Interrogations-and-Confessions-Handbook

76 A Psychology of Interrogations and Confessions
we cannot automatically assume that the hypothesis will be supported. For
example, Baldwin’s early research on police interviewing challenged a number
of accepted norms in this field (1992a, 1992b, 1993, see Chapter 3) and he was
also highly critical of the absence of any established legal ground rules for police
officers interviewing suspects (Baldwin, 1994).
In the first instance, he showed that in many cases eliciting a confession from
a suspect was not directly linked to the type of interviewing style adopted or
the ‘persuasive’ dialogue employed by the police. In fact, in highlighting the inept
manner in which most interviews were conducted he questioned the whole
‘myth’ of the gladiatorial nature of police interviewing, which would predict
that the interviewing officers eventually succeed in breaking down the reluctant
suspect. What research has shown is that the distinction needs to be drawn
between general ‘run-of-the-mill’ cases, where typically little or no persuasive
interaction is taking place (Baldwin 1992a, 1992b, 1993; Pearse & Gudjonsson,
1996a), and serious criminal offences. It is serious criminal cases that have
been the subject of a number of miscarriage of justice proceedings (Corre, 1995;
Gudjonsson, 1992a), and it is from this select group that the PIAF was developed.
Our definition of a serious criminal offence was taken from section 116 of
PACE (Home Office, 1985a). This includes murder, rape, arson, armed robbery
and blackmail.
Secondly, Baldwin also challenged the lack of guidance in relation to what
was, and what was not, acceptable police interviewing practice. He berated the
Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure (1993) on this subject for not seizing
the opportunity presented:
. . . one was struck by the bland, unexceptional and unimaginative character of
the Commission’s recommendations on police interviewing procedures (Baldwin,
1994, p. 68)
was how he summarized the ‘superficial’ nature of their discussions. According
to Baldwin, what needed to be addressed was
...todetermine what kind of pressures police interviewers can legitimately exert
upon suspects detained in police custody (Baldwin, 1994, p. 71).
For example, lying to or threatening a suspect would be contrary to the Codes
of Practice that accompany PACE (Home Office, 1995). On their own, however,
such tactics may not inevitably render a confession inadmissible. What is important,
in English law, is the entire context of the case (i.e. the surrounding
circumstances—see Chapter 10).
Accordingly, in an attempt to illuminate this very grey area, another objective
of the PIAF was to measure and display, in an objective and scientific manner,
what was and what was not an acceptable level of pressure in the police–suspect
interview situation. To assist us in this regard, our base line measure was to
examine the relationship between the type and frequency of tactics and the
subsequent admissibility and reliability of the interview according to the judgment
of the courts. Following on from earlier chapters, it was anticipated that