Interrogations-and-Confessions-Handbook

456 A Psychology of Interrogations and Confessions
subsequently perform on the psychological tests. This may be problematic, especially
in the case of compliance as measured by the GCS, because it is a
self-report inventory. Having previously given in to interrogative pressure (e.g.
by confessing) this may itself alter their own perceptions of themselves. The
change in their perception of themselves could then affect how they fill in the
self-report scale. This is much less likely to be a problem on the Suggestibility
Scales, because they measure how people respond behaviourally to a simulated
interrogation and do not rely on self-report. However, this does not exclude the
remote possibility that the shock of having confessed itself influences how they
respond behaviourally to interrogation in the future.
The respective personality characteristics of the Birmingham Six were not
considered relevant to the legal arguments in the Court of Appeal, because the
emphasis was on the physical coerciveness of the police tactics used and on
the unreliability of the forensic science evidence. The individual strengths and
weaknesses of the six men are of interest because they possibly explain why
four of the men confessed whilst two did not. It is also of interest to note that
the IQ scores of the Birmingham Six were all within normal limits, the mean
for the group being exactly 100.
CONCLUSIONS
Many people would argue that the cases of the Guildford Four and Birmingham
Six represent the worst cases of miscarriage of justice in Britain last century. In
the former case four defendants spent over 14 years in prison before having their
convictions quashed by the Court of Appeal in October 1989. Almost one and
a half years later the Birmingham Six had their convictions quashed, having
spent about 16 years in prison.
There are certain similarities and differences between the cases of the Guildford
Four and Birmingham Six. Both cases arose out of a devastating IRA bombing
campaign on the mainland Britain in 1974. The police were under immense
public pressure to apprehend the culprits and bring them to justice. Emergency
laws were laid down in Parliament to deal with increased threats from terrorist
activities, which allowed the police to detain people suspected of terrorist activities
for extended periods without being charged. In both cases the police are
alleged to have coerced the defendants to confess by subjecting them to psychological
and physical pressure. Many years later, the police were discovered to
have fabricated evidence concerning some of the defendants’ interview records.
Evidence favourable to the defence is alleged to have been suppressed by the
prosecution when the cases went to court and at their appeal hearings.
All of the Guildford Four made written self-incriminating confessions, which
they subsequently retracted and alleged that they were made under duress.
Four of the Birmingham Six made written confessions; two did not. All of the
Birmingham Six allege that they were extensively physically threatened and
assaulted during their custodial interrogation in 1974; the Guildford Four have
also made allegations of physical threats and assaults but of lesser severity than
those reported by the Birmingham Six.