O

Legal and Criminological Psychology (2003), 8, 253–266 © 2003 The British Psychological Society

www.bps.org.uk

The ef ficacy of the appropriate adult safeguard during police interviewing

Sarah Medford1 , Gisli H. Gudjonsson1* and John Pearse2

1Department of Psychology, Institute of Psychiatry, UK 2Metropolitan Police, New Scotland Yard, UK

Purpose. The main aim of the study was to examine the efficacy of the appropri- ate adult (AA) safeguard for vulnerable adult and juvenile suspects undergoing police interviews.

Method. We examined the records of suspects held in custody by the London Metropolitan Police at 74 charging stations during February 1997 (Medford, Gudjonsson, & Pearse, 2000). Adult suspects whose custody record indicated psychological vulnerability were included in the study, as well as juvenile suspects. Audiotaped interviews of suspects were analysed using a special coding frame. The contribution (or lack of contribution) made by the AA, the extent to which they ful� lled their role, and the effect of their presence on other persons and interview outcome were examined and analysed.

Results. Of the 501 interviews available for analysis, 365 (73%) were with adult suspects and 136 (27%) with juveniles. An AA was present during 212 (58%) adult interviews and 135 (99%) juvenile interviews. The AAs of juveniles, who were mainly family members and friends, contributed more in interview, both appropri- ately and inappropriately, than did social workers and volunteers, although overall there was little direct intervention by the AA.

Conclusions. Although AAs contribute little to the police interview in terms of verbal interactions, their mere presence during the police interview has three important effects. First, in the case of adults, but not juveniles, it increases the likelihood that a legal representative will be present. Second, it appears to be associated with less interrogative pressure in interview. Third, in the presence of an AA, the legal representative takes on a more active role.

The concept of an appropriate adult (AA) was championed in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE, Home Office, 1985). An AA is an independent person called to the station to assist and protect the rights and welfare of vulnerable suspects in police custody. Vulnerable suspects include juveniles—that is, any person under the age of 17 years—and adult suspects believed to be suffering from mental disorder or learning disability. These special groups are considered to be ‘at risk’ because they may have a limited understanding of their legal rights whilst in custody, and because they may also

*Requests for reprints should be addressed to Professor Gisli H. Gudjonsson, Department of Psychology (PO Box 78), Institute of Psychiatry, De Crespigny Park, Denmark Hill, London SE5 8AF, UK (e-mail: [email protected]).

253

be incapable of understanding the significance of questions put to them or the impli- cations of their replies. That is, they may in certain circumstances unwittingly provide ‘information which is unreliable, misleading or self-incriminating’ (The Codes of Prac- tice, Home Office, 1995: 56), including a false confession, or be unduly influenced by short-term gains such as being released from custody, or the interviewer’s suggestions (Gudjonsson, 2003). Some recent miscarriages of justice identified by the Court of Appeal concerned vulnerable suspects who did not enjoy the protection of an AA (Gudjonsson, 2003).

The AA is regarded as a vital safeguard to strengthen the reliability and fairness of confession evidence. According to the Codes of Practice that accompany PACE (Home Office, 1995), the AA should be informed ‘. . . that they are not there to act simply as an observer’ and that the purpose of their presence is ‘. . . to advise the person being questioned and observe whether or not the interview is being conducted properly and fairly, and secondly, to facilitate communication with the person being interviewed’ (Code C: 11B, p. 60). The role of the AA, as defined in the Codes of Practice, is an active, complex and onerous one.

Since its inception, there has been a burgeoning literature concerning the efficacy of the AA safeguard for vulnerable suspects in police custody. Initially, research was largely focused upon the identification of vulnerable suspects (Bean & Nemitz, 1994; Brown, 1989; Brown, Ellis, & Larcombe, 1992; Bucke & Brown, 1997; Gudjonsson, Clare, Rutter, & Pearse, 1993; Irving & McKenzie, 1989; Keyes, Scott, & Truman, 1998; Medford, Gudjonsson, & Pearse, 2000; Nemitz & Bean, 1994; Pearse, Gudjonsson, Clare, & Rutter, 1998; Phillips & Brown, 1998; Robertson, Pearson, & Gibb, 1996). Research has consistently shown that many individuals who qualify for this vital safe- guard continue to be interviewed without an AA present (Gudjonsson et al., 1993; Irving & McKenzie, 1989; Justice, 1994; Medford et al., 2000; Robertson et al., 1996). Debate now also centres upon the role and contribution of the AA in the police– suspect interview and when an AA is present, their efficacy in safeguarding the rights and interests of vulnerable suspects (Bucke & Brown, 1997; Hodgson, 1997; Pearse & Gudjonsson, 1996a).

Considerable concern has been voiced about the suitability of persons asked to take on the role of an AA (see, e.g., Pearse & Gudjonsson, 1996b). Typically, custody officers are dependent upon family members to attend the station to assist juveniles, and social workers for the mentally disordered and learning disabled. Family members have been castigated for their hostility towards their children and the police, and social workers for their passivity in the interview (Evans, 1993). AAs remain confused about their role and how to fulfil it (Evans, 1993; Palmer & Hart, 1996). This lack of under- standing is not confined to family members; even some social workers, custody officers, and legal representatives remain ignorant of the primary role of the AA (Bean & Nemitz, 1994). Furthermore, there is anecdotal evidence that even legal representa- tives cannot always be relied upon to protect vulnerable suspects, for they too have been criticized for their quiescence at interview, even when there is a clear need to intervene (Ede & Shepherd, 2000; Gudjonsson, 2003).

The AA and legal representative (LR) have distinct roles in the interview, but there is some overlap (Gudjonsson, 2003). The former has a general duty to protect and assist vulnerable suspects. The latter is concerned with the legal strategy to be employed on behalf of their client and has a duty to uphold and assert the suspect’s legal rights. However, in the absence of an AA, or lack of intervention by one present, the LR would be expected to take on the more general AA role.

254 Sarah Medford et al.

Only two studies have examined the actual contribution made by the AA at the police–suspect interview. The first study, carried out by Evans (1993), concerned 160 interviews of juveniles at which an AA or social worker was present. Evans (1993) found that AAs (not including social workers) tended to be passive observers. In 74.8% of cases, they made no contribution whatsoever, and when they did, they were just as likely to be ‘unsupportive’ (50.4%) as ‘supportive’ (49.6%) of the juvenile suspects. In the 29 (18%) interviews where a social worker was present, only one intervened, and in 18 of these, the police used persuasive tactics to obtain a confession. Similarly, in 18 (11%) interviews in which a LR was present, only one intervened, and the officers used persuasive tactics in half (N=9) of these interviews.

The second study, conducted by Pearse (1997), examined seven interviews of adults in serious cases with an AA present. In three of these interviews, the AA (a relative) intervened inappropriately. In two of these, the AA offered alibi evidence to strengthen the suspect’s account. In the final case, it was prompting by the AA that led to the suspect, who was initially reluctant to participate or answer the officer’s questions, finally admitting responsibility for the offences in question. In one further interview, the conversation between the suspect and the officer degenerated into a ‘shouting match’, and neither the AA nor the LR intervened.

The majority of the research has relied upon interviews or conversations with the key agencies involved in the criminal justice process (e.g. police officers, legal repre- sentatives, social workers), or upon the AAs’ self-report of their participation. Thus for the most part, the research is anecdotal, and therefore does not allow for systematic analysis of the contribution of the AA during the interview.

The primary aim of the current study was to examine the efficacy of the AA safe- guard for vulnerable suspects during the police interview. We examined the audiotaped interviews of vulnerable suspects, and analysed: (a) the contribution (or lack of contribution) made by the AA; (b) the extent to which they fulfilled their role; (c) the effect of his/her presence on other persons; and (d) the interview outcome. On the basis of previous research, it is hypothesized that AAs will contribute little directly during interviews. However, the mere presence of the AA may affect the behaviour of the police and LR and therefore provide a safeguard in terms of greater fairness. There is some evidence from a survey carried out among different professional groups in the criminal justice process (i.e. doctors, lawyers, police officers) that the presence of an AA does offer a significant protection to suspects in cases of mental disorder (Gudjonsson, Hayes, & Rowland, 2000).

Method

Participants In a previous study, we analysed 23,321 custody records of adults and identified 1,008 (4.3%) psychologically vulnerable suspects (i.e. where there was a reference in the custody record of literacy problems, learning disability, or mental-health problems) and 3,514 juvenile suspects (Medford et al., 2000). Of these, 472 (47%) adults and 2,295 (65%) juveniles were interviewed on tape by the police regarding an alleged criminal offence. For the purposes of the present study, a random sample of 240 (approxi- mately 10%) juveniles was selected. A request for the copies of the audiotaped inter- views of the 712 vulnerable suspects (472 adults and 240 juveniles) was made to the Metropolitan Police. The researchers were granted access to copies of 501 (70%)

Appropriate adult safeguard 255

interviews. The remaining interviews were non-traceable within the police record- keeping system (N=211, 30%).

Coding frame The interviews were analysed according to a specially constructed coding frame in- formed by previous relevant research in the field (Clarke & Milne, 2001; Pearse & Gudjonsson, 1999, 2003). The revised coding frame provided for a thorough analysis of the contributions of persons present, an assessment of the officers’ performance on a 5-point scale from 0 (‘not at all’) to 4 (‘very much’) on a number of dimensions, and also allowed scrutiny of the complex social interactions between the parties (a copy of the coding frame is available upon request). Specifically, it investigated the contribu- tion of the AA and LR with reference to the appropriateness of actual and potential interventions made and not made, and the extent to which they fulfilled their respec- tive roles as envisaged in PACE. Each utterance by the AA and LR, and missed oppor- tunity to intervene, were recorded and classified according to appropriateness and intended effect or purpose. An utterance was deemed appropriate if it was in accord- ance with the role of the person making it and purposeful, and inappropriate if it was beyond the role of the person making it, or was purposeless or obstructive. Lack of intervention, or non-intervention, referred to a situation where an intervention by the AA or LR was required, but none was made. For example, AAs would be expected to intervene if there were any doubts as to the suspect’s understanding of question(s) posed by officer(s); or officers constantly interrupted, or were leading the suspect; or if the suspect appeared distressed. The LR would be expected to intervene, for example, to provide legal advice to the suspect, and if officer(s) questioned the suspect about matters unrelated to the offence for which he or she had been arrested.

The frequency and intensity of interview tactics adopted by the investigating officer(s) and their interview skills and competence in interviewing were measured in accordance with the PEACE model (Clarke & Milne, 2001). The PEACE model has five main components (‘preparation and planning’, ‘engage and explain’, ‘account’, ‘closure’, and ‘evaluate’). These have been fully described elsewhere (e.g. Bull, 1999; Clark & Milne, 2001; Ord & Shaw, 1999; Williamson, 1993). For the purposes of the present study, and in accordance with the framework of PEACE, ‘account’ was separated into suspects being freely allowed to give their version of events without interruptions (‘allows account’) and officers testing the account with fairness and integrity (‘tests account’). The criterion ‘evaluate’ could not be determined from data derived from the tapes of interviews, because it relates to how the interview process and outcome is subsequently applied to the case (Williamson, 1994). Specifically, we were interested in interview tactics that, with prolonged frequency and intensity, could render an interview unfair or coercive, e.g. officer(s) constantly interrupting the suspect or challenging his account with the implication that the suspects’ account is untrue.

The suspect’s response to allegation(s) put to him or her was termed interview outcome (i.e. self-incriminating admissions or confessions, versus denial, including having no memory of the offence due to the influence of drugs, alcohol or mental state at the time, and refusing to answer some, or all, of the officer’s questions).

Procedure The tapes were listened to in the first instance to glean a general sense of the exchanges taking place. Thereafter, repeated examination allowed for coding of the

256 Sarah Medford et al.

individual contributions and an assessment of the performance of the individuals present. Although a few cases were examined on only two occasions, complete analy- sis required, on average, three or four examinations. In a few instances, it was neces- sary to listen to the audiotaped interviews five, six, or more times. The number of repeated examinations related to the complexity of the social interactions and the interpersonal dynamics occurring within the interview room.

Results

Characteristics of the suspects Of the 501 interviews available for analysis, 365 (73%) were with adult suspects and 136 (27%) with juveniles. An AA was present in 347 (69%) interviews. This involved 212 (58%) adult and 135 (99%) juvenile interviews.

The age, sex, ethnic background, and vulnerability of each suspect were recorded, where known. The majority of adult suspects were male (82%), white (75%) and psychologically vulnerable (67%), and their mean age was 31 years (SD 11.1, range 17–77). The types of psychological vulnerabilities identified were disturbed mental state (51%), having literacy problems (17%), psychiatric history (16%), and learning disabilities (6%). In a further 10% of cases, there was a reference in the custody record that the suspect required an AA, but the nature of the psychological problem was not specified.

Detail of the juveniles’ ethnic background was not available. The age of the juvenile was only recorded when specifically referred to in interview. The juvenile’s age was known in 70 (51%) cases, and for these, the mean age was 14.7 (SD 1.4, range 11–16). As with adult suspects, the majority of juveniles (79%) were male.

Characteristics of the police interviews The key characteristics of the interview, including length, number of officers present, status of the AA, and the presence of a LR, were recorded. A summary of the relevant information is presented in Table 1.

One-way ANOVA revealed no significant difference between the three groups with regard to interview length. Almost four in five interviews (N=394, 79%) were con- ducted in the presence of two officers, the majority of whom were male (N=739, 83%) and a police constable (N=629, 70%). Juveniles were significantly more likely to be interviewed in the presence of a ‘lay’ AA (i.e. a family member or friend), and adult suspects in the presence of a ‘professional’ AA, such as a social worker or trained volunteer ( 2=84.0, df=1, p<.001). In 79% (N=273) of interviews, the AA was informed of their role; however, in 21% (N=74), this information was not relayed. Lay and professional AAs were equally likely to be informed of their role. The majority of suspects (N=494, 99%) were cautioned at the beginning of the interview, and in 85% (N=427) of interviews, the suspect’s understanding of the caution was assessed, typically by the officer merely asking the suspect if they had understood it.

More than one half of suspects (N=270, 54%) exercised their right to have legal representation at interview. There was a statistically significant difference between the three groups of suspects ( 2=25.4, df=2, p<.001), with adults, with and without an AA, exercising this right more often than juveniles. In 36% (N=178) of interviews, the

Appropriate adult safeguard 257

suspect was not informed on tape of their legal rights, and in 20 (11%) of these, there was no LR present.

The efficacy of the AA safeguard Overall, AAs made more than four times as many appropriate interventions (M=5.7, SD=5.8), than inappropriate ones (M=1.4, SD=4.4). AAs contributed most often to satisfy the legal and procedural formalities of the interview: confirming that they understood their role, that the tapes were unsealed in their presence, and countersign- ing the relevant documentation, such as the arrest officer’s notes and master tape seals (M=3.2, SD=2.5). Thereafter, and in descending order of frequency, the AAs contrib- uted to facilitate communication (M=1.1, SD=2.3), ensured that the interview was being conducted properly and fairly (M=0.8, SD=1.9), advised the suspect (M=0.4, SD=1.1), and protected the suspect’s welfare (M=0.2, SD=0.9).

Interventions to facilitate communication and further understanding between the suspect and police included ensuring that the suspect understood the officer’s ques- tion and that the officer correctly interpreted the suspect’s reply. In relation to the propriety and fairness of the interview, the AAs intervened to ensure that the officer allowed the suspect an opportunity to provide an unhurried and uninterrupted account, and tested that account fairly, with integrity, and with reference to what was already known. Less commonly, AAs intervened to offer advice to the suspect, both solicited and unsolicited. For example, advising the suspect of the pro- cedures to be followed, their right to legal advice, and not to answer questions or sign any documentation if there were aspects with which they did not agree. The least common appropriate interventions were those to protect the suspect’s welfare (e.g. enquiries into the suspect’s physical and mental state and ability/willingness to continue, and/or requesting a break to obtain further medical opinion or allow time for the suspect to regain composure).

Table 1. Characteristics of the police interviews

Adults and AA (N=212)

Adults no AA (N=153)

Juveniles (N=136)

Interview length (hr:min:s) M 0:20:04 0:20:55 0:17:17 SD 13:32 17:45 12:00 Range 2:42–1:31:31 2:20–1:34:11 1:32–1:25:33

Number of officers One 47 (22%) 24 (16%) 36 (26.5%) Two 165 (78%) 129 (84%) 100 (73.5%)

AA statusa

Lay 61 (29%) – 106 (78%) Professional 147 (69%) 26 (19%)

Legal representative Yes 139 (66%) 79 (52%) 52 (38%) No 73 (34%) 74 (48%) 84 (62%)

aExcludes seven AAs whose status was not known.

258 Sarah Medford et al.

There were three categories of inappropriate behaviour by the AA, and they occurred with almost equal frequency. First were interventions characterized as answering questions on behalf of the suspect, such as introducing new and additional information, both in support of and incriminating the suspect, or providing an account in the absence of a response from the suspect (M=0.5, SD=1.9). Second were inter- ventions suggesting that the AA was adopting the role of the investigating officer, such as echoing the officer’s questions (other than to clarify their meaning), or putting new interrogative questions to the suspect, challenging the suspect’s account, or insisting on the truth (M=0.4, SD=2.0). Third were interventions that were obstructive or purposeless, not directed at any particular person, out of context, or unhelpful (M=0.5, SD=1.8).

The most frequently occurring non-interventions were those to ensure that the interview was proper and fair (M=1.0, SD=1.0). Specifically, AAs failed to intervene in the following ways: to prompt the officer to advise suspects of their legal rights or the police caution when that officer had failed to do so; to prompt the officer to test the suspects’ understanding of the same where no attempt to was made; and lastly to challenge the propriety and fairness of the officer’s interview tactics (e.g. in situations where the officer did not allow the suspect an uninterrupted or unhurried account, or challenged the suspect’s account without fairness and integrity).

The contributions of lay and professional AAs in adult and juvenile interviews were examined and are shown in Table 2. A 2×2 between-groups multivariate ANOVA was performed to investigate the respective contribution of lay and professional AAs in adult and juvenile interviews. Separate analyses were performed for each of the three dependent variables (appropriate, inappropriate, non-intervention). There were stat- istically significant differences between lay and professional AAs in terms of appropri- ate, F(1, 335)=14.7, p<.001, and inappropriate, F(1, 225)=20.4, p<.001, interventions, and adults and juveniles in relation to non-interventions, F(1, 335)=15.0, p<.001, using a Bonferroni-adjusted level of .017. The lay AAs made significantly more appropriate and inappropriate contributions than professional AAs, but not with regard to non- interventions. However, AAs, irrespective of status, failed to intervene more often in adult than juvenile interviews.

Table 2. Appropriateness of interventions made by lay and professional AAs in adult and juvenile interviews

Adults Juveniles

Lay (N=61)

Professional (N=146)

Lay (N=106)

Professional (N=26)

M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD)

Appropriate 6.6 (6.1) 4.3 (3.8) 7.6 (7.5) 4.2 (2.5) Inappropriate 2.6 (4.2) 0.1 (0.6) 2.8 (6.8) 0.1 (0.3) Non-intervention 1.3 (1.4) 1.1 (1.0) 0.8 (0.5) 0.8 (0.8)

Appropriate adult safeguard 259

Is the presence of an AA associated with the dynamics of the interview or interview outcome? Further analysis examined the effect of the presence and absence of an AA in adult and juvenile interviews on the interview outcome, interview competence, and use of tactics by the interviewing officer(s), and the contribution of the LR.

Interview outcome Overall, 60% (N=301) of suspects made self-incriminating admissions, including full confessions, in response to allegations put to them at interview. Juveniles were statisti- cally no more likely to make admissions (N=87, 64%) than adult suspects with an AA (N=124, 58%). The presence of an AA had no significant effect on the rate of admis- sions. However, suspects were significantly more likely to make admissions in the absence of a LR (N=168, 73%) than in their presence (N=133, 50%) ( 2=28.6, df=1, p<.001).

Officers’ use of interrogation tactics and interview competence The interrogative tactics adopted by the interviewing officer(s) were examined, and the most frequently employed tactics are summarized in Table 3. These were: (a) leading questions (i.e. questions contaminated by the interviewer’s assumptions); (b) interruptions mid-sentence; (c) challenges to the suspect’s account with reference to what is already known (e.g. contradictions and inconsistencies in the suspect’s account, or with the account of a co-defendant, victim or witness, or other available evidence); and (d) challenges to the suspect’s account as unbelievable, implausible, or a lie, without reference to available evidence.

One-way ANOVAs were performed on the mean scores. Significant differences emerged between the three groups with regard to interruptions and the two types of challenges to the account, as well as the total number of tactics used. The statistical results are as follows: interruptions: F(2, 495)=3.9, p<.05; Scheffé test: significant differences between adults without an AA and juveniles (p<.05); challenges to the suspect’s account with reference to what was known: F(2, 496)=7.0, p<.001; Scheffé test: significant differences between adults with and adults without an AA (p<.001); challenges to account as unbelieveable or a lie without reference to what was known: F(2, 496)=7.0, p<.001; Scheffé test: significant differences between adults with, and adults without, an AA (p<.001); and total number of tactics employed by

Table 3. Most commonly occurring interview tactics

Adults and AA (N=212)

Adults no AA (N=153)

Juveniles (N=136)

M (SD) M (SD) M (SD)

Leading questions 2.7 (2.8) 2.9 (3.5) 2.6 (3.0) Interruptions 2.1 (4.1) 3.0 (6.1) 1.5 (3.4) Challenges to account 3.9 (5.4) 6.8 (9.5) 5.5 (7.5) Challenges to account as unbelievable/a lie 0.9 (2.1) 2.1 (3.7) 1.6 (3.2) Total tactics 10.6 (10.1) 15.9 (18.5) 11.6 (13.4)

260 Sarah Medford et al.

police: F(2, 495)=6.6, p<.01. Scheffé test: significant differences between adults with, and adults without, an AA (p<.01) and juveniles and adults without an AA (p<.05).

The officers’ competence on a number of dimensions related to the PEACE model of police interviewing was rated on a 5-point scale from 0 (‘not at all’) to 4 (‘very much’). A summary of the scores is provided in Table 4. One-way ANOVAs were performed on the mean scores. Significant differences emerged between the three groups with regard to ‘preparation and planning’, ‘engage and explain’, ‘allows account’ and ‘tests account’. The statistical results are as follows: preparation and planning: F(2, 487)=7.5, p<.001; Scheffé test: significant differences between juveniles and adults with (p<.001) and without (p<.05) an AA; engage and explain: F(2, 493)=5.3, p<.01; Scheffé test: significant differences between adults with an AA and juveniles (p<.01); allows account: F(2, 488)=13.6, p<.001; Scheffé test: significant differences between juveniles and adults with (p<.001) and without (p<.05) an AA, and tests account: F(2, 487)=11.2, p<.001; Scheffé test: significant differences between adults with and without an AA (p<.05), and adults with an AA and juveniles (p<.001).

Contribution of the legal representative Interventions by the LR were categorized according to their appropriateness, and comparisons were made between the three suspect groups. Interventions by the LR to advise the suspect of his legal rights were categorized as appropriate; ‘heated’ argu- ments with officers were regarded as inappropriate and failures to intervene included officer(s) asking the suspect questions about matters for which the suspect was not arrested. A summary is provided in Table 5.

There was no significant difference between the three suspect groups in terms of appropriate (M=5.9, SD=5.3) or inappropriate interventions (M=0.1, SD=0.5) by the LR, and indeed inappropriate interventions were rare. Legal representatives failed to intervene significantly more often in adult interviews with no AA than in those with an AA, both adult and juvenile, F(2, 265)=66.8, p<.001. The Scheffé test revealed signifi- cant differences between adults with and without an AA (p<.001), and juveniles and adults without AA (p<.001) in this regard. This finding means that where there is an AA, in both adult and juvenile interviews, the LR was less likely to fail to intervene in circumstances where an intervention was appropriate. The most common failure to intervene was to ensure that the interview was conducted properly and fairly, e.g. when the officer(s) constantly interrupted the suspect or failed to allow them to give their unhurried account.

Table 4. Officer competence according to the PEACE model of interviewing

Adults and AA (N=208)

Adults no AA (N=147)

Juveniles (N=135)

M (SD) M (SD) M (SD)

Preparation and planning 2.0 (1.0) 1.9 (1.0) 1.6 (0.9) Engage and explain 2.2 (0.9) 2.1 (0.8) 1.9 (1.0) Allows account 2.8 (0.9) 2.6 (1.0) 2.3 (0.9) Tests account 2.4 (1.0) 2.1 (1.0) 1.9 (0.9) Closure 2.2 (0.9) 2.1 (0.8) 2.1 (0.9)

Appropriate adult safeguard 261

A 2×2 between-groups multivariate ANOVA was performed to investigate the re- spective influence of lay and professional AAs on the behaviour of legal representatives in adult and juvenile interviews (the adult group without an AA was excluded from this analysis). There were no statistically significant differences in terms of appropriate, inappropriate, and non-interventions according to whether the AA was a lay or a professional person.

The effect of the presence of a LR and the contribution of the AA was evaluated by independent samples t-tests. AAs were significantly more verbally active when no LR was present (N=156), both appropriately (M=6.9, SD=6.5; t=3.6, df=280.9, p<.001) and inappropriately (M=2.2, SD=5.8; t=3.0, df=201.2, p<.01), than when one was present (N=191; M=4.7, SD=4.9 and M=0.7, SD=2.5, respectively).

Discussion The findings demonstrate the complexity of the interactions taking place within the police interview between the different participants: police, suspect, LR, and AA. The most significant finding to emerge is that while the direct contribution of the AA in terms of what they say and do is quite limited, their presence during the interview appears to have a decisive effect on the behaviour of the police and the LR. Officers adopted a more considered and fair approach to interviewing, and the presence of an AA significantly increased the likelihood of a LR being present in an adult interview, and also that the LR was less likely to fail to intervene in situations where an interven- tion was required to ensure the fairness of the interview. Thus the mere presence of an AA provides an additional safeguard for vulnerable suspects. That AAs interact very little in interview, and at times inappropriately, attests to the need for more explicit guidelines as to their role and purpose in interview.

There is some indication from the findings that in the presence of a LR, an AA may be more inclined to relinquish their obligation to protect and assist vulnerable sus- pects, perhaps under the assumption that the LR will fulfil this role. This may demon- strate the extent to which legal representatives and AAs have overlapping roles (Gudjonsson, 2003). Perhaps the most important contribution of having an AA present at a police interview is that in cases of adults, it significantly increases the likelihood that a LR will be present. The fact that this does not happen in juvenile interviews requires an explanation and further research.

Police officers have a legal obligation to inform AAs of their role at the beginning of the interview and on tape. This did not always happen, contrary to the PACE Codes

Table 5. Appropriateness of interventions made by the legal representative in adult and juvenile interviews

Adults and AA (N=139)

Adults no AA (N=79)

Juveniles (N=52)

M (SD) M (SD) M (SD)

Appropriate 6.5 (6.1) 5.4 (4.7) 4.8 (3.7) Inappropriate 0.1 (0.4) 0.2 (0.6) 0.0 (0.2) Non-intervention 0.0 (0.2) 0.9 (1.0) 0.0 (0.2)

262 Sarah Medford et al.

(Home Office, 1995). Similarly, suspects must be cautioned on tape prior to question- ing, and this almost always happened. However, after reading out the caution, police officers commonly asked suspects if they understood what the caution meant, but they rarely tested the suspects’ understanding of the same. Importantly, merely asking suspects if they understand the caution that has been read out to them is an unreliable way of establishing their true understanding of the caution (Fenner, Gudjonsson, & Clare, 2002).

With the increased complexity of the police caution following the amendments to the right of silence, there is a greater need for the presence of LRs in police interviews whether these are with adults or juveniles (Gudjonsson, 1994). In the present study, suspects were significantly more likely to make admissions when no LR was present, which is consistent with previous findings (Gudjonsson, 2003). Where there is a failure to ensure the presence of an AA in interviews with psychologically vulnerable sus- pects, especially where no solicitor is present, the police interview may be ruled inadmissible at trial (Gudjonsson, 2003). Conversely, in cases where AAs act inappro- priately or fail to fulfil one or more of their roles, the presence of an unsuitable AA may legitimate the interview process and outcome, and even ‘bestow a degree of respecta- bility on a false confession leading to a miscarriage of justice’ (Pearse & Gudjonsson, 1996a, p. 104).

Officers interviewing adult suspects without an AA were significantly more likely to challenge the suspect’s account with reference to what was known and what was not, and they also interrupted the suspect more often when giving their version of events. With regard to interruptions, the significant difference emerged between juveniles and adults without an AA, with the latter being interrupted more often. With regard to the two types of challenges, the significant differences were between adult suspects with and without an AA, with the suspects’ account being challenged more often when no AA was present. For the total number of tactics employed, significant differences emerged between all three groups, with the largest number of tactics being employed with adults with no AA, followed by juveniles, and then adults with an AA. One possible explanation for these findings is that the presence of an AA draws the atten- tion of the police to the potential vulnerabilities of the suspect and they therefore employ a more cautious interviewing strategy.

Officers interviewing adult suspects with an AA scored most highly on all dimen- sions of interview competence, apart from ‘closure’ (i.e. bringing the interview to a proper conclusion and addressing the necessary legal formalities). Therefore, when interviewing adults with an AA, officers were more likely to (a) demonstrate greater cognizance of the details of the investigation (e.g. knowledge of the suspect, offence, circumstances of arrest, victim and witness statements, and available evidence); (b) explain the legal and procedural formalities clearly (i.e. stating the purpose of the interview and attempting to establish rapport); (c) allow the suspect to provide an uninterrupted and unhurried account; and (d) test the suspect’s account with integrity and with reference to what was already known. Officers achieved the lowest ratings on these four dimensions in interviews with juvenile suspects. This relative absence of interviewing competence with juveniles, combined with the greater absence of a legal representative in juvenile interviews, is a worrying trend that needs further investigation and action.

There are three main limitations of the present study. Firstly, participants were not randomly assigned to groups and therefore there may be a number of confounding variables that were not controlled for in this study. This could have influenced some of

Appropriate adult safeguard 263

the salient findings. Secondly, we do not know the reliability and validity of the comments in the custody records of psychological vulnerabilities, and on what basis an AA was or was not called to be present at the interview. Thirdly, the coding frame was adapted from a previous study where it had been checked for inter-rater reliability; however, in its present form it was used by only one researcher.

This is the first study that has examined in detail the contribution that the AA makes to the police–suspect interview process. The study adds greatly to the two earlier studies of Evans (1993) that involved only juvenile suspects, and where the con- tribution of the AA was only examined in terms of a limited number of variables, and Pearse (1997), whose sample size was very small. This study has gone further and examined the effect of the presence of an AA on other persons present at the interview and interview outcome.

The study has a number of implications for practice. Firstly, many vulnerable adult suspects did not have an AA. There is a need for custody officers to receive training in the identification of psychological vulnerability and, when alerted to the possibility of mental disorder or learning disability, be more active in obtaining an AA.

Secondly, the study has highlighted the limitations of the AA, especially in terms of their relative inactivity and inappropriate contributions. Further research is required into the development of a user-friendly leaflet for AAs similar to the ‘Notice to detained persons’ for suspects. This leaflet would comprise standard instructions and guidance and spell out explicitly the role of the AA, in order to encourage more active constructive participation, and less obstructive interventions.

Thirdly, the research has developed a useful framework to assess the contri- butions of persons present at the police interview; the methodology could be applied to more serious criminal cases, such as murder and sexual offences, where there are likely to be greater demands placed on the suspect, in terms of both the duration of the interview and the tactics employed, and the AA, whose role is likely to be more onerous.

Fourthly, the findings demonstrate the complexity of the social interactions and interpersonal dynamics between persons present during the police–suspect interview. Further research needs to be conducted to establish the nature of the interactions and the unique contribution of the different participants in the interview.

Fifthly, it was not always evident whether the suspect understood their legal rights, and in a minority of cases, the suspect was not informed of these rights. We recommend that police officers and legal representatives should be more active in testing the suspect’s understanding of their rights prior to the commencement of interview and that these be explained in more simple terms (see Fenner, Gudjonsson, & Clare, 2002).

Finally, the finding that police demonstrated less competence in interviews with juveniles than with adults has implications for police training and requires further research.

Acknowledgements This project was funded by a grant from The Nuffield Foundation. We also acknowledge the generous support of the Metropolitan Police Service.

References Bean, P., & Nemitz, T. (1994). Out of depth and out of sight. London: MENCAP. Brown, D. (1989). Detention at the police station under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act

1984. Home Office Research Study No. 104. London: HMSO.

264 Sarah Medford et al.

Brown, D., Ellis, T., & Larcombe, K. (1992). Changing the code: Police detention under the revised PACE codes of practice. London: HMSO.

Bucke, T., & Brown, D. (1997). In police custody: Police powers and suspects’ rights under the revised PACE codes of practice. London: Home Office.

Bull, R. (1999). Police investigative interviewing. In A. Memon & R. Bull (Eds.), Handbook of the psychology of interviewing (pp. 279–292). Chichester: Wiley.

Clarke, C., & Milne, R. (2001). National evaluation of the PEACE investigative interviewing course: Police research award scheme. Report No. PRAS/149. Institute of Criminal Justice Studies, University of Portsmouth.

Ede, R., & Shepherd, E. (2000). Active defence: A lawyer’s guide to police and defence investi- gation and prosecution and defence disclosure in criminal cases. London: Law Society.

Evans, R. (1993). The conduct of police interviews with juveniles. Royal Commission on Criminal Justice Research Report No. 8. London: HMSO.

Fenner, S., Gudjonsson, G. H., & Clare, I. C. H. (2002). Understanding of the current police caution (England & Wales) among suspects in police detention. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 12, 83–93.

Gudjonsson, G. H. (1994). Psychological vulnerability: Suspects at risk. In D. Morgan & G. Stephenson (Eds.), Suspicion and silence: The right to silence in criminal investigation (pp. 91–106). London: Blackstone Press.

Gudjonsson, G. H. (2003). The psychology of interrogations and confessions: A handbook. Chichester: Wiley.

Gudjonsson, G. H., Clare, I., Rutter, S., & Pearse, J. (1993). Persons at risk during interviews in police custody: The identification of vulnerabilities. Research Study No 12. The Royal Commission on Criminal Justice. London: HMSO.

Gudjonsson, G. H., Hayes, G. D., & Rowlands, P. (2000). Fitness to be interviewed and psycho- logical vulnerability during police detention. A survey of the views of doctors, lawyers and police officers. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry, 11, 4–92.

Hodgson, J. (1997). Vulnerable suspects and the Appropriate adult. Criminal Law Review, 763–844.

Home Office (1985). Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. London: HMSO. Home Office (1995). Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984: Codes of practice, rev. ed.

London: HMSO. Irving, B., & McKenzie, I. K. (1989). Police interrogation: The effects of the Police and Criminal

Evidence Act. London: Police Foundation of Great Britain. Justice (1994). Unreliable evidence? Confessions and the safety of convictions. London:

Justice. Keyes, S., Scott, S., & Truman, T. (1998). People with mental health problems in contact with

the criminal justice system: A service mapping project in Camden & Islington. London: Revolving Door Agency.

Medford, S., Gudjonsson, G. H., & Pearse, J. (2000). The identification of persons at risk in police custody. The use of appropriate adults by the Metropolitan Police. London: Institute of Psychiatry and Metropolitan Police.

Nemitz, T., & Bean, P. (1994). The use of the appropriate adult scheme: A preliminary report. Medicine, Science and the Law, 34, 161–166.

Ord, B., & Shaw, G. (1999). Investigative interviewing explained. The operational guide to practical interviewing skills. Goole: The New Police Bookshop.

Palmer, C., & Hart, M. (1996). A PACE in the right direction? The effectiveness of safeguards in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 for mentally disordered and mentally handi- capped suspects: A south Yorkshire study. Sheffield: Institute for the Study of the Legal Profession.

Pearse, J. J. (1997). Police interviewing: An examination of some of the psychological, inter- rogative and background factors that are associated with a suspect’s confession. Unpub- lished Ph.D. thesis, University of London.

Appropriate adult safeguard 265

Pearse, J., & Gudjonsson, G. H. (1996a). Understanding the problems of the appropriate adult. Expert Evidence, 4, 101–104.

Pearse, J., & Gudjonsson, G. H. (1996b). How appropriate are appropriate adults? Journal of Forensic Psychiatry, 7, 570–580.

Pearse, J., & Gudjonsson, G. H. (1999). Measuring influential police interviewing tactics: A factor analytic approach. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 4, 221–238.

Pearse, J., & Gudjonsson, G. H. (2003). The identification and measurement of ‘oppressive’ police interviewing tactics in Britain. In G. H. Gudjonsson (Ed.), The psychology of interro- gations and confessions (pp. 75–114). Chichester: Wiley.

Pearse, J., Gudjonsson, G. H., Clare, I. C. H., & Rutter, S. (1998). Police interviewing and psychological vulnerabilities: Predicting the likelihood of a confession. Journal of Commu- nity and Applied Social Psychology, 8(1), 1–21.

Phillips, C., & Brown, D. (1998). Entry into the criminal justice system: A survey of police arrests and their outcomes. Home Office research study 185. London: Home Office.

Robertson, G., Pearson, R., & Gibb, R. (1996). Police interviewing and the use of appropriate adults. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry, 7, 297–309.

Williamson, T. M. (1993). From interrogation to investigative interviewing: Strategic trends in the police questioning. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 3, 89–99.

Williamson, T. M. (1994). Reflections on current police practice. In D. Morgan & G. Stephenson (Eds.), Suspicion and silence: The rights of silence in criminal investigations (pp. 107– 116). London: Blackstone Press.

266 Sarah Medford et al.