Provides.

Research Interests: Jane’s particular interest is in the contribution that psychological knowledge and empirical research can make to the establishment of fair and humane processes for those fleeing persecution and seeking justice. A process that relies so heavily on credibility assessment, which in turn relies on the presentation of a narrative, must entail an understanding of memory, traumatic memory, disclosure, intercultural communication and the effects of mental health on all of these processes as well as on the decision makers themselves.

 

Featured Work

Article

14 July, 2010

This article integrates insights from legal, clinical, and cross-cultural psychology to shed light on cross-cultural investigative interviews about negative life events.

Article

July, 2007

This study aims to determine whether and how sexual violence affects asylum seekers’  disclosure of personal information during Home Office interviews.

Article

09 February, 2002

This article seeks to investigate the consistency of autobiographical memory of people seeking asylum, in light of the assumption that discrepancies in asylum seekers’ accounts of persecution mean that they are fabricating their stories.