Interrogations-and-Confessions-Handbook

The ‘Guildford Four’ and the ‘Birmingham Six’ 449
Medical and Psychological Evidence
Except for the dubious circumstantial evidence in the case of Paddy Armstrong,
the only evidence against the Guildford Four was their confessions. Alastair
Logan soon realized that the reliability of the confessions had to be challenged.
This led to employing experts, such as psychologists and psychiatrists. The
first expert to become involved was Dr Tooley, a consultant psychiatrist at the
London Hospital.
On 8 October 1975, after a day in court, Armstrong was given a barbiturateaided
interview by Dr Tooley. The intention was not to enhance Armstrong’s
recollection about events in 1974; the drug was used on the assumption that
Armstrong would be more likely to tell the truth whilst under the influence of
the drug. The information obtained confirmed Armstrong’s previous accounts
of the police interviews and his state of mind at the time.
The assumption that Armstrong could not have lied whilst under the influence
of the drug, had he so wished, was ill founded in view of the poor validity
of barbiturate-aided interviews as a ‘truth drug’ (see Chapter 8 in Gudjonsson,
1992a, for a detailed discussion on this point).
On 1 October 1977 Armstrong was interviewed in Wakefield Prison by Lionel
Haward, a Professor in Clinical Psychology at the University of Surrey, Guildford.
Professor Haward induced in Armstrong a light hypnotic trance and interviewed
him about his involvement in the Guildford and Woolwich bombings.
The purpose of the hypnosis-aided interview was similar to that of Dr Tooley.
Haward asked Armstrong in detail about his experience and knowledge of
firearms. Haward had previously been an armament instructor in the Royal
Air Force (RAF) and concluded that Armstrong had no experience of firearms
and that he was an unlikely IRA candidate. Furthermore, Professor Haward
concluded from Armstrong’s answers during the hypnosis that he had falsely
confessed because of immense anxiety and fear of the police.
Before the appeal of the Guildford Four in 1977, Alastair Logan asked Barrie
Irving, a social psychologist who had provided evidence at the inquiry into
the Maxwell Confait Case, to comment on Armstrong’s confession statements.
He did not examine Armstrong but carefully examined the relevant documents
in the case. Irving highlighted a number of concerns about Armstrong’s confession,
which related to his poor physical and mental state at the time of the
interrogation, and concluded that Armstrong’s confession should not have been
accepted without corroboration.
What was the ‘new’ medical evidence that resulted in the Home Secretary
re-opening the case in January 1988? This related to the mental state of Carole
Richardson in December 1974 and questions over medication she was said to
have received from a police surgeon who had been called to examine her prior
to her confession. We had examined Richardson in April 1986 at Styal Prison at
the request of the Prison Medical Service. A medical officer was very concerned
about her welfare. He believed her to be innocent of the terrorist offences of
which she was convicted and wanted an independent assessment conducted.
The issue of false confession was relevant to his concern about appropriate
psychiatric treatment of Richardson.