Jennifer Holmes, PhD Candidate Centre for Criminology, University of South Wales, and Lecturer in Criminology and Policing, University of Gloucestershire
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, Code of Practice C requires for an appropriate adult (AA) to be provided to juvenile or vulnerable adult suspects who have typically been arrested and detained in the police station. As stated in Para 1.7A of Code C, the role of the AA includes supporting suspects whilst they are providing information or participating in procedures; upholding fairness and assisting with communication.
There has been much debate regarding the term vulnerability and how this is operationalised within a policing context (Keay and Kirby, 2017; Bartkowiak-Theron and Asquith, 2012). Whilst changes made to PACE in 2018 did set out a ‘test’ for what constitutes vulnerability (Para 1.13(d), Code C), the recent report commissioned by The National Appropriate Adult Network (NAAN) (Bath and Dehaghani, 2020) confirmed that vulnerability is still not always identified by the police. Furthermore, even when vulnerability is identified, suspects are not always allocated the safeguard of an AA to which they are entitled (Dehaghani, 2019).
In England and Wales there is a statutory requirement for the provision of AA for juveniles, but this is not the case for vulnerable adults, despite calls for provision to be placed on a statutory footing (NAAN, 2015). Code C Para 1.7 notes that AAs must be over the age of 18, and are not involved in a conflicting role, such as a police officer or a legal advisor. The AA role can be performed by family members/friends/guardians, volunteers or professionally trained AAs, although Pierpoint (2011) notes that there can be some overlap between these categorisations. As a result of this overlap, Dehaghani (forthcoming) proposes that AAs should be categorised as untrained paid, untrained unpaid, trained paid and trained unpaid.
My Research
My research undertaken as part of my ongoing PhD considers how the police interview vulnerable suspects during homicide investigations, and the impact of third parties such as the AA and the legal advisor on the process. Fieldwork took place in three police forces within England and Wales and comprised of a mixed methods approach. These methods included a review of police suspect interviews and an examination of the custody records relating to those suspects. In addition, I conducted semi-structured interviews with police officers and third parties (both AAs and legal advisors) who had participated in homicide interviews.
During interviews with homicide detectives the role of the AA was discussed. In a majority of circumstances detectives expressed preferences for professionally trained AA’s, as opposed to family members. I also explored whether detectives had any involvement in the process of obtaining an AA, or whether this is something which was dealt with by those working within custody. It became apparent that the level of involvement detectives had in this process varied across the three forces, and was especially notable in relation to obtaining AAs for vulnerable adult suspects.
Findings
Interestingly, the way in which AA schemes for vulnerable adults were set up varied across all three force areas, and this may have had some impact upon the processes within each force. In Force A, the AA scheme was set up and run by the PCC’s office. In Force B the AA scheme was run by a professional AA provider and in Force C the AA scheme was run by a local charity who provide support to people with disabilities and mental health conditions.
In Force A homicide detectives had direct control over who acted as the AA in their homicide investigations. In this force there was no scheme co-ordinator who took calls and then arranged for an AA to attend the police station. Instead, there was a list of AAs and their respective contact details within custody units, which all officers had access to. Detectives therefore had discretion over who they chose to call from that list. Certainly amongst detectives within the homicide team it was suggested that there was a heavy reliance upon a small number of volunteers;
“We just stick to ones that we know really and we just call them up on a mobile and say ‘Oh, are you free?’” (PO1)
“To be honest…everybody at this police station, I would suggest, uses a chap called…” (PO2).
The picture in Force B contrasted to that in Force A, whereby detectives had little impact upon the AA that attended the police station. In this force those within custody appeared to have more influence over the process of obtaining of an AA. In addition, one detective said that he rarely saw the same AA twice.
“You seldom get the same appropriate adult twice…I, I find, irrespective of the nature of the crime. There seems to be quite a cadre of them that they draw from.” (PO7)
In Force C, homicide detectives appeared to be more involved in arranging for an AA then custody staff. Detectives felt that it was their interview and they were responsible for that process. However, whilst detectives were making the call to arrange for an AA, the nature of the scheme in operation meant that the co-ordinator was contacted, and whoever was on duty was sent to the police station. Therefore, detectives had no input over the specific individual that attended the police station to act as the AA.
“You contact [Scheme], they contact someone, they come out and you know, job on.” (PO13)
A common theme between many of the detectives across all three forces was the belief that they were responsible for the suspect interviews they were involved in, and several recognised the possibility that if an element of an interview was challenged, they would potentially have to answer questions in court. Officers appeared keen to avoid that situation arising and were concerned at the prospect of having evidence excluded or losing a court case. Blame avoidance appeared to be a driving factor in detectives assuming responsibility for obtaining the AA and several referred to ‘erring on the side of caution’ when it came to the decision as to whether or not an AA was required during their homicide investigations.
My research suggests that detectives are assuming varying levels of responsibility when obtaining an AA. In Force A, officers had the discretion to choose the specific individual that acted as the AA on their investigations and there was a heavily reliance on one specific AA. It must be noted that the professionalism of that AA was highly regarded by detectives, but it does raise interesting questions about the relationship between the two roles. One may query the independence of the AA role when the police have direct influence over who attends to act in that role. This was recognised by one of the detectives in Force A who noted that the frequent attendance of the same AA on their investigations could be seized upon by a barrister to imply that this was not an ‘independent interview’, albeit it was suggested that the likelihood of this happening was ‘a bit far-fetched’.
Future Research
One area to further explore in future research is whether the influence of detectives over the specific AA that attends during their investigations impacts upon the suspect interview. Some may assume that given the opportunity, the police may select an AA who is less likely to ‘interrupt’ them during an interview, potentially rendering the AA safeguard less effective. However, something of interest that came out of the interviews that I conducted with AAs was the issue of confidence to intervene in interviews, and to challenge the police during the AAs time in custody. Confidence was largely associated with experience (which was unsurprising), and the more experience that AAs gained, the more comfortable they felt to intervene. In addition, it was suggested that positive working relationships with the police were an important factor in AAs feeling able to raise concerns with officers, and believing that these would be taken seriously. This raises important questions about the nature of the relationship between the police and the AA, especially with regard to independence and neutrality.
References
Bartkowiak-Theron, I. and Asquith, N.L. (2012) ‘The extraordinary intricacies of policing vulnerability’, Australasian Policing: A Journal of Professional Practice, 4(2), pp. 43-49.
Bath, C. and Dehaghani, R. (2020) There to Help 3: Identification of vulnerable adult suspects and application of the appropriate adult procedural safeguard in police investigations in 2018/19. NAAN. Available at: www.appropriateadult.org.uk/policy/research/theretohelp3 (Accessed 6th November 2020)
Dehaghani, R. (forthcoming) ‘Defining the ‘appropriate’ in ‘appropriate adult’’. Personal Correspondence.
Dehaghani, R. (2019) Vulnerability in Police Custody: police decision-making and the appropriate adult safeguard. Abingdon: Routledge.
Keay, S., and Kirby, S. (2018) ‘Defining vulnerability: from the conceptual to the operational’. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 12(4), pp.428-438.
National Appropriate Adult Network (2015) There to Help: Ensuring Provision of Appropriate Adults for Mentally Vulnerable Adults Detained or Interviewed by Police. Available at: http://www.appropriateadult.org.uk/images/pdf/2015_theretohelp_complete.pdf (Accessed 5 November 2020).
Pierpoint, H. (2011) ‘Extending and professionalising the role of the appropriate adult’. Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law, 33(2), pp. 139-155.
Defending Vulnerability 