Professor Ray Bull, University of Derby
Introduction
Several research studies have found that people with vulnerabilities, such as intellectual disability or/and autism, are more frequently suspects/the accused/defendants than are ordinary people. For example, Johnston et al. (2016) found that around 70% of adolescent defendants had listening-comprehension skills below the norm for ten-year-olds. Information provided by the UK national newspaper ‘The Guardian’ in 2019 (see https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/may/31/report-raises-alarm-over-police-detention-of-vulnerable-suspects-national-appropriate-adult-network) included that of the around one million police interviews in the UK with adult suspects in the preceding year approximately 17% (i.e., 17,000) involved vulnerable persons (as defined in official documents). In a Dutch study by Geijsen et al. (2018) a sample of suspects in police custody were psychologically screened for intellectual disabilities, mental disorders, abnormal mental states, and substance abuse. It was found that 69% of the suspects could be deemed vulnerable.
Even though the proportion of suspects who are deemed to be vulnerable is high, Gulati et al. (2020) argued that “The most striking finding from our systematic review is the paucity of published studies that include a qualitative description of the experiences of…suspects with intellectual disabilities in their interactions with law enforcement” (p. 5). They also noted that in their review the themes which arose “…emphasise the importance of having specialist interviewers who can better undertake interviews with suspects with intellectual disabilities” (p. 5), hence the importance of training/guidance documents.
The skilled questioning of such suspects/defendants is of great importance. However, as noted by Wyman, LaVoie and Talwar (2019), relevant professionals often feel that they have inadequate training for this, and current practices may not be sufficient for gathering comprehensive information from vulnerable people.
Usually, vulnerable people (e.g., those with intellectual disability) verbally recall lessof events than do ordinary people – thus, questioners often need to ask them more questions. However, unless the relevant professionals are highly skilled in asking mostly open questions (rarely done in ‘real life’) they ask inappropriate questions (such as closed or leading or suggestive – as in ‘real life’) that cause interviewees to make errors.
The PEACE Method
It is therefore very important that appropriate methods to assist interviewees with vulnerabilities such as intellectual disability and/or autism are developed and adhered to. The relevant ‘official’ interviewing guidance to the police (and thus to other relevant professionals) is known (since 1992) as the ‘PEACE Method’.
‘PEACE’ is an acronym for
P Planning and Preparation
E Engage and Explain
A Account
C Closure
E Evaluation.
There are available a number of publications on this method that include Bull (2023, 2019) and (Bull and Griffiths, 2019).
Some of the stated (in 1992) seven ‘principles’ of ‘PEACE’ include (see Bull and Milne, 1999):
- “The role is to obtain accurate and reliable information from suspects, witnesses or victims…”; “Interviews should be approached with an open mind”.
- “Information obtained from the person who is being interviewed should always be tested against what the interviewing officer already knows or what can reasonably be established.”
- “Vulnerable people, whether victims, witnesses or suspects, must be treated with particular consideration at all times.”
The Méndez Principles
Definitions of ‘vulnerabilities’ vary to an extent. The 2021 Méndez ‘Principles of Effective Interviewing’ (that we wrote in response to a proposal accepted by the United Nations that aimed to reduce cruel and inhumane treatment of suspects) state that:
“Virtually all persons being interviewed find themselves in a situation of vulnerability due to the inherently unequal balance of power characterising such interactions with authorities. The imbalance of power is particularly acute when an interviewee is detained and thus wholly dependent on the authorities for the exercise and enjoyment of their human rights” (p. 28)
And that:
“Some interviewees will experience a situation of heightened vulnerability when the interview intersects with certain other specific risk factors. In such circumstances, interviewees will have additional needs and rights requiring attention from authorities. Such risk factors can include, for instance:
a. Age, sex, gender, gender identity or expression, or sexual orientation
b. Nationality or ethnicity
c. Cultural or religious background
d. Physical, intellectual, or psychological disability
e. Difficulties with communication
f. Difficulties in understanding (including language barriers)
g. Inability to read and/or write
h. Age-related conditions such as dementia
i. Belonging to a minority group or a marginalised socio-economic group.”
(See https://www.apt.ch/en/mendez-principles-effective-interviewing)
The ‘Principles’ document recommends that effective interviewing will typically involve the following (I have added some of our relevant references):
- thorough preparation and planning, ensuring relevant safeguards are applied throughout (e.g., see Kim et al., 2018),
- keeping an open mind, creating a non-coercive environment (e.g., Bull & Rachlew, 2019),
- establishing and maintaining rapport (e.g., see Bull & Baker, 2020; Walsh & Bull, 2012),
- using scientifically supported questioning techniques (e.g., see Bull & Milne. 2020),
- active listening and enabling the interviewee to speak freely and completely (e.g., see Bull & Milne,1999),
- skilfully and calmly contrasting what the interviewee says with what the interviewer already knows (e.g., see Sandham et al., 2021),
- assessment and analysis of the information gathered and of the interviewing (e.g., see Bull & Milne, 2022).
I was a member of the ‘Steering Committee’ that was centrally involved in the drafting of the ‘Principles’ and I was (with others) able to contribute to what had been developed in my country, especially with regard to (i) the ‘PEACE’ method and (ii) the government’s extensive guidance document (‘Achieving Best Evidence in Criminal Proceedings’). A part of my expertise relevant to today involves being asked by my government’s relevant ministry to write the new, extensive section on ‘vulnerable’ witnesses/victims in the ground-breaking official publication now of the Ministry of Justice entitled ‘Achieving Best Evidence in Criminal Proceedings: Guidance on Interviewing Victims and Witnesses and Guidance on Using Special Measures’ (that was to a small extent updated in 2007, 2011, 2022). The first version was originally published in January 2002 on behalf of the Home Office, drafted by a writing team led by Professor Graham Davies from the University of Leicester and myself. This document is freely available online (at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/achieving-best-evidence-in-criminal-proceedings0) and much of it is also highly relevant to the vulnerable accused
Also of relevance is our recent book entitled ‘Interviewing Vulnerable Suspects: Safeguarding the Process’ (Edited by Jane Tudor-Owen, Celine van Golde, Ray Bull, and David Gee. Routledge 2022) which has been described in the following terms:
‘This book is an in-depth, evidence-based guide to interviewing suspects with specific vulnerabilities. It provides an overview of practical guidance for conducting interviews to facilitate best practice in interviewing. Expertise is drawn from law enforcement practice and academic research to ensure an evidence-based approach.’
Hopefully, the questioning of vulnerable accused will benefit from a focus on the information that I have provided above.
References
Bull, R., 2023. Improving the interviewing of suspects using the PEACE Model: A comprehensive overview. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 65, pp.80-91.
Bull, R., 2019. Roar or PEACE: Is it a tall story. Bull R and Blandon-Gitlin I (eds) Routledge International Handbook of Legal and Investigative Psychology. London: Routledge.
Bull, R. and Baker, B., 2020. Obtaining valid discourse from suspects PEACE-fully. The Discourse of Police Interviews, p.42.
Bull, R. and Griffiths, A., 2019. Advocating the ‘PEACE’ method: Will it make people cross? Access to justice for vulnerable people, pp.236-259.
Bull, R. and Milne, R., 2022. Interview supervision and management. In Tudor-Owen, J., van Golde, C., Bull, R. and Gee, D. eds., 2022. Interviewing Vulnerable Suspects: Safeguarding the Process. Taylor & Francis.
Bull, R. and Milne, B., 2020. Recommendations for collecting event memory evidence. In Memory and sexual misconduct (pp. 198-222). Routledge.
Milne, B. and Bull, R., 1999. Investigative interviewing: Psychology and practice. Wiley.
Bull, R. and Rachlew, A., 2019. Investigative interviewing: From England to Norway and beyond. Interrogation and torture: Research on efficacy, and its integration with morality and legality, pp.171-196.
Geijsen, K., Vanbelle, S., Kop, N. and de Ruiter, C., 2018. The Interrogation of Vulnerable Suspects in the Netherlands: An Exploratory Study. Investigative Interviewing: Research & Practice, 9, pp. 34-51.
Gulati, G., Cusack, A., Kelly, B.D., Kilcommins, S. and Dunne, C.P., 2020. Experiences of people with intellectual disabilities encountering law enforcement officials as the suspects of crime–A narrative systematic review. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 71, 101609
Kim, J., Walsh, D., Bull, R. and Bergstrøm, H., 2018. Planning ahead? An exploratory study of South Korean investigators’ beliefs about their planning for investigative interviews of suspects. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 33, pp.158-174.
Sandham, A., Dando, C., Bull, R. and Ormerod. T., 2022. Improving professional observers’ veracity judgements by tactical interviewing. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 37, pp. 279-287.
Tudor-Owen, J., van Golde, C., Bull, R. and Gee, D. eds., 2022. Interviewing Vulnerable Suspects: Safeguarding the Process. Taylor & Francis.
Walsh, D. and Bull, R., 2012. Examining rapport in investigative interviews with suspects: Does its building and maintenance work? Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 27, pp.73-84.
Wyman, J.D., Lavoie, J. and Talwar, V., 2019. Best practices for interviewing children with intellectual disabilities in maltreatment cases. Exceptionality, 27(3), pp.167-184.
Defending Vulnerability 