Louise Parker, PhD candidate, Dr Clea Wright, Senior Psychology Lecturer, Dr Michelle Mattison, Associate Professor of Psychology; University of Chester

Introduction

In England and Wales, it is a statutory requirement that the police caution is delivered upon arrest, at interview and if the suspect is charged with a criminal offence. The function of the caution is to inform the suspect of their legal right to silence, and the interviewer must ensure that the suspect understands the caution to enable fair and effective participation in the investigation. Comprehension of the caution has been poor across a range of populations, including detained persons (Fenner et al., 2002; Sim & Lamb, 2018), university students (Moore and Gagnier, 2008), members of the public (Hughes et al., 2013; Fenner et al., 2002) and persons with an intellectual disability (Fulero & Everington, 1995; Rendall et al., 2021).

Research has found that the caution is complex and contains legal ambiguity, making it difficult to understand (Rock, 2007; Shuy, 1998). Subsequently, researchers have modified the caution to measure the effects on participants’ comprehension. In one study, when the caution was presented in its entirety, only 4% of the participants fully understood the caution, however, when it was presented in a sentence-by-sentence format, nearly half of the participants fully understood the caution (Eastwood & Snook, 2010). Following this study, Eastwood and Snook (2012) modified the caution by adding sentences to the beginning, middle and end of the caution to increase its listenability, and subsequently comprehension increased by 30% for participants (university students). When the study was replicated with participants with an intellectual disability, there was no increase in comprehension levels, instead, comprehension remained very poor (Rendall et al., 2021).

 The literature on the police caution is predominantly experimental, with only two known field studies in England and Wales conducted on interviewers’ delivery and suspects’ understanding of the caution (Rock, 2007; Sim & Lamb, 2018). An exploration of interviewers’ explanations of the caution in practice showed that police interviewers inconsistently assessed juvenile suspects’ understanding of the caution. Furthermore, it was found that interviewers’ explanations contained inaccuracies, leading to misunderstandings amongst suspects (Sim & Lamb, 2018). These findings are concerning, as a suspect must fully understand the caution to be able to participate fairly and effectively in the criminal justice system.

In England and Wales, guidance contained within Code C of PACE (1984) states that ‘if a suspect appears unable to understand the caution, the interviewer must explain in their own words’ (Code C, 10.9, PACE). However, there is no further guidance on how caution understanding should be sought. The lack of focused guidance for interviewers may explain the inconsistent approaches observed in interviewers’ practices with the caution. However, it is currently unclear what factors affect police interviewers’ approaches to delivering and facilitating understanding of the caution during a suspect interview. Therefore, the following studyexamined police interviewers’ perceptions of the police caution, most notably, what factors affected their approach to delivering the caution and facilitating suspect understanding of the caution.

The Current Study

Method

            Seventeen semi-structured interviews were conducted with current and retired police interviewers to explore their perceptions and experiences when facilitating the police caution during a suspect interview. All interviewers were based in England and Wales and were geographically diverse. All interviewers were trained to PIP level 2 which is the Professionalising Investigations Programme, a national standard to police investigators, investigating serious and complex crimes.  The interviews took place online between January 2025 and March 2025, lasting an average of 60 minutes. The interviewers were asked questions related to their experiences of explaining the caution and assessing the suspect’s understanding of the caution during a police interview. The research received ethical approval from the University of Chester.

Findings

A thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006; 2013) identified the following four themes that affected interviewers’ approaches to delivering the caution and facilitating suspect understanding of the caution. These were as follows:  (i) Navigating Challenges with Facilitating Understanding, (ii) Adaptation, (iii) Experiential Learning, and (iv) Evaluating the Caution’s Utility.

Theme One: Navigating Challenges with Facilitating Understanding

Participants perceived uncooperative and disengaged suspects, power asymmetries, and institutional accountability to be challenges in facilitating understanding.

‘You can only liken it to it. I don’t know if you call in a call centre and they’re going through the terms and conditions, you’re just like, yeah. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. You’re not really listening and understanding it, and thinking. So that’s why it’s important to get something back from them because it means they have to think about it (Participant 17).

These challenges were navigated by participants reporting that they ensured their approach was conversational by building rapport, involving the Appropriate Adult and/or solicitor and relying on their professional judgement.

Theme Two: Adaptation

 Mostparticipants reported that they made adaptations for suspects who were vulnerable when the caution was delivered. These adaptations involved simplifying their language, reducing their speed, and modifying the caution’s structure. However, a small number of participants reported that they would facilitate the caution in the same way for all suspects, irrespective of whether they had been identified as vulnerable or not. ‘…Whether they’ve heard it 20 times or never, my expectation is they’ve got to understand’ (Participant 4). For those participants, they reported that they avoided making any assumptions about a suspect’s understanding of the caution. Despite these findings, a small number of participants reported that they would not make any adaptations if the suspect did not appear to be vulnerable, subsequently resulting in the caution not being explained and/or an assessment of understanding not being sought. 

Theme Three: Experiential Learning

 Despite all participants receiving training on the police caution in England and Wales through the College of Policing, participants relied on their practices being predominantly shaped and developed through peer-to-peer informal learning. Participants reported that they evaluated other interviewers’ approaches to facilitating the caution and integrated some of these techniques into building their own approaches to facilitating the caution. 

‘You will steal good ideas and good lines from other people, undoubtedly (Participant 17).’

Whilst observing their peers, some participants perceived there to be cautioning practices which they would not adopt as they perceived these to be poor practices:  ‘ they kind of go a bit round the houses and it can make things a bit more confusing than what it actually needs to be’(Participant 5) or they ‘become stuck in the death cycle’ (Participant 2) and ‘misrepresent it’s meaning’ (Participant 10). These examples highlighted where participants chose not to emulate the practices of their peers.

Theme Four: Evaluating the Caution’s Utility

 Most participantsperceived the caution as serving its intended function of providing evidentiary significance.

 ‘It is the tool we rely on… once somebody is cautioned, anything after that we can use it in evidence” (Participant 11).

Some participants perceived the caution as being beneficial to identifying vulnerabilities early in the criminal justice system, suggesting that if a suspect did not understand the caution, ‘it’s kind of a flag for the whole interview’ (Participant 10)

And… ‘that’s when your interviewer should be pausing the interview at that point, making sure the right PACE assessments have taken place around fitness and vulnerability’ (Participant 7).  

However, other participants suggested that the caution lacked impact in the wider investigation:

‘I think it’s paid lip service…there’s not a lot of judges instructing juries to draw an inference upon it’ (Participant 8)

‘It should be pushed with the jury that the story doesn’t make sense, but it’s not. So, it does feel a bit wasted. And then it just feels like, well, what’s the point? (Participant 13)

The examples above illustrated where participants perceived the caution’s utility to be lacking in impact.

Discussion

            The current study found that police interviewers facilitated suspects’ understanding of the caution through experiential learning, predominantly by observing their peers.  Further, interviewers reported that there was no supervisor feedback on their cautioning practices nor any ongoing training. One of the most prominent perceived challenges was gauging the suspect’s true understanding of the caution, as there was a lack of objective measures, and interviewers reported that suspects were sometimes non-compliant or disengaged. Therefore, interviewers had to navigate these challenges by using their professional judgement and experience to facilitate the caution.  A previous study exploring the quality of police interviewers’ cautioning practices in England and Wales found that there were inaccuracies in interviewers’ explanations (Sim & Lamb, 2018). Therefore, the reliance on peer observation and the lack of ongoing supervision/training may contribute to an unawareness of potential inaccuracies in interviewers’ facilitation of the caution in practice. Therefore, it may be beneficial for all police interviewers to undergo caution refresher training and have supervision and feedback offered as part of their ongoing caution training, rather than training on the caution being solely at the beginning of their policing career.

Conclusion

            It is hoped that the findings of this study contribute towards explaining the current inconsistencies in the way in which the caution is explained and assessed in practice. It is crucial that suspects fully understand the caution to enable them to participate fairly and effectively in the criminal justice system. Therefore, interviewers’ perceptions are important in identifying current problems which may affect the delivery and facilitation of the caution during a suspect interview. 

References

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Eastwood, J. and Snook, B. (2010) ‘The effect of listenability factors on the comprehension of police cautions’, Law and Human Behaviour, 36(3), pp. 177-83. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0093955

 Eastwood, J. and Snook, B. (2012) ‘The effect of listenability factors on the comprehension of police cautions’, Law and Human Behaviour, 36(3), pp. 177–183. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0093955

 Fenner, S., Clare, C.H., and Gudjonsson, G.H. (2002) ‘Understanding of the current police caution (England and Wales) among suspects in police detention’, Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 12(2), pp. 83-93. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.658

Fulero, S. M., and Everington, C. (1995) ‘Assessing competency to waive Miranda rights in defendants with mental retardation’, Law and Human Behaviour, 19(5), pp. 533–543. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01499342

Hughes, M., Bain, S., Gilchrist, E., and Boyle, J. (2013) ‘Does providing a written version of the police caution improve comprehension in the general population?’ Psychology, Crime and Law, 19(7), pp. 549-564. 10.1080/1068316X.2011.644793

Moore, T.E. and Gagnier, K. (2008) ‘“You can talk if you want to”: Is the police caution on the ‘right to silence understandable’, Criminal Reports,  51(6), pp. 233–249

Oxburgh, L., Gabbert, F., Milne, R., Cherryman, J. (2016). Police officers’ perceptions and experiences with mentally disordered suspects, International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 49, 138-146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2016.08.008

Rendall, M., and MacMahon, K. (2020) ‘Influences on understanding of a verbally presented police caution amongst adults involved in the criminal justice system: a systematic review’, Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 28(1), pp. 70-93 https://10.1080/13218719.2020.1767711

Rock, F. (2007) Communicating rights: the language of arrest and detention. London: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230286504

Shuy, R.W. (1998) The language of power, interrogation, and deception. Sage Publications: London. Sim, M.P.Y., and Lamb, M.E (2018) ‘An analysis of how the police ‘caution’ is presented to juvenile suspects in England’, Psychology, Crime & Law, 24(8), pp. 851-872 | https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2018.1442449