Interrogations-and-Confessions-Handbook

588 A Psychology of Interrogations and Confessions
After being released from GSS custody, Mr A reiterated his confessions to
the police, who took down a statement from him to that effect. This was a standard
procedure since the GSS have no legal authority to formally take down
confession statements. In cross-examination I was asked why Mr A, if he had
genuinely given involuntary confessions to the GSS, had not refused to incriminate
himself to the police once he had been released from GSS confinement.
The answer was simple. If Mr A had refused to reiterate his confessions to the
police he would have been sent back to the GSS for further interrogation. The
police allegedly made this very clear to him. Therefore, it is evident that Mr A’s
loss of free will during the final confession with the GSS carried over into the
subsequent session with the police when they took a formal statement from
him, even thought he had been allowed to rest in the meantime.
Outcome
The judge did not decide on the admissibility of my evidence, because the case
ended in a plea bargain. According to the attorney acting for the defendant, my
evidence carried enough weight to persuade the prosecution to drop the major
charge, namely, being an accomplice in placing explosives. This was important
because it reduced their prior request for a seven-year sentence to one of two
years. By this time the defendant had already served well over one year in
prison and preferred to accept a plea bargain rather than requesting a judicial
decision that could prolong the procedure for many more months. In addition,
even though my expert evidence had undermined the prosecution case, the
defence solicitor did not trust the judge’s freedom to make an independent
decision in favour of the defendant.
Conclusions
The case shows that the special status of the GSS allows their agents to use
psychological and physical pressure without clear legal authority with which
to operate. There is no proper recording of what they do, nor do they have any
public accountability. Once the confession has been extracted by the agents the
case is referred to the police, who take a statement of what the detainee told
the agents; if detainees wish to retract or alter the confession then they are
sent back, or threatened to be sent back, to the GSS for further interrogations.
The methods used by the GSS to extract confessions from suspected
Palestinian terrorists are similar to those used in Northern Ireland over
20 years ago (Landau Commission Report, 1989; Shallice, 1974). These methods
have now long been outlawed in Northern Ireland, although in exceptional
circumstances the police may resort to extracting confessions by the use of torture
(Collins, 1997). No doubt, these and other similar methods are used and
legally sanctioned in many countries throughout the world. They do not constitute
humane treatment of detainees and are clearly akin to torture, where
the primary aim is to deliberately inflict psychological and physical pain for the
instrumental purpose of breaking down detainees’ will to resist interrogative
pressure. In their defence, the GSS considers such techniques to be necessary