Interrogations-and-Confessions-Handbook

Misleading Special Knowledge 535
extraneous to the interviews and the issues surrounding them, which otherwise
casts doubt upon the admissions, they provide a sound and sufficient basis for the
safety of the conviction.
Comments
The case makes an important ruling regarding the psychological testimony.
That is, even when relevant psychological vulnerabilities can be demonstrated,
and they are undisputed by the Crown, these will need to be interpreted within
the totality of the evidence in the case and its surrounding circumstances. This
is an important principle, which I fully support. Vulnerabilities are rarely sufficient
by themselves to render a conviction unsafe. Indeed, the vulnerabilities
identified may not be sufficient in the judges’ view, even if in the opinion of the
expert they cast doubts on the reliability of a confession, for the conviction to
be quashed. Conversely, confessions can be unreliable when no vulnerabilities
are identified by the psychological or psychiatric evaluation. Their Lordships
have the ultimate say in the outcome of an appeal, and should of course
be guided rather than ruled by expert witnesses. What is important is that
judges consider the expert psychological evidence dispassionately, fairly and
objectively.
However, having carefully considered the case of Pendleton, observed the
appeal and having had time to reflect on it, I still have serious reservations
about the reliability of Pendleton’s confession to the police. Their Lordships
appeared to be impressed by Pendleton’s apparent special knowledge about the
murder, which was skilfully argued by the Crown at the appeal. On the face of it,
after the crime scene visit on the second day of custodial detention, Pendleton
seemed to provide some incriminating detail about the victim (e.g. that the
victim had been kicked, had rolled over, and that the victim might have been
urinating when he was attacked). It is interesting that none of this informative
detail was elicited during the six previous interviews at the police station. The
last point concerning the urination was emphasized mostly strongly by the
Crown, because the victim’s flies were apparently found to be partly open when
his body was discovered. With regard to this special knowledge, at the crime
scene Pendleton is reported to have said to the officers:
I seem to recall the guy was having a piss.
When interviewed later that evening, one of the officers says at the beginning
of the interview:
Now you said earlier that you had a recollection of the man having a piss.
Mr Pendleton replied:
Like I say I think he was just having a piss and we were in high spirits.
None of the interviews were tape-recorded and we do not know what special
knowledge information may have been communicated to Pendleton while he