Interrogations-and-Confessions-Handbook

280 A Psychology of Interrogations and Confessions
was a person with a learning disability, but in spite of this I found no evidence
to indicate that he was unusually suggestible and vulnerable to interpersonal
pressure. Indeed, considering his learning disability, he seemed overall less
suggestible than most persons with learning disabilities whom I had tested in
similar circumstances.
During Mr G’s trial I gave evidence twice in rebuttal of the defence experts,
first during the voire dire and again in front of the jury. On both occasions I
was asked to comment on the tests I had used and on the interviewing technique
used by the police. The defence had assumed Mr G was suggestible and
susceptible to erroneous evidence because of his learning disability. My evidence
showed that, in spite of learning disability, he appeared well able to cope
with interrogative pressure. Furthermore, in my view, the police had carefully
interviewed Mr G with the minimum number of leading questions.
The judge, at Maidstone Crown Court, allowed Mr G’s confession to go before
the jury who convicted him of manslaughter on the grounds of diminished
responsibility.
Mr S
Confession evidence can be excluded on the basis of police misconduct or because
of idiosyncratic vulnerability (e.g. low IQ, high suggestibility), or a combination
of both. Even when no misconduct has taken place, the inadvertent use of the
wrong words or phrases by the police may be sufficient to have the confession
excluded. The following case illustrates the point.
Mr S was a 37-year-old man of average intelligence. He was charged with
gross indecency concerning his teenage daughter. I assessed the man psychologically,
but there were no specific vulnerabilities that were likely to assist the
defence. However, the contemporaneous record of the police interview revealed
a conversation which supported inadmissibility according to Section 76(2)(b).
The relevant record was as follows.
Q. ‘Did you touch her private parts whilst she was in bed?’
A. ‘As a deliberate movement no.’
Q. ‘Did you take her into your bedroom whilst your wife was out working during
the evening?’
A. ‘I did not take her into the bedroom.’
Q. ‘Tell me what happened.’
A. ‘You are asking me to say something I don’t want to.’
Q. ‘You’ve got to, let’s clear the air and get it over and done with.’
A. ‘It just disgusts me.’ (The suspect then went on to describe in great detail what
is alleged to have happened.)
The judge in this case, in Lewes Crown Court, ruled the confession inadmissible,
because of the words used by the police officer. From the police point of view
the remark may have been quite innocent and spontaneous, but it had serious
consequences with regard to the exclusion of a detailed self-incriminating confession
from being heard from the jury. Mr S was acquitted by the jury after it
heard the evidence of the daughter.