Interrogations-and-Confessions-Handbook

460 A Psychology of Interrogations and Confessions
of the Tottenham riot trials was the reliance of the prosecution on confession
evidence without any supportive evidence. The additional evidence produced
by the prosecution was often very weak and appears to have had no significant
effect upon the conviction rate.
As the police investigation into the riot was seriously hampered by lack
of forensic or other tangible evidence, many arrests appear to have been
made as a way of obtaining information and/or confessions. According to the
police evidence in court (Broadwater Farm Area Housing Committee, 1988),
every person arrested was a potential suspect to the murder of PC Blakelock
and this, defence counsels argued in court, was used as a deliberate
ploy by the police to enhance cooperation and compliance. It is not difficult
to see how a potential murder charge could have softened up some suspects
to the extent that they confessed to less serious crimes and implicated other
people.
Certainly, any possible threat, whether explicit or implicit, of being charged
with the murder of PC Blakelock is likely to have influenced the behaviour
of many suspects during questioning. What we do not and never will know is
how many of the cases involved untrue incrimination of self and others (i.e.
there was also great pressure on suspects to implicate others). In the majority
of cases (55%), the jury believed it was unsafe to convict on the evidence
presented to the court. It is also of interest to note that, in every case involving
affray, the judge refused a submission for a voire dire on the basis that it
was for the jury to decide upon the weight of the confession evidence in these
cases.
Psychological Evidence
At least 15 of the 71 defendants who faced the most serious charges out of
the Tottenham riot were assessed psychologically. I personally assessed eight
individuals for pre-trial defence court reports. I know of a further seven cases
that were assessed by two other psychologists. One of the cases involved Engin
Raghip, in whose case I was to become involved after his trial.
In two further cases mental illness had been diagnosed by psychiatrists.
In all the eight cases that I assessed, the defendants alleged that they had
been coerced into making a confession, believing that the interrogation would
continue until they had confessed to something. According to the defendants’
accounts, the confessions were all of the pressured–compliant type.
Out of the eight cases that I assessed for the defence, I gave oral evidence in
four cases at the Central Criminal Court in front of the jury. All four defendants
were charged with affray and were acquitted by a jury. Of the remaining cases,
where I did not give oral evidence, three out of the four were convicted. It is
tempting to speculate that the outcome of the eight cases is related to whether or
not I testified in court. This is, of course, an indirect way of evaluating the impact
of the psychological evidence before the jury, because in any one case there
are a number of factors that determine the outcome, including the defendant’s
own testimony and any corroborating evidence that is available to support the
prosecution or defence case.