Interrogations-and-Confessions-Handbook

442 A Psychology of Interrogations and Confessions
in a false confession being made. In the cases of Allen and Darvell, it was electrostatic
detection apparatus (ESDA) evidence, which was the crucial evidence,
although in the latter case psychological evidence was important in explaining
to the Court of Appeal the reasons why Wayne Darvell had made a false confession.
In 11 of the cases (Raghip, Ward, Ali, Long, Kane, Evans, Roberts, King,
Hall, Gordon & Fell), the psychological or psychiatric evidence was the most
important fresh evidence that resulted in the conviction being overturned. In
the case of Bentley it was the testimony of a linguistic expert that the Court
of Appeal found most helpful. In some of the remaining cases it was the combination
of psychological and other evidence that contributed to the conviction
being overturned.
The case of Evans is important, because it involved a voluntary confession
of a man who had gradually convinced himself that he had committed a murder
of a young girl he had seen in his sleep. No police coercion was involved.
Psychogenic amnesia was subsequently misdiagnosed by doctors, and helped
to convict Evans. The Court of Appeal accepted that the diagnosis of amnesia
presented at trial was unsound, which implied that the confession was false
and had resulted from a memory distrust syndrome, a condition first described
by Gudjonsson and MacKeith (1982).
The cases of Raghip, Kiszko and King show that defendants’ ability to resist
suggestions in the witness box is sometimes used by the prosecution as
evidence that they are not psychologically vulnerable. This seems an unfair
testing ground in that if the defendant does not demonstrate evidence of suggestibility
or compliance this can be used by the prosecution to undermine
claims of his vulnerability during the police interviews; conversely, if the defendant
is pressured in cross-examination and exhibits signs of suggestibility
or compliance, this may result in self-incrimination, which may or may not be a
true indication of guilt. I have seen a vulnerable defendant being pressured in
the witness box by the prosecution, which resulted in his breaking down in the
witness box and confessing to a murder. He had previously made a confession
to the murder during police interrogation, which had been retracted. Under
these circumstances a conviction seems inevitable, as indeed occurred in his
case. Fifteen years later he is still proclaiming his innocence and is waiting for
his case to be heard in the Court of Appeal in the near future.
The ‘demand characteristics’ and circumstances surrounding custodial interrogation
and giving evidence in court and being cross-examined are not the
same. Both are, of course, often highly stressful activities and require concentration
and the ability to cope with pressure, but there are important differences
and these may tap into different vulnerabilities. First, prior to giving evidence
in court defendants have had time to think about their testimony, discuss it and
prepare with their legal team and rehearse it in their mind. In spite of this they
can, of course, make appalling witnesses and damage their own defence. Problems
sometimes arise in court when defendants have little insight into their
problems and make the mistake of appearing defensive, evasive, deceptive or
arrogant. Second, at a police station suspects may be isolated from others who
could provide them with social, emotional and moral support and it is more difficult
to observe and control what goes on. Third, at the police station suspects