Police interviewing of adults with

Learning Disabilities.

Gisli H. Gudjonsson, CBE, PhD

Professor of Forensic Psychology

Institute of Psychiatry

King’s College, London

gisli.gudjonsson@kcl.ac.uk

OBJECTIVE

To review current knowledge about psychological vulnerabilities and police interviews of persons with learning disabilities.

SUSPECT / WITNESS CREDIBILITY - 1

1. Assessing the credibility of witnesses and suspects is one of the most challenging tasks facing the criminal justice system.

2. In recent years there has been improved scientific knowledge about suspect/witness credibility, which has been accompanied by improvements in police interviewing training and judicial procedures and protection in the United Kingdom.

3. In the United Kingdom, psychologists are increasingly being consulted by police officers about suspects‟ potential vulnerabilities prior to interviews to ensure fairness and justice.

4. There is now greater acceptance of psychological evidence in the English Courts.

SUSPECT / WITNESS CREDIBILITY-2

1. The United Kingdom is taking a leading international role in the development of police interview training and protection of vulnerable suspects and witnesses.

2. Lord Bradley's (2009) review of people with mental health problems or learning disabilities in the criminal justice system recommended that “The National Health Service and the police should explore the feasibility of transferring commissioning and budgetary responsibility for healthcare services in police custody suites to the NHS at the earliest opportunity.”

3. This will have major positive implications for the identification and protection of vulnerable suspects in police custody.

POLICE INTERVIEWING

Police interviewing is best conceptualized as a dynamic and interactive social process, the outcome of which is influenced by a number of factors:

• Contextual (e.g., seriousness of offence, strength of evidence)

• Custodial (i.e., nature and length of the custodial confinement, type and duration of questioning)

• Individual differences (e.g., experience of suspect, intelligence, mental health, suggestibility, compliance)

• Support (i.e., the presence of a lawyer, „appropriate adult‟)

LD and issues for expert in cases of

witnesses/victims

• Competency issues.

• Understanding of the nature of the Oath.

• Reliability of the answers given in police

interview.

• Measures („special measures‟) needed in

Court.

The mental capacity of

witnesses/victims

Issues related to the mental capacity of a witness to testify (i.e., competency requirements) are separate to those related to reliability or the credibility of the witness. The former is determined by the trial judge, the latter by the jury in terms of the weight attached to the evidence.

Youth and Criminal Evidence Act 1999

Section 53 (Subsection 3) states that a person

is not competent to give evidence in criminal

proceedings if it seems to the Court that the

person is not able to:

• “Understand questions put to him as a

witness”.

• “Give answers to them, which can be

understood”.

Achieving Best Evidence (ABE)

interview

• Achieving Best Evidence (ABE) interview

of the witness (Home Office, 2002, 2008a)

involves special measures that are

available when vulnerable and intimidated

witnesses are interviewed by police).

MAIN PROTECTION FOR SUSPECTS AT POLICE

STATIONS IN THE UK

• Electronic recording of interviews.

• More skilful interviewing.

• The presence of „Appropriate Adults‟ to advise the vulnerable suspect, to further communication and ensure that the interview is conducted fairly and properly.

• Custodial procedures improved (e.g., monitoring and recording).

• Ready access to doctors and other health care professionals, which will be further improved in 2012 with the implementation of Lord Bradley‟s recommendations.

• There are fewer cases of alleged false confession coming before the Courts in England and being referred to the Criminal Cases Review Commission.

Procedural test for suspects/detainees:

• Do the police suspect that the detainee is potentially vulnerable during police interviews?

• If yes: What type of support or assistance is required? (a doctor, a clinical psychologist, an Appropriate Adult, a lawyer, a Registered Intermediary).

• If yes: 2) How is the support available likely to improve his/her capacity to cope with police interviews?

• If available support is insufficient to ensure fairness in police interview, then the detainee is likely to be considered unfit for interview (there is a provision for this in the Police Codes of Practice).

PEACE MODEL 1

• Preparation and Planning

• Engage and explain purpose of interview

and process

• Account – free recall

• Clarify, challenge and conclude

• Evaluate – new lines of inquiry?

• PEACE model was developed out of sound psychological principles to take into account vulnerabilities of some interviewees with the aim of minimizing the risk of false confession.

• It developed out of collaborative work between academics, psychologists, police practitioners, and lawyers.

• It involves a non-leading technique.

• There is transparency and accountability.

• Lower risk of false confessions.

• Confession rate not reduced.

• It is now being employed in other countries around the world, including New Zealand and Norway.

PEACE MODEL 2

PSYCHOLOGICAL VULNERABILITY

• Not understanding or being able to exercise their rights.

• Not understanding the questions or implications of their answers.

• Problems with communicating their version of events.

• Not having the capacity for informed decision making (e.g. can‟t take

pressure so pay insufficient consideration to the long term consequences

of what they tell police).

• Giving unreliable answers (admissions or denials) – inherently unreliable

due to a disorder.

WHY ARE PSYCHOLOGICAL

VULNERABILITIES IMPORTANT?

They are important, because they may place witnesses,

victims, and suspects at a disadvantage in terms of

coping with the demand characteristics of the interview

(and subsequent Court process) and being able to

provide the police with salient, detailed, accurate, and

coherent answers to questions.

THE IMPORTANCE OF EARLY

IDENTIFICATION OF VULNERABILITIES

Early identification of relevant and pertinent vulnerabilities

in the interview process helps to ensure fairness and

justice, provided the information is not used to trick or

manipulate the suspect into giving a confession (i.e.,

sometimes interviewers „play‟ on the vulnerabilities in

order to place the suspect under greater pressure).

There have been cases where false confessions have

resulted after police interviewers played on vulnerabilities

(e.g., sexuality, specific fears, low self-esteem).

RISK FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH

FALSE CONFESSIONS 1

• There are no definitive psychological tests of false confession, which can be used to determine established error rates.

• False confessions typically result from a combination of factors (custodial, interrogative, situational, psychological vulnerability).

• Each case needs to be considered on its own merit. Generalising across cases has limitations, because of the dynamic nature of the police interview process.

TYPICAL REASONS GIVEN FOR

MAKING FALSE CONFESSIONS

• Protecting somebody else (e.g. youth).

• Part of a delinquent/criminal life style and peer group.

• Escaping custody or detention (e.g. drug addicts, fear of detention, wanting to go home, “My lawyer will sort it out”).

• Cannot cope with the interrogative pressure and failure to adequately consider the consequences.

• Taking revenge.

• In most of the case there are no psychiatric issues, the relevant factors were more often psychological.

Vulnerability Factors (specific to LD):

• Poor memory capacity.

• Poor understanding of legal rights.

• Poorer understanding of questions and implications of answers.

• Heightened suggestibility, acquiescence and compliance.

• Confabulation.

• Distorted perceptions of the consequences of ones answers and behaviour.

False Confession to two Murders

(Learning disabilities):

• The suspect gave a detailed confession to the murders of a mother and daughter.

• His lawyer and sister in law watched the interrogation from another room.

• The confession was video recorded.

• The confession contained apparent special knowledge and seemed be credible.

• The suspect was remanded in custody.

False Confession to two Murders

(cont.):

• The confession proved later to be false (DNA).

• The suspect was released from custody and another man was convicted.

• The key to the false confession was apparent on the video tape.

False Confession to two Murders

(cont.):

• The suspect asked:

– “I am not going to prison?”,

– “You promised me that I was not going

down”.

• The policeman replied:

– “You are alright, don’t worry”.

– “Don’t worry son, we are not going to do

anything nasty to you”.

False Confession to two

Murders (cont.):

• The suspect had an IQ of 65.

• It is evident that prior to the

interrogation the police officer had

persuaded the suspect that there was

sufficient evidence against him to

convict him, even if he did not confess.

CONCLUSIONS

• Many important legal advances since early 1980s to protect persons with LD.

• There is still a problem with identification of LD. This should improve with the implementation of Lord Bradley‟s recommendations.

• Studies have focused on people with LD understanding of the Oath, capacities to give evidence, and vulnerabilities during police interviews.

• More legal reforms are needed to protect vulnerable people when cross-examined in Court.

REFERENCES

• Gudjonsson, G.H (2003). “The Psychology of Interrogations and Confessions. A Handbook. Chichester.

John Wiley & Sons.

• Gudjonsson, G. H. (2010). Invited article. Psychological vulnerabilities during police interviews. Why are

they important? Legal and Criminological Psychology, 15, 161-175.

• Gudjonsson, G. H. & Joyce, T. (2011). Interviewing adults with intellectual disabilities. Advances in

Mental Health and Intellectual Disabilities, 5, 16-17.

• Gudjonsson, G. H. & Pearse, J. (2011). Suspect interviews and false confessions. Current Directions in

Psychological Science, 20, 33-37.

• Kassin, S. M., Drizin, S. A., Grisso, T., Gudjonsson, G. H., Leo, R. A., & Redlich, A. P. (2010). Police-

Induced Confessions: Risk Factors and Recommendations. Law and Human Behavior, 34, 3-38.