Recently, as we began analysing Ministry of Justice (MoJ) datasets for a current research project, one issue quickly stood out: the way M.E./C.F.S. is categorised within these systems simply didn’t align with what we know about the condition. Instead of appearing alongside other neurological illnesses, it was repeatedly placed in groups associated with mental health conditions or learning difficulties. This unexpected pattern prompted us to look more closely at how the MoJ’s linked datasets classify health conditions and why such a significant discrepancy exists. What we found highlights a long‑standing structural problem in the way older administrative systems record disability, and why it is so important that this is finally addressed.
See update at the bottom of this blog – 16/03/2026.
When we examined Ministry of Justice data, we were struck by how often M.E./C.F.S. appeared to be grouped alongside mental health conditions or learning difficulties such as dyslexia. This immediately raised a fundamental question: why is a neurological disease being presented as if it were a psychological or cognitive‑learning issue? The Ministry of Justice’s (MoJ) Data First webpage offers no explanation, because the problem doesn’t originate there. Instead, it comes from the older administrative systems that feed into the linked datasets Data First brings together. These systems rely on broad, simplistic categories that group people by perceived “vulnerability” rather than clinical accuracy. As a result, M.E./C.F.S. was historically placed in mental‑health or learning‑difficulty categories, and those outdated labels have simply been carried forward into modern datasets.
The justice system also tends to classify conditions by their functional impact rather than their medical cause. Because M.E./C.F.S. can affect memory, concentration, stamina, and cognitive processing, it can superficially resemble the functional challenges seen in mental health or learning difficulty cases. This leads to misclassification even though the underlying pathology is entirely different. Compounding this, many justice datasets lack a clear neurological category altogether, leaving M.E./C.F.S. with nowhere accurate to be placed. The Ministry of Justice does not maintain its own medical taxonomy; it inherits whatever categories exist in the operational systems it links. But this does not mean the current situation is unchangeable. Updating these categories is absolutely within the Ministry’s scope, and doing so would correct a long‑standing inaccuracy that has real world consequences.
This misrepresentation matters because it reinforces outdated misconceptions about M.E./C.F.S. and undermines public understanding of the condition. It also misleads employers who may use on Employment Tribunal data to inform internal risk assessments and equality policies. When M.E./C.F.S. appears under mental health or learning difficulty categories, businesses may draw incorrect conclusions about the nature of the illness, the types of workplace adjustments required, and their legal responsibilities. Researchers and policymakers who use MoJ datasets are similarly affected, as inaccurate categorisation distorts the evidence base they depend on. Even within the justice system itself, misclassification can influence how individuals with M.E./C.F.S. are understood and supported in courts, probation, and prisons.
Correcting this longstanding issue would bring immediate benefits. Aligning MoJ datasets with World Health Organisation classifications would ensure that M.E./C.F.S. is recognised as the neurological disease it is, placing it alongside conditions such as Parkinson’s and Multiple Sclerosis. Unfortunately, we can’t suggest aligning with NHS classification as there are known issues with their classification system too, and this would bring about a whole new range of problems. Correcting this MoJ issue would improve the accuracy of research, support fairer treatment in legal settings, and help employers make informed decisions grounded in medical reality rather than outdated assumptions. For a community that has long faced misunderstanding and stigma, accurate representation in government data is not a minor administrative detail, it is a meaningful step toward fairness, visibility, and justice.
Today, an email addressing this issue has been sent to the MoJ.
16/03/2026 – Update.
A response has been received from Data First (Dept within the MOJ) – copied and pasted below.
Dear Sally,Thank you for your email and for getting in touch to raise this.We aren’t really the team to handle this directly – as you correctly say in your email, Data First works with existing administrative data and makes deidentified version of these datasets available to researchers – but I wanted to reassure you that this has been passed on to various colleagues elsewhere in the department, and that discussions are taking place.Please do let me know if we can be of any further assistance, and thank you again for contacting us.Kind regards,
