Interrogations-and-Confessions-Handbook

496 A Psychology of Interrogations and Confessions
years after conviction. In addition, he implicated two other people, who he had
allegedly been with at the time of the offence, both of whom always proclaimed
they were innocent. In interviews with the police he mainly claimed that he
had not taken part in the murder, but had acted as ‘look-out’ man (he gave
somewhat different versions of events) while his co-accused, Sherwood and
O’Brien, had committed the murder and robbery. The only evidence against
Hall at trial was his confession to the police and others afterwards. Hall’s confession
directly implicated Sherwood and O’Brien. There was no forensic evidence
to link any of the three to the murder. Hall pleaded guilty to robbery and
manslaughter. The three defendants were convicted of the murder in July 1988
by majority verdicts of 10 to 2. They were sentenced to life imprisonment. After
conviction Hall gave substantially different versions of events concerning the
murder.
1. In 1991 Hall began to claim that he had taken a more active role in the
murder than he had previously admitted to.
2. During group therapy in prison in 1994 Hall claimed that he had committed
the murder on his own.
3. In 1995 Hall wrote to his solicitors stating that he had hit Saunders on the
head five times, while Sherwood had punched the victim and O’Brien stood
some distance away.
4. In 1996 Hall retracted his confession and claimed that all three of them
were completely innocent of the murder.
Shortly before his retraction in 1996, Hall had been interviewed in prison by
Mrs Tunstall, who found him on testing to be of average intellectual abilities
and verbal memory. In terms of his personality, as measured by the EPQ-R,
he was an emotionally labile (anxious) extravert. He did not prove to be suggestible
on the GSS 1 (a Total Suggestibility score of 6). In 1997, Mrs Tunstall
produced a report at the request of the Criminal Cases Review Commission,
where her findings were outlined. She raised concerns about the reliability of
Hall’s confession to the police and the case was referred to the Court of Appeal.
A few weeks prior to the hearing in December 1999, the defence solicitors
referred the case to me and asked for a psychological evaluation. The solicitors
were concerned that the psychological test findings in Mrs Tunstall’s report
might be insufficient for the expert testimony to be admissible. I agreed to take
on the case, and interviewed Hall and carried out a number of psychological
tests. The tests I administered included the MMPI-2, the Gough Socialisation
Scale, the Gudjonsson Compliance Sale (GCS), tests of impulsivity, self-esteem
and self and other deception. The findings were consistent with a diagnosis of
anti-social personality disorder, poor self-esteem and an abnormally high level
of compliance and impulsivity.
I asked Hall why he had made the confession to the police. He gave the
following reasons.
� He was extensively pressured to confess by the police officers, and was allegedly
threatened that unless he confessed and maintained his confession
the police would harass him and his family. They kept bringing him up