Thursday 10 Novermber 2006

The introduction of the tape-recording of interviews brought into focus many deficiencies in the techniques adopted by police officers when questioning suspects. Home Office Circular 7/1993 introduced a national training initiative which provides guidance to officers during interviews with suspects. This is commonly known as the PEACE approach to interviewing. It was intended that its introduction would put an end to the bullying style of questioning which had been disclosed in the case of Paris, Abdullah and Miller [1994], a case that we cover later.

The following seven principles of investigative interviewing are set out in Annex A to Home Office Circular 22/1992, and are expressly approved in Circular 7/1993:

(1) The role of the investigative interviewing is to obtain accurate and reliable information from suspects, witnesses or victims in order to discover the truth about matters under police investigation.
(2) Investigative interviewing should be approached with an open mind. Information obtained from a person who is being interviewed should always be tested against what the interviewing officer already knows or what can reasonably be established.
(3) When questioning anyone a police officer must act fairly in the circumstances of each individual case.
(4) The police interviewer is not bound to accept the first answer given. Questioning is not unfair merely because it is persistent.
(5) Even when the right of silence is exercised by a suspect, the police still have the right to put questions to the suspect.
(6) When conducting an interview, police officers are free to ask questions in order to establish the truth; except for interviews with child victims of sexual or violent abuse which are to be used in criminal proceedings, they are not constrained by the rules applied to lawyers in court.
(7) Vulnerable people, whether victims, witnesses or suspects, must be treated with particular consideration at all times.
Questioning may be considered “oppressive” if the officer asks:

· multiple questions (i.e. several questions rolled into one);
· ambiguous questions (i.e. where the potential answers have more than one meaning);
· irrelevant questions (i.e. questions which have no logical connection with the police enquiry);
· questions concerning other offences;
· hypothetical questions;
· questions based on dubious or non-existent evidence;
· questions concerning a co-suspect.

The evidential requirements for the admissibility of a confession play a major part in the way in which the investigating officer conducts the interview. If the defence or the court raises the admissibility of the suspect’s confession, the prosecution is required to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the confession was not obtained by “oppression” (s76(2)(a) PACE); and/or that it was not obtained in circumstances which would render it unreliable (s76(2)(b) PACE); and/or that it would not be unfair to the accused to admit evidence of the confession (s78 PACE). We will look at this later.

Where, during the interview, the officer in charge of the investigation reasonably believes that there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic chance of conviction for the offence, the interview should cease immediately and the custody officer should be informed. He will then decide whether the suspect should be charged (paras 11.6 and 16.1 Code C).

However, as exceptions to this general rule, para 16.5 Code C provides that a suspect may continue to be interviewed after charge or informed that he is to be prosecuted for the offence where the interview is necessary:

· to prevent or minimise harm or loss to some other person, or the public;
· to clear up an ambiguity in a previous answer or statement;
· it is in the interests of justice for the detainee to have further questions put to them, and have an opportunity to comment on, information concerning the offence which has come to light since they were charged or informed they might be prosecuted.

INTERVIEWS - ADVISING THE SUSPECT

The most significant advice is whether the suspect should answer police questions or remain silent. Since the introduction of ss34, 36 and 37 CJPOA 1994, this decision for both the suspect and his legal adviser has taken on added significance. Advice should therefore always be given on the basis of balancing the risks between the suspect remaining silent and answering police questions. This decision will be determined by a number of factors:

· the extent of disclosure by the police of the case against the suspect; the apparent strength of the police evidence against the client;
· the admissibility of the police evidence; the likely fairness of the interview;
· the apparent mental condition of the client;
· the strength of the client’s defence, including evidence of any alibi; any specific benefits for remaining silent;
· any possible advantage of an early admission of the offence(s).