Interrogations-and-Confessions-Handbook

330 A Psychology of Interrogations and Confessions
defence solicitor is seeking evidence that the defendant possesses some psychological
vulnerability, such as a significant intellectual impairment or high
suggestibility, in order to persuade a trial judge to rule the confession inadmissible.
Such cases present a dilemma for psychologists, because they are at
risk of colluding with the defendant being acquitted on the basis of technicality.
This raises a number of ethical and professional issues (Gudjonsson, 1994b;
Gudjonsson & Haward, 1998). My approach to these cases is to ensure that
the evaluation is not so narrowly focused that there is a risk of the court being
misled by the psychological evidence. If the defendant is openly admitting the
offence to the expert then this should be mentioned in the report (Gudjonsson,
1994b). I have come across a number of cases where experts, on the basis of test
scores alone, conclude that the confession is unreliable, even when the defendant
is fully admitting the offence to his solicitor and the psychologist, but they
fail to mention this latter fact in their report. Expert witnesses should always
include in the report everything that is relevant and pertinent to the issues
being assessed, irrespective of whether or not it is favourable to the side which
commissioned them.
Gudjonsson and MacKeith (1997) raise concern about the potential abuse of
psychological and psychiatric evidence:
In the UK there is growing reliance in the Courts on the use of expert testimony.
This includes cases of disputed confessions. What needs to be considered is the
extent to which this is beneficial to the administration of justice. One side of the
argument, which is fashionable at present, is that expert psychological and psychiatric
evidence provides the Courts with information which helps them reach
informed decisions and prevents wrongful convictions. This is often a valid argument.
The contrary argument is that reliance on expert evidence now places
too much emphasis on the importance of psychological vulnerabilities and mental
disorder. In other words, there is a temptation for the defence in the current climate
to attempt to discover some kinds of psychological vulnerabilities and then
over-generalize from the limited findings in order to provide a defence argument.
This may result in a number of guilty defendants being acquitted by the Courts,
who otherwise would have been properly convicted (pp. 17–18).
CONCLUSIONS
This Chapter provides a conceptual framework for psychologists who are instructed
to conduct an assessment on the reliability of testimony. There are a
number of different areas that may need to be included, depending on the
individual case. Each case needs to be assessed on its own merit, because
there are invariably different problems and issues that need to be considered.
Some cases are very complicated and require extensive interviewing, testing
and reviewing of documents. The psychologist should whenever possible carry
out a comprehensive assessment so that any vulnerabilities or potentials that
could be relevant to the case are identified. The psychological findings will
generally need to be interpreted within the total circumstances of the case. The
most difficult cases are typically those where the psychologist is asked to testify