Interrogations-and-Confessions-Handbook

Persons at Risk During Interviews in Police Custody 73
Gudjonsson & Clare, 2002). Even some police officers do not understand the
current caution (Clare, Gudjonsson & Harari, 1998). Indeed, even when the
caution is presented under ideal conditions, one sentence at a time, only 10% of
police detainees and persons in the general population are able to demonstrate
full understanding of its meaning (Fenner, Gudjonsson & Clare, 2002). In addition,
96% of the participants claimed to have understood the caution fully after
it was read out to them, which demonstrates that detainees’ claim that they
understand the caution gives no accurate indication of their real understanding
of it. It is the middle sentence, warning of possible adverse inferences, which
creates the greatest problem. Apart from reverting to the original caution, or
changing the wording of the current caution, the best way around this problem
is for the police to do the following.
� Ensure they understand the caution themselves.
� Carefully explain each sentence to detainees.
� Check detainees’ understanding of the caution by having them paraphrase
or explain it.
GENERAL CONCLUSIONS
In this chapter our studies commissioned by the Royal Commissions on Criminal
Justice into the psychological vulnerabilities of police detainees and the
complexity of documents relating to detainees’ legal rights have been reviewed.
Our studies conducted at two Metropolitan police stations complement the work
of Barrie Irving and Ian McKenzie in two respects. First, rather than relying
only on the observation of suspects in order to identify psychological vulnerabilities,
a formal psychological assessment was conducted on suspects at the police
station prior to their being interviewed by the police. This was the first study
to include a formal psychological assessment. It revealed important findings
about the nature and extent of psychological vulnerabilities among detainees.
Probably the most surprising findings were the low IQ scores of the detainees
and the fact that many persons with intellectual deficits could not be identified
as such from a brief clinical interview. The findings are consistent with the literature
on offenders (Eysenck & Gudjonsson, 1989) and pre-trial assessments
(Gudjonsson, 1990a).
The second unique contribution relates to a follow-up study to the Royal Commission
study, where the psychological vulnerabilities of detainees identified on
testing and from a brief mental state examination were subsequently analysed
in relation to detainees’ performance in a subsequent police interview. Of particular
importance are the factors that are directly associated with whether or not
suspects make a confession during questioning. None of the test findings predicted
either a confession or a denial. The only mental state factor that predicted
a confession was whether or not the suspect had consumed illicit drugs within
24 hours of arrest. The presence of a lawyer and a previous experience of
imprisonment were highly predictive of suspects denying any involvement in
the crime.