Interrogations-and-Confessions-Handbook

The English Law on Confessions 279
personality testing showed them to be exceptionally resistant to interrogative
pressure. The defence would place emphasis on the low IQ with regard to the
defendant’s disputed confession, but the prosecution may use the personality
findings (e.g. low suggestibility) to argue that in spite of low intellectual abilities
the defendant is able to stand up to interrogation. Two cases illustrate this
point. The third case shows that even if there is no evidence of deliberate police
malpractice or internal vulnerability the confession may still be excluded on
simply the basis of the words used by the police.
Mr F
Mr F was a 27-year-old man who was charged with armed robbery. He had
several previous convictions for similar offences. The psychological assessment
revealed that Mr F was of borderline intelligence (Full Scale IQ of 74), but he
did not prove to be unduly suggestible or compliant on testing. A copy of my
report was given to the prosecution before I gave my evidence at the Central
Criminal Court during a voire dire. The judge stated in court that he would
allow my evidence during this part of the proceedings but he might not if the
confession went before the jury. During my evidence the defence concentrated
on Mr F’s borderline IQ and how that could have disadvantaged him during
interrogation. In rebuttal, the prosecution noticed the reference in my report
to the modest suggestibility and compliance scores and used it to support their
argument that Mr F was well able to cope with the interrogation that resulted
in his confession. The judge allowed the confession to go before the jury. Mr F
was convicted and sentenced to prison.
Mr G
Mr G was a 25-year-old man with learning disability. He had been charged
with murdering an elderly lady in her own home, which he had broken into. A
psychiatrist and a psychologist for the defence had assessed him. Mr G had been
interviewed for 45 minutes in the presence of a solicitor and an appropriate
adult. During the interview Mr G made a confession to the murder and to
having set fire to the room in which the woman had been murdered. Mr G
subsequently retracted his confession, claiming that he had been frightened of
the police and that they had put pressure on him to confess. Mr G’s solicitors
had succeeded, during a previous trial for arson, to have his confession excluded
on the basis of his learning disability. The police had then interviewed him
without an appropriate adult. Subsequently, following his arrest on suspicion
of the murder, the police had interviewed him conscientiously and had ensured
that both a solicitor and an appropriate adult were present. Nevertheless, at
Mr G’s trial the defence sought to have the confession excluded. I had assessed
Mr G on behalf of the prosecution. I found him to have an IQ of 60, which
was identical to that found when he had been previously tested by the defence
psychologist. However, Mr G obtained low scores on the GSS 1 and GSS 2,
where he had been tested on two separate occasions. I concluded that Mr G