Interrogations-and-Confessions-Handbook

464 A Psychology of Interrogations and Confessions
state anxiety, and in terms of self-esteem he rated himself as very timid and
submissive.
There were three broad aspects to Raghip’s case that I discussed in my report
in relation to his retracted confession. First, there were the psychological
findings, which highlighted some of his limitations and weaknesses. These included
his borderline intellectual abilities, his marked literacy problems, his
high level of anxiety and his marked responses to interrogative pressure.
Secondly, there were the circumstances of Raghip’s arrest, interrogation and
continued custody. Raghip was arrested by the police because a ‘garrulous and
silly friend’ (his solicitor’s phrase) mentioned his name whilst being interviewed
by the police, after claiming to the Daily Mirror that he had seen PC Blakelock’s
murder. No other person mentioned Raghip’s name, but he was nevertheless
brought in for questioning. The intensity and duration of Raghip’s interrogation,
where he was interviewed without a solicitor or an ‘appropriate adult’
present, was undoubtedly very taxing. Indeed, on the third day, when Raghip
was taken to the Magistrates’ Court, he spoke briefly to a solicitor and told him
that he could not cope with further interrogation. By this time he had already
been charged with affray.
The solicitor has subsequently stated publicly that he found Raghip distressed
and disorientated and did not think he was fit to be interviewed on
the charge of murder. However, Raghip was to be further interviewed about
being a party to the murder. After making self-incriminating admissions he
was released on bail. He was re-arrested six weeks later and charged with the
murder.
Thirdly, there was the question of Raghip’s mental state at the time of the
police interviews. For a few days prior to his arrest Raghip had been drinking
heavily and smoking cannabis. He had not been sleeping well for several days,
neither was he eating properly. Shortly before his arrest Raghip’s commonlaw
wife had left him, following an argument, and took with her their young
baby. Raghip appeared to have been very upset about this. During Raghip’s
detention he complained of feeling ill and a police surgeon was called twice
to examine him. The doctor found Raghip to have mild fever and enlarged
neck glands. Raghip told the doctor that he was vomiting after meals. Therefore,
at the time of his interrogation, Raghip was not physically or mentally
well. These factors may well have exacerbated his existing vulnerabilities,
such as his low IQ, high anxiety and difficulties in coping with interrogative
pressure. It is also important that his self-incriminating admissions did
not involve his having physically assaulted the officer. Raghip may therefore
not have fully realized the potentially serious consequences of his admissions,
particularly in view of his limited intellectual abilities (Clare & Gudjonsson,
1995).
Armed with the findings of my report, Raghip’s solicitors asked for Leave to
Appeal against his conviction. The case was heard in the Court of Appeal on
12 and 13 December 1988. The applications of Silcott and Braithwaite were
heard at the same time. All three applications failed. At the hearing Lord Lane
discussed my evidence in the context of the pre-trial defence reports, which were
never used at the trial. The fact that the pre-trial psychologist had doubted