Interrogations-and-Confessions-Handbook

The English Law on Confessions 261
2. Did the police identify the detainee as vulnerable or ‘at risk’ but fail to
obtain an appropriate adult as required by the Codes of Practice?
3. If the police obtained the services of an appropriate adult, was that person
suitable and had the ability to fulfil the necessary role and functions?
4. Did the person acting in the capacity of an appropriate adult understand
the nature of his or her role?
5. What was the impact or consequence if there was no suitable appropriate
adult when one should have been present?
The special protection afforded to juveniles, and the mentally ill and handicapped,
during custodial interrogation relates to their mandatory access to an
appropriate adult. The person chosen to fulfil this role may be a defendant’s
relative or guardian, or in the case of mentally disordered detainees
. . . someone who has experience of dealing with mentally disordered or mentally
handicapped people but is not a police officer or employed by the police (Home
Office, 1995, p. 27).
In Code C, a distinction is made between juveniles (persons under the age
of 17) and mentally disordered adults in relation to who should ideally act
as an appropriate adult. In the case of juveniles, parents, guardians or social
workers should normally act as an appropriate adult, whereas in the case of
adults, a relative, guardian or a mental health professional is recommended.
In the case of adults, the role of an appropriate adult is usually fulfilled by
social workers and only occasionally by psychologists and psychiatrists. The
requirement for an appropriate adult is that without such a provision these
vulnerable individuals could make confessions which are inherently unreliable.
The basic requirement for acting as an appropriate adult is that the person has
to be over the age of 18 and is not a police officer or employed by the police. In
addition
A solicitor or a lay visitor who is present at the station in that capacity may not
act as an appropriate adult (Home Office, 1995, p. 85).
According to the Codes of Practice, the police should inform the appropriate
adult that he or she is not acting simply as an observer and that
. . . the purposes of his presence are, first, to advise the person being questioned
and to observe whether or not the interview is being conducted properly and fairly,
and secondly, to facilitate communication with the person being interviewed (Home
Office, 1995, p. 76).
However, the role of the appropriate adult as set out in the Codes of Practice is
brief and there are no specific guidelines as to what kind of advice the appropriate
adult should provide, how and when communication should be facilitated
or how the fairness of the interview should be evaluated by the appropriate
adult (Bean & Nemitz, 1994; Hodgson, 1997; Palmer, 1996; Williams, 2000). If
appropriate adults do not fully understand their role, as Hodgson argues, then
they may not act in the best interests of the detainee. Indeed, on occasions