How Criminals Are Arrested

Copyright © The British Psychological Society
Reproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society
161
The
British
Psychological
Legal and Criminological Psychology (2010), 15, 161–175
q 2010 The British Psychological Society
Society
www.bpsjournals.co.uk
Invited article
Psychological vulnerabilities during police
interviews. Why are they important?
Gisli H. Gudjonsson*
Institute of Psychiatry, King’s College London, UK
Over the past three decades much has been learned about the role and importance of
psychological vulnerabilities in the context of unreliability of information obtained
during police interviews. This paper reviews the current state of knowledge and
explains why vulnerabilities are important. Psychological vulnerabilities are best
construed as potential ‘risk factors’ rather than definitive markers of unreliability. They
are important, because they may place witnesses, victims, and suspects at a
disadvantage in terms of coping with the demand characteristics of the interview (and
subsequent Court process) and being able to provide the police with salient, detailed,
accurate, and coherent answers to questions. Early identification of relevant and
pertinent vulnerabilities in the interview process helps to ensure fairness and justice.
Currently, the identification of vulnerabilities is poor, and even when identified, they are
not always acted upon. Nevertheless, England has taken the lead in improving the police
interview process and the protection of vulnerable interviewees. More work needs to
be done, but the Bradley Report recommendations represent an excellent opportunity
for police and health care professionals to work together to improve justice for all. This
is the key initial interface that will be vital for reducing future miscarriages of justice.
The interviewing of victims, witnesses, and suspects forms an integral part of the police
investigation into criminal activities (Williamson, 2007). It is the quality and fairness of
those interviews that often determines whether or not justice is seen to be served
(Gudjonsson, 2006a). It is the current author’s view that the evaluation and
determination of the credibility (i.e., believability) of victims, witnesses, and suspects
is one of the most challenging tasks facing the criminal justice system. It will also be
argued that there has been improved scientific knowledge about the psychological
vulnerabilities of interviewees and how vulnerabilities may impact on their credibility
during police interviews or when giving evidence in court. Psychological vulnerabilities
of interviewees during police questioning form an important part of a complex and
dynamic process (Gudjonsson, 2003a).
* Correspondence should be addressed to Professor Gisli H. Gudjonsson, Department of Psychology (PO 78), Institute of
Psychiatry, King’s College London, De Crespigny Park, Denmark Hill, London SE5 8AF, UK (e-mail: gisli.gudjonsson@kcl.ac.uk).
DOI:10.1348/135532510X500064
162 Gisli H. Gudjonsson
The continually growing scientific knowledge about psychological vulnerabilities in

police interviews has been accompanied in several countries by improvements in police
interview training and judicial procedures and protection (for a review, see Williamson,
Milne, & Savage, 2009, Eds., and Vol. 15, Part 1, in Legal and Criminological
Psychology). However, a great deal more remains to be done. For example, in light of
the high proportion of false confessions found among cases of DNA exonerations in
the USA, recommendations for major reforms of police interview practices have
recently been put forward (Kassin et al., 2010a, b).
This article will focus on the nature of psychological vulnerabilities in police
interviews of witnesses, victims, and suspects, and address the question: why are they
important? In order to answer this key question, the author will review the relevant
background literature, discuss recent advances in research and practice, identify
key issues involving ‘competencies’, ‘reliability’, and ‘vulnerabilities’ and discuss them
within the current English legal framework, and give a summary of 34 cases of
miscarriage of justice involving disputed confessions between 1989 and 2009,
commencing with the case of the ‘Guildford Four’.
This paper is particularly timely in view of Lord Bradley’s recent review of people
with mental health problems and learning disabilities in the criminal justice system
and the numerous recommendations (The Bradley Report, 2009).
Traditional versus recent approaches to witness testimony

Loftus, Wolchover, and Page (2006) argue that the traditional approach to the evalua-
tion of the credibility of witness testimony ‘was for fact-finders to focus exclusively
on the content of their narrative testimony in court, their reactions under cross-
examination and their demeanour when giving that evidence’ (p. 20). This is exactly
what happened in the case of Engin Raghip, one of the ‘Tottenham Three’, when in
1988 Lord Lane refused to allow the evidence of the present author in the Court of
Appeal (Gudjonsson, 2003b). However, that view was to change in 1991 when Raghip
and his two co-appellants had their convictions for the murder of PC Blakelock
overturned after successful submissions by defence counsels and the expert testimony
of three clinical psychologists. The ruling in the case broadened the criteria for
admissibility and acceptance of psychological testimony in cases of disputed
confessions to include borderline IQ and personality traits related to interrogative
suggestibility and compliance. Importantly, the Court of Appeal judges warned that
‘high suggestibility and intellectual deficits could not satisfactorily be detected by
observations of the defendant’s performance in the witness box’ (Gudjonsson, 2003b,
p. 468). This case was the first of its kind and delivered the most important judgment
for the psychology profession in the UK. It has influenced the admissibility of expert
psychological testimony in many other cases (Gudjonsson, 2006a).
The Right Honourable Lord Bingham of Cornhill (Bingham, 2006) gives an excellent
overview of how judges traditionally determine the credibility of witnesses. Lord
Bingham describes ‘five tests’, which principally focus on detecting indicators of
deliberate deception (i.e., the consistency of the witness’s evidence with other tangible
evidence, the internal consistency of the witness’s evidence, consistency with what the
witness has said on other occasions, the general credibility of the witness not germane
to the litigation, and the demeanour of the witness). Bingham also discusses the cases
where witnesses are ‘honest but mistaken’ and argues that judges are generally reluctant
‘to brand anyone a liar’ (p. 340) and therefore tend to err on the side of caution.
Psychological vulnerabilities 163
He argues that there are generally three sources of unreliability in these ‘honest but
mistaken’ cases (i.e., errors to do with observations and memory, loss of memory with
the passage of time, and wishful thinking or self-deception). Lord Bingham’s thoughtful
conceptualization dovetails reasonably well with the psychological distinction between
‘eyewitness motivation’ (i.e., motivation to give an open and honest account) and
‘eyewitness ability’ to give a clear and coherent account of events (Undeutsch, 1982).
Unfortunately, as Vrij (2008) points out, the detection of deception through
observations of demeanour (i.e., on the basis of what the person says and the manner
in which he or she says it) are fraught with misconceptions, unreliability, and
overconfidence by the observer. Even the influential work of Undeutsch (1982) into the
first ‘verbal detection tool’ has come under recent criticism (Vrij, 2008). Porter and ten
Brinke (2010) argue for more innovative and ecologically valid methods for studying
forensic populations and high-stakes lies. This is undoubtedly a sensible way forward.
Loftus et al. (2006) assert that the development of theory and practice in psychology
from the end of the nineteenth century until the present time has resulted in a
scientifically based knowledge and evidence base, which contradicts the traditional
approach to evaluating witness credibility. This growing evidence base has shown that
memory processing and witness testimony are much more dynamic and complex than
previously assumed and this realization has resulted in the increased role of expert
psychological evidence (Gudjonsson, 2003a). The focus of the psychological evaluation
is on the strengths and weaknesses (‘vulnerabilities’) of the witness which may have a
bearing on the ‘reliability’ of their evidence (Gudjonsson, 2006b). In an early case study,
Gudjonsson and Gunn (1982) demonstrated how a psychological evaluation of a victim
with severe learning disability assisted the jury at the Central Criminal Court in
determining the ‘reliability’ of the victim’s testimony. This case led to the develop-
ment of the Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scales (Gudjonsson, 1997, 2003b), which are
internationally recognized (Frumkin, 2008; Geisinger, Spies, Carlson, & Plake, 2007).
Fisher (2010) argues that the cognitive interview and other scientifically informed
and theory driven interviewing protocols have a great deal to offer when it comes to
improving the quality of police interviews with cooperative witnesses. However, he
raises two key concerns. Firstly, the lack of collaborative work between scientists and
police practitioners in the USA means that the scientific work is not being effectively
incorporated into police interviewing protocols. Police officers keep making the same
interviewing mistakes as they have traditionally done in the past. This urgently needs to
change. A good and effective collaborative relationship between scientists and police
officers is essential for future developments in forensic interviewing (Meissner, Hartwig,
& Russano, 2010). This kind of collaborative relationship has been achieved in several
countries in relation to the interviewing of children suspected of having been
sexually abused (Gudjonsson, Sveinsdottir, Sigurdsson, & Jonsdottir, 2010; Lamb,
Hershkowitz, Orbach, & Espin, 2008). Secondly, Fisher argues that psychology has
not been successful in developing effective interview methods for improving the
identification of perpetrators in line-ups. This is another important potential area of
collaborative work between scientists and police officers.
Within the context of suspect interviews, Kassin, Appleby, and Perillo (2010)
recommend that current American models of police interviewing are replaced with the
British PEACE approach and accompanied by mandatory video-recording of police
interviews. This does require good collaboration between police interviewers and
scientists. Within this context, an important recent development is that psychologists
are increasingly taking an active part in the training of police officers in investigative
interviewing and acting as consultants in several different countries, including

the UK (Shawyer, Milne, & Bull, 2009), the Nordic countries (Fahsing & Rachlew,
2009), France, Belgium, and The Netherlands (Clement, van de Plas, van den Eshof,
& Nierop, 2009), Canada (St-Yves, 2009), and Australia (Moston, 2009). Of particular
importance has been the move away from obtaining confessions and towards a search
for the truth where the focus is on fairness and transparency (Williamson, 2007).
Williamson concludes:
A current challenge for psychologists is to convince investigators, lawyers and judges that
they need a better understanding of the psychological factors that affect the reliability of
witness testimony and the weight it should be given (p. 87).
The competency requirements of witnesses

Psychologists have taken an active part in assessing the capacity of victims and
witnesses to give evidence (Gudjonsson & Gunn, 1982; Gudjonsson, Murphy, & Clare,
2000). Issues related to the mental capacity of a witness to testify (i.e., competency
requirements) are separate to those related to reliability or the credibility of the witness.
The former is determined by the trial judge, the latter by the jury in terms of the weight
attached to the evidence (Gudjonsson & Gunn, 1982). Currently in England, witness
capacity can be viewed in the context of two legal frameworks: Part 1 of the Mental
Capacity Act 2005 and Section 53 of the Youth and Criminal Evidence Act 1999. Both
Acts are relevant to the capacity of people to be interviewed by police. The former
focuses on the capacity of impaired or disturbed individuals to make decisions regarding
relevant issues and applies to persons above the age of 16 years. In contrast, the Youth
and Criminal Evidence Act competency requirement applies to persons of any age,
including very young children (see R v Barker; [2010] EWCA Crim 4; 21 January 2010).
Section 53 (Subsection 3) states that a person is not competent to give evidence in
criminal proceedings if it seems to the Court that the person is not able to: (a)
‘understand questions put to him as a witness’ and (b) ‘give answers to them, which can
be understood’. Smith and Tilney (2007) discuss some of the applications of these two
Acts in the context of the police interviewing of vulnerable witnesses.
The following guidance has been developed as part of Action for Justice, the
implementation programme for the measures to assist vulnerable or intimidated
witnesses in the 1998 Home Office report Speaking Up for Justice.
The trial judge will decide on the competency issues, typically after watching the
achieving best evidence (ABE) interview of the witness (Home Office, 2002, 2008a –
this interview process involves special measures that are available when vulnerable and
intimidated witnesses are interviewed by police), listening to expert testimony
regarding an evaluation of the witness, and hearing submissions from the defence and
prosecution. On occasions, a trial judge may also listen to the testimony of a registered
intermediary and ask the witness some preliminary questions in Court. Even after
determining that the witness is competent to give evidence, the judge may re-visit the
issue at a later stage during the trial, and if necessary, exclude the ABE interview under
section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.
The recent ruling in R v Barker makes it clear that when determining witness
competence it is not necessary that the witness understands every single question or
gives readily understood answers to all questions. In broad terms, provided the witness
can understand the questions and provide understandable answers, he or she is judged
competent. Of course, vulnerable and intimidated witnesses may be provided with
‘special measures’ to assist them to cope with giving testimony (see Part II of the Youth
Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999). These include testifying behind a screen or via
a live video link, evidence given in private, removal of wigs and gowns, the use of video-
recorded evidence in chief, examination of the witness via an intermediary, and the use
of aids to further communication. According to Burton, Evans, and Sanders (2006), the
additional measures of pre-trial video-recorded cross-examination and re-examination
are not currently used but will be subject to a review. The reason for the special
measures is to provide vulnerable and intimidated witnesses with assistance in order to
enable them to give evidence as effectively as possible (i.e., their ‘best evidence’
possible) and to minimize the stress associated with giving evidence.
Burton et al. (2006) tried to estimate the number of vulnerable and intimidated
witnesses encountered by police. In their research, Burton and colleagues adapted the
screening interview used by Gudjonsson, Clare, Rutter, and Pearse (1993) to provide an
estimate of the number of vulnerable and intimidated witnesses. Gudjonsson et al.
(1993) had found that the police identified only 4% as being sufficiently vulnerable to
require the services of an appropriate adult, whereas the clinical evaluation of the
detainees suggested that between 15 and 20% required the services of an appropriate
adult. Burton et al. (2006) similarly found that the official recognition of potentially
vulnerable witnesses by police and the Crown prosecution Service was much below
that identified by the researchers (i.e., an official figure of 9 vs. 24% when the
researchers used a ‘very conservative estimate’ – they also give a much higher figure of
possible vulnerability 2 54%). The largest groups that were not identified were the
mentally disordered and learning disabled. The findings suggest that there still remains a
huge unmet need among vulnerable witnesses with regard to identification and
implementation of the special measures. There may also be important differences
between witnesses (i.e., bystanders and observers) and victims of crime in terms of
vulnerabilities and this requires further research (Sigurdsson, Gudjonsson, Einarsson, &
Gudjonsson, 2006).
How challenges by defence lawyers to the competencies of witnesses are resolved
are crucial to the outcome of cases. A case in point is that of Ms Kara Hoyte,
a 19-year-old aspiring model (Times Online, 4 July 2009). In 2002, Mr Mario Celaire, a
former professional footballer, was acquitted by a jury of murdering his ex-girlfriend,
Ms Cassandara McDermott. In February 2007, Mr Celaire attacked another former
girlfriend with a hammer and caused her to suffer from severe brain damage, which
left her partially paralysed and significantly affected her ability to communicate (her
expressive dysphasia was particularly marked). The Crown needed Ms Hoyte’s
evidence to convince the Court of Appeal to quash Mr Celaire’s 2002 acquittal in line
with recent changes in the law regarding ‘double jeopardy’ and for Mr Celaire to be
tried for the attempted murder on Ms Hoyte. The Crown instructed Dr Susan Young
and Professor Gisli Gudjonsson to assess Ms Hoyte’s capacity to act as a witness. Both
experts considered Ms Hoyte competent to act as a witness, but supported the
recommendation of a registered intermediary for special provisions during her
testimony. The defence tried to argue that Ms Hoyte did not meet the competency
requirements and instructed their own experts. The Crown’s application to the Court
of Appeal was successful and a re-trial was ordered concerning the murder of
Ms McDermott. Mr Celaire was also to be tried for the attempted murder of Ms Hoyte.
Ms Hoyte was determined to give evidence and the Crown experts were warned to
attend Court to support the legal arguments that Ms Hoyte met the competency
requirements. At the day of the trial, Mr Celaire admitted the manslaughter of
McDermott and attempted murder of Ms Hoyte and was ordered to serve a minimum
of 23 years in prison (Mail Online, 4 July 2009).
The Bradley Report recommends that consideration should be given to extending to
vulnerable defendants the current provisions regarding court attendance available to
vulnerable witnesses. This will be an important future development, because some
defendants do have problems in Court. A good example is the case of Barry George, who
in 2001 was convicted of murdering the BBC broadcaster Jill Dando, and subsequently
acquitted after a re-trial in 2008. Mr George was a man of borderline intelligence, who
had a long-standing history of epilepsy and severe impairment in memory and executive
functions. These functional impairments made it difficult for him to follow the trial
process. In view of this, at the first trial the judge ordered that a psychologist, Dr Susan
Young, should be present throughout the trial to assist the defendant with following
proceedings and coping with the trial process. This provision was considered vital to
ensure that the defendant received a fair hearing and in order to enable the trial to
proceed properly (Gudjonsson, 2003b). Dr Young provided the same psychological
assistance throughout the second and final trial and this resulted in huge media interest
after Mr George’s acquittal (Young, 2008).
Psychological vulnerabilities
Bull (2010) states that there is no internationally agreed definition of the word
‘vulnerable’ with regard to witnesses. He does not provide a definition in his article that
would assist with the assessment of individual cases and focuses instead on vulnerable
groups, such as children and those with learning disabilities. The focus on groups of
vulnerable individuals is helpful but what is also needed is a generic definition related to
psychological vulnerabilities that is applicable to witnesses, victims, and suspects.
Within this in mind, Gudjonsson (2006b) defines psychological vulnerabilities as
‘psychological characteristics or mental state which render a witness prone, in certain
circumstances, to providing information which is inaccurate, unreliable or misleading’
(p. 68). In this context, psychological vulnerabilities represent potential ‘risk factors’
rather than definitive markers of unreliability. This is consistent with the letter and spirit
of Code C of Practice of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (Home Office, 2008b),
where it states:
Although people who are mentally disordered or otherwise mentally vulnerable are often
capable of providing reliable evidence, they may, without knowing or wanting to do so, be
particularly prone in certain circumstances to provide information that may be unreliable,
misleading or self-incriminating. Special care should always be taken when questioning
such a person, and the appropriate adult should be involved if there is any doubt about a
person’s mental state or capacity. Because of the risk of unreliable evidence, it is important
to obtain corroboration of any facts admitted whenever possible (p. 80).
As far as psychological vulnerabilities are concerned, these should not be interpreted
in isolation to other surrounding factors (Gudjonsson, 2003a, b). Investigative inter-
viewing is a dynamic and interactive process. Gudjonsson and MacKeith (1997) argue
that the capacity of the interviewee to cope with police interviews depends in some
cases on medical, psychiatric, and psychological factors. They use the acronym CIPH to
discuss this process. C stands for circumstances (nature and seriousness of the crime,
pressure on the police to solve the crime), I for interactions (there may be complex
interactions between the interviewee, the police, and other persons present in
the interview), P for personality (i.e., enduring qualities of the interviewee), and H for
health (physical and mental health, mental state). Gudjonsson (2003a) presents this
conceptual framework slightly differently and emphasizes the nature of the interaction
between circumstances/contextual factors, custodial factors, vulnerability factors, and
support factors (e.g., presence of a lawyer, appropriate adult). Kassin and Gudjonsson
(2004) construe vulnerability factors as potential ‘risk factors’, which may also include
young age, lack of life experience, and immaturity. Young persons seem to be
particularly at risk of making false confessions, especially if they have experienced
negative life-events (Drake, 2010; Gudjonsson, Sigurdsson, & Sigfusdottir, 2009a, b;
Gudjonsson, Sigurdsson, Sigfusdottir, & Asgeirsdottir, 2008).
Vulnerabilities or potential ‘risk factors’ during police interviews can be
incorporated within legal competencies constructs. These are functional abilities that
refer to what ‘an individual can do or accomplish, as well as knowledge, understanding,
or beliefs that may be necessary for the accomplishment’ (Grisso, 2003, pp. 23–24).
In the USA, the three types of legal competencies in criminal cases requiring the
services of mental health professionals are those relating to fitness to plead and stand
trial, waiver of rights during interrogation (this also includes vulnerabilities in relation to
coping with a police interview), and criminal responsibility (Grisso, 2003; Gudjonsson
& Grisso, 2008). In England, there is the added role of vulnerable persons, including
juveniles and the mentally disordered, being entitled to special protection in the form of
assistance from an appropriate adult and medical attention, if appropriate, during
detention and custodial interrogation (Home Office, 2008b). Competencies related to
Grisso’s framework are also relevant to witnesses and victims and include both legal
competency requirements (i.e., fitness to give evidence) and reliability/credibility issues
(i.e., the weight of the evidence considered by the jury and includes the demeanour
of the witness).
Gudjonsson (2006b) argues that there are typically four types of psychological
vulnerabilities relevant to the psychological or psychiatric evaluation of victims,
witnesses, and suspects in criminal cases. These are labelled ‘mental disorder’
(i.e., mental illness, learning disabilities, personality disorder), ‘abnormal mental state’
(e.g., anxiety, mood disturbance, phobias, bereavement, intoxication, or withdrawal
from drugs or alcohol), ‘intellectual functioning’ (e.g., borderline IQ scores), and
‘personality’ (e.g., suggestibility, compliance, and acquiescence). Undoubtedly,
personality disorder is likely to be the most controversial and complex ‘vulnerability’
to consider in view of its association with criminal propensity, dishonesty, and disregard
for others, and the limited scientific knowledge about how it impacts on unreliability
in police interview (Gudjonsson & Grisso, 2008).
Typically, the most difficult task for the psychologist or psychiatrist is, firstly,
to identify vulnerabilities that are relevant and pertinent to the case, and secondly,
to place these vulnerabilities firmly within the totality of the circumstances and
background surrounding the case, which furthers the understanding of the processes
and mechanisms involved. Psychological vulnerabilities should not be interpreted in
isolation to other salient information. Indeed, Gudjonsson and MacKeith (1997) have
raised concerns about how issues about vulnerabilities may be misconstrued when
viewed in isolation to other important factors (e.g., using a high score on a suggestibility
test to challenge the reliability of admissions made in police interview when in fact the
admissions were made without any suggestions by police or pressure in the interview).
Undoubtedly, most vulnerable interviewees, if motivated and co-operative, can give
reliable evidence if carefully interviewed and provided with the special assistance
they require (e.g., legal advice, the services of an appropriate adult, or a registered
intermediary). In cases of suspects, if the legal support provisions are insufficient to
ensure reliability then he or she may be judged to be unfit for interview, either
temporarily or permanently (Gudjonsson, 2003b, 2005; see also Annex G ‘Fitness to be
Interviewed’ in the Code of Practice, Home Office, 2008b, pp. 82–83). In England,
psychologists sometimes advise police officers about vulnerabilities prior to the police
interview being conducted in order to ensure fairness and reliability in interview
(Gudjonsson, 2007).
The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 makes it possible to draw adverse
inferences if the accused remains silent during police interviews or chooses not to go
into the witness box at trial. Psychologists are increasingly being asked to conduct a
psychological evaluation of defendants with this in mind in order to ascertain relevant
psychological vulnerabilities and offer advice about their capacity to give evidence
(Gudjonsson, 2003b).
Cases of miscarriage of justice 1989–2009

The acquittal of the ‘Guildford Four’ in October 1989 ‘opened the gates’ for other cases
of miscarriage of justice in the UK involving disputed confessions (Gudjonsson, 2003b).
Ewing and McCann (2006) provide a detailed and thoughtful account of the case
and describe it as ‘one of the most infamous occurrences of wrongful conviction based
on false confession and was one of the worst miscarriages of justice in recent history’
(p. 54). Since that time there has been a growing number of other cases where
appellants have had their convictions overturned on the basis of unsafe confessions.
Gudjonsson (2002) reviewed 22 cases; a few years later he reviewed 30 cases
(Gudjonsson, 2006a).
In this paper, the author briefly reviews 34 cases where convictions were quashed
between 1989 and 2009. The cases, the year of conviction, the year of acquittal,
whether or not oral psychological or psychiatric evidence was heard, whether
psychological vulnerabilities (PV) or police/procedural impropriety (PI) were the main
grounds for acquittal (based on the reasoning in the judgments), and the nature of the
vulnerabilities, are shown in the Appendix. Psychological vulnerabilities refer to those
characteristics that were identified during a psychological or psychiatric evaluation and
cast doubt on the reliability of incriminating comments made in police interview. Police
or procedural impropriety refers to serious breaches in police practice or behaviour
(e.g., failure to provide suspects with their legal entitlement, such as access to a lawyer,
fabrication of evidence, tampering with interview records), failure of disclosure, or
misdirection by the trial judge (i.e., Derek Bentley).
There were 27 murder cases, 4 terrorist cases, including murder convictions
(The Guildford Four, the Birmingham Six, Judith Ward, Alfred Allen), 1 attempted
murder (Paul Blackburn), 1 conspiracy to rob (Kayed Antar), and 1 sexual assault
(Shane Smith). This is probably not an exhaustive list, but involves all those cases known
to the author. There were 46 successful applicants, 43 (93%) males and 3 females
(Carole Richardson, Jacqueline Fletcher, and Judith Ward).
Appendix shows that expert psychological/psychiatric evidence was heard in the
Court of Appeal in 15 (44%) of the cases (the present author testified in 11 of those
15 cases). In addition, in two cases (Fletcher and Long) only psychiatric evidence was
heard, but there were written psychological reports available and referred to in the
judgment in the case of Fletcher. In several of the other cases, the convictions were
overturned at least in part on the basis of written psychological reports (e.g., Mackenzie,
the Darvell brothers, Miller, Bridgewater, Gordon, Smith, Antar, Hindes and Hanna,
Flanagan, Adams, Nolan, and Lawless). One of the failed cases in the Court of Appeal
(Pendleton), went to the House of Lords in 2001 where the conviction was overturned,
largely on the basis of the psychological evidence heard previously in the Court of Appeal.
Reviewing the judgments, it appears that in 23 cases (68%), the conviction was
overturned mainly on the basis of psychological vulnerability identified and articulated
in psychological or/or psychiatric reports. In one case (Miller), there were
vulnerabilities present as well as police/procedural improprieties. In 10 cases (29%),
there was police/procedural impropriety, which was the predominant reason for the
conviction being overturned. This included fabricated evidence or alteration of police
interview notes (Guildford Four, Birmingham Six, Allen, Darvell brothers), suppression
of evidence (Kiszko), oppressive interviewing (Miller), a faked false confession by police
(Bridgewater), failure to comply with legal rights (Downing), misdirection by trial judge
(Bentley), a failure to provide an appropriate adult, length of detention, and failure to
disclose evidence (Hindes and Hanna). In one further case (Hodgson), the conviction
was overturned on the basis of DNA evidence, which proved Hodgson’s innocence. It is
important to note that in two of the cases in Appendix (Kiszko and Miller), subsequent
DNA evidence lead to the conviction of the real murderers.
As can be seen in Appendix, there were a number of reasons for the unreliable
confession or self-incriminating statement to police, including borderline IQ,
personality disorder, clinical depression, pathological attention seeking, and abnormal
traits of suggestibility and/or compliance. In the view of the present author, who was
significantly involved in 28 (82%) of the cases and has studied all the cases in detail, in
most of the cases, including those involving police/procedural impropriety, the key to
the unreliable confession was the inability of the person to cope with the police and
custodial pressures.
A major problem highlighted by these cases was the failure to identify psychological
vulnerabilities prior to the trial.
Conclusions
Psychological vulnerabilities are important in police interviews, because they may place
witnesses, victims, and suspects at a disadvantage in terms of: (a) coping with the
demand characteristics and stress of the interview (and also for suspects coping with
detention), including making informed decisions and understanding questions and the
implications of their answers and statement to police (e.g., becoming a material witness,
possibly having to testify in court, being charged with a crime) and (b) providing the
police with salient, detailed, accurate, and coherent answers to questions. In order for
justice to be seen to be served, there has to be a fair process, which is recognized in
Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Vulnerabilities may similarly be
relevant to the capacity of the interviewee to testify in Court (Gudjonsson, 2006b).
Gudjonsson (2003b, 2007) has discussed in detail how police interviews can go
wrong and the potentially damaging consequences, not just for those wrongfully
convicted but also on occasions preventing the apprehension of the real perpetrator,
who may continue to commit serious crimes. There is no doubt that England has taken
an international lead in improving the police interview process and the protection of
vulnerable interviewees. More work needs to be done, but the Bradley Report
recommendations represent an excellent opportunity for police and health care

professionals to work together to improve justice for all. This is the key initial interface
that will be vital for reducing future miscarriages of justice.
There are important legal differences and support provisions between witnesses/
victims and suspects (Gudjonsson, 2006a). However, it is evident from research among
both suspects (Gudjonsson et al., 1993) and vulnerable and intimidated witnesses/
victims (Burton et al., 2006) that in the majority of cases vulnerabilities are not
identified, and even if identified, this information is not always acted upon in terms
of service provisions. This problem needs to be urgently addressed and some reliable
form of screening needs to be developed, implemented, and acted upon.
On occasions, the status of a witness may change to that of a suspect due to
unidentified vulnerabilities which were misconstrued by police (Gudjonsson, 2003b).
For example, Gudjonsson, Young, and Bramham (2007) have shown how people
with symptoms of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) may appear vague in
their answers during questioning and unwittingly arouse unfounded suspicions of
deception. Recent research has shown that ADHD symptoms are disproportionally
associated with the reporting of false confessions (Gudjonsson, Sigurdsson, Einarsson,
Bragason, & Newton, 2008) and it is the attentional problems rather than hyperactivity
and impulsivity that are most strongly associated with false confessions (Gudjonsson,
Sigurdsson, Einarsson, Bragason, & Newton, 2010). Therefore, we have to look at
psychological vulnerabilities more broadly than simply in terms of learning disabilities
and mental illness, which has been the traditional approach. The focus needs to be on
mental health issues and personality difficulties more generally.
A great deal has been learned about psychological vulnerabilities in police interviews
during the past three decades, but we still need to learn more about the processes and
mechanisms that provide the casual link between vulnerabilities and potential
unreliability in police interviews and how these can be overcome by improved police
interview techniques, improved identification, and better protection and provisions for
vulnerable witnesses, victims, and suspects. The greatest challenge is undoubtedly in
relation to personality disorders, because these are often linked to perceptions about
criminality and dishonesty and the impact of their condition on the reliability of their
accounts in police interviews and to others is less well understood than that of learning
disabilities and mental illness.
References
Bingham, T. (2006). Assessing contentious eyewitness evidence: A judicial view. In A. Heaton-
Armstrong, E. Shepherd, G. Gudjonsson, & D. Wolchover (Eds.), Witness testimony.
Psychological, investigative and evidential perspectives (pp. 327–343). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Bull, R. (2010). The investigative interviewing of children and other vulnerable witnesses:
Psychological research and working/professional practice. Legal and Criminological
Psychology, 15, 5–23. doi:10.1348/014466509X440160
Burton, M., Evans, R., & Sanders, A. (2006). Are special measures for vulnerable and intimidated
witnesses working? Evidence from the Criminal Justice Agencies. On-line Report 01/06.
Home Office: London.
Clement, S., van de Plas, M., van den Eshof, P., & Nierop, N. (2009). Investigative interviewing
in France, Belgium and The Netherlands: Something is moving. In T. Williamson, B. Milen, &
S. P. Savage (Eds.), International development in investigative interviewing (pp. 66–91).
Cullompton: Willan Publishing.
Drake, K. E. (2010). Interrogative suggestibility: Life adversity, neuroticism and compliance.

Personality and Individual Differences, 48, 493–498. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2009.11.030
Ewing, C. P., & McCann, J. T. (2006). Minds on trial. Great cases in law and psychology. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Fahsing, A., & Rachlew, A. (2009). Investigative interviewing in the Nordic region. In
T. Williamson, B. Milen, & S. P. Savage (Eds.), International development in investigative
interviewing (pp. 39–65). Cullompton: Willan Publishing.
Fisher, R. (2010). Interviewing cooperative witnesses. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 15,
25–38. doi:10.1348/135532509X441891
Frumkin, I. B. (2008). Psychological evaluation in Miranda waiver and confession cases. In
R. Denny & J. Sullivan (Eds.), Clinical neuropsychology in the criminal forensic setting
(pp. 135–175). New York: Guilford Press.
Geisinger, K. F., Spies, R. A., Carlson, J. F., & Plake, B. S. (Eds.), (2007). The seventeenth mental
measurements yearbook. Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements.
Grisso, T. (2003). Evaluating competencies. Forensic assessments and instruments (2nd ed.).
New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.
Gudjonsson, G. H. (1997). The Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scales Manual. Hove: Psychology
Press.
Gudjonsson, G. H. (2002). Unreliable confessions and miscarriages of justice in Britain.
International Journal of Police Science and Management, 4, 332–343.
doi:10.1350/ijps.4.4.332.10880
Gudjonsson, G. H. (2003a). Psychology brings justice. The science of forensic psychology.
Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 13, 159–167. doi:10.1002/cbm.539
Gudjonsson, G. H. (2003b). The psychology of interrogations and confessions. A handbook.
Chichester: Wiley.
Gudjonsson, G. H. (2005). Fitness to be interviewed. In J. Payne-James, R. W. Byard, T. S. Corey, &
C. Henderson (Eds.), Encyclopedia of forensic and legal medicine (Vol. 2, pp. 169–174).
London: Elsevier.
Gudjonsson, G. H. (2006a). Disputed confessions and miscarriages of justice in Britain: Expert
psychological and psychiatric evidence in Court of Appeal. Manitoba Law Journal, 31,
489–521.
Gudjonsson, G. H. (2006b). The psychological vulnerabilities of witnesses and the risk of false
accusations and false confessions. In A. Heaton-Armstrong, E. Shepherd, G. Gudjonsson, &
D. Wolchover (Eds.), Witness testimony. Psychological, investigative and evidential
perspectives (pp. 61–75). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gudjonsson, G. H. (2007). Investigative interviewing. In T. Newburn, T. Williamson, & A. Wright
(Eds.), Handbook of criminal investigation (pp. 466–492). Devon: Willan Publishing.
Gudjonsson, G. H., Clare, I., Rutter, S., & Pearse, J. (1993). Persons at risk during interviews in
police custody: The identification of vulnerabilities. Royal commission on criminal justice.
London: HMSO.
Gudjonsson, G. H., & Grisso, T. (2008). Legal competencies in relation to confession evidence.
In A. R. Felthouse & H. Sass (Eds.), International handbook on psychopathic disorders and
the law (Vol. 2, pp. 177–187). Chichester: Wiley.
Gudjonsson, G. H., & Gunn, J. (1982). The competence and reliability of a witness in a criminal
court. British Journal of Psychiatry, 141, 624–627. doi:10.1192/bjp.141.6.624
Gudjonsson, G. H., & MacKeith, J. (1997). Disputed confessions and the criminal justice system.
Maudsley Discussion Paper No. 2. London: Institute of Psychiatry.
Gudjonsson, G. H., Murphy, G. H., & Clare, I. C. H. (2000). Assessing the capacity of people with
intellectual disabilities to be witnesses in court. Psychological Medicine, 30, 307–314.
doi:10.1017/S003329179900149X
Gudjonsson, G. H., Sigurdsson, J. F., Einarsson, E., Bragason, O. O., & Newton, A. K. (2008).
Interrogative suggestibility, compliance and false confessions among prisoners and their
relationship with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) symptoms. Psychological

Medicine, 38, 1037–1044. doi:10.1017/S0033291708002882
Gudjonsson, G. H., Sigurdsson, J. F., Einarsson, E., Bragason, O. O., & Newton, A. K. (2010).
Inattention, hyperactivity/impulsivity and antisocial personality disorder: Which is the best
predictor of false confessions? Personality and Individual Differences, 48, 720–724.
doi:10.1016/j.paid.2010.01.012
Gudjonsson, G. H., Sigurdsson, J. F., & Sigfusdottir, I. D. (2009a). False confessions among 15 and
16 year olds in compulsory education and their relationship with adverse life events. Journal
of Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology, 20, 950–963. doi:10.1080/14789940903174212
Gudjonsson, G. H., Sigurdsson, J. F., & Sigfusdottir, I. D. (2009b). Interrogations and false
confessions among adolescents in seven countries in Europe. What background and
psychological factors best discriminate between false confessors and non-false confessors?
Psychology, Crime and Law, 15, 711–728. doi:10.1080/10683160802516257
Gudjonsson, G. H., Sigurdsson, J. F., Sigfusdottir, I. D., & Asgeirsdottir, B. B. (2008). False
confessions and individual differences. The importance of victimization among youth.
Personality and Individual Differences, 45, 801–805. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2008.08.010
Gudjonsson, G. H., Sveinsdottir, T., Sigurdsson, J. F., & Jonsdottir, J. K. (2010). The ability of
suspected victims of childhood sexual abuse (CSA) to give evidence. Findings from the
Children’s House in Iceland. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology. Advance online
publication. doi:10.1080/14789940903540784
Gudjonsson, G. H., Young, S., & Bramham, J. (2007). Interrogative suggestibility in adults
diagnosed with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). A potential vulnerability
during police questioning. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 737–745.
doi:10.1016/j.paid.2007.01.014
Home Office (2002). Achieving best evidence in criminal proceedings: Guidance for vulnerable
and intimidated witnesses, including children. London: Author.
Home Office (2008a). Achieving best evidence in criminal proceedings: Guidance for vulnerable
and intimidated witnesses, including children (updated). London: Author.
Home Office (2008b). Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, Codes of Practice – Code C
detention, treatment and questioning of persons by police. London: Author.
Kassin, S. M., Appleby, S. C., & Perillo, J. T. (2010). Interviewing cooperative witnesses. Legal and
Criminological Psychology, 15, 39–55. doi:10.1348/135532509X449361
Kassin, S. M., Drizin, S. A., Grisso, T., Gudjonsson, G. H., Leo, R. A., & Redlich, A. P. (2010a). Police-
induced confessions: Risk factors and recommendations. Law and Human Behavior, 34,
3–38. doi:10.1007/s10979-009-9188-6
Kassin, S. M., Drizin, S. A., Grisso, T., Gudjonsson, G. H., Leo, R. A., & Redlich, A. P. (2010b). Police-
induced confessions: Risk factors and recommendations: Looking ahead. Law and Human
Behavior, 34, 49–52. doi:10.1007/s10979-010-9217-5
Kassin, S. M., & Gudjonsson, G. H. (2004). The psychology of confessions. A Review of the
literature and issues. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 5, 33–67.
doi:10.1111/j.1529-1006.2004.00016.x
Lamb, M. E., Hershkowitz, I., Orbach, Y., & Espin, P. W. (2008). Tell me what happened. Structured
investigative interviews of child victims and witnesses. Chichester: Wiley.
Loftus, E. F., Wolchover, D., & Page, D. (2006). General review of the psychology of witness
testimony. In A. Heaton-Armstrong, E. Shepherd, G. Gudjonsson, & D. Wolchover (Eds.),
Witness testimony. Psychological, investigative and evidential perspectives (pp. 7–22).
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Meissner, C. A., Hartwig, M., & Russano, M. B. (2010). The need for a positive psychological
approach and collaborative effort for improving practice in the interrogation room. Law and
Human Behavior, 34, 43–45. doi:10.1007/s10979-009-9205-9
Moston, S. (2009). Investigative interviewing of suspects in Australia. In T. Williamson, B. Milen, &
S. P. Savage (Eds.), International development in investigative interviewing (pp. 3–23).
Cullompton: Willan Publishing.
Porter, S., & ten Brinke, L. (2010). The truth about lies: What works in detecting high-stakes
deception. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 15, 57–75. doi:10.1348/135532509X
433151
Shawyer, A., Milne, B., & Bull, R. (2009). Investigative interviewing in the UK. In T. Williamson,
B. Milen, & S. P. Savage (Eds.), International development in investigative interviewing
(pp. 24–38). Cullompton: Willan Publishing.
Sigurdsson, J. F., Gudjonsson, G. H., Einarsson, E., & Gudjonsson, G. (2006). Differences in
personality and mental state between suspects and witnesses immediately after being
interviewed by the police. Psychology, Crime and Law, 12, 619–628. doi:10.1080/
10683160500337808
Smith, K., & Tilney, S. (2007). Vulnerable adult and child witnesses. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
St-Yves, M. (2009). Interrogation in Canada: From the quest for confession to the search for the
truth. In T. Williamson, B. Milen, & S. P. Savage (Eds.), International development in
investigative interviewing (pp. 92–110). Cullompton: Willan Publishing.
The Bradley Report (2009). Lord Bradley’s review of people with mental health problems or
learning disabilities in the criminal justice system. London: Department of Health. Retrieved
from http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPol
icyAndGuidance/DH_098694
Undeutsch, U. (1982). Statement reality analysis. In A. Trankell (Ed.), Reconstructing the past: The
role of psychologists in criminal trials (pp. 27–56). Deventer: Kluwer.
Vrij, A. (2008). Detecting lies and deceit. Pitfalls and opportunities (2nd ed.). Chichester: Wiley.
Williamson, T. (2007). Psychology and criminal investigation. In T. Newburn, T. Williamson, &
A. Wright (Eds.), Handbook of criminal investigation (pp. 68–91). Devon: Willan Publishing.
Williamson, T., Milne, B., & Savage, S. P. (Eds.), (2000). International development in
investigative interviewing. Cullompton: Willan Publishing.
Young, S. J. (2008). A new role in support of the vulnerable. Psychologist, 21, 962–963.
Received 5 March 2010; revised version received 9 March 2010

Appendix. Thirty-four cases of wrongful convictions involving disputed confessions (1989–2009)
Year of Year of Oral

Name of case conviction appeal evidence PV PI Nature of vulnerability
1. ‘Guildford Four’ 1975 1989 * na

2. ‘Birmingham Six’ 1975 1991 * na
3. ‘Tottenham Three’ (Engin Raghip) 1987 1991 * * Borderline IQ, suggestibility, compliance

4. Stefan Kiszko 1976 1992 * na
5. Jacqueline Fletcher 1988 1992 * * Borderline IQ, undue feelings of guilt
6. Judith Ward 1974 1992 * * Personality disorder, suggestibility, confabulation (there was
also a prosecution failure to disclose documents
favourable to defence)
7. Alfred Allen (‘UDR 4’) 1986 1992 * * na
8. David Mackenzie 1990 1992 * Personality disorder, borderline IQ, suggestibility,
compliance, serial confessor
9. The Darvell Brothers 1986 1992 * Borderline IQ, suggestibility
10. Stephen Miller 1990 1992 * Borderline IQ, suggestibility, compliance
11. Idris Ali 1990 1994 * * Borderline IQ, compliance, habitual lying
12. George Long 1979 1995 * * Depression, personality disorder
13. Carl Bridgewater case 1979 1997 * na
14. Patrick Kane (Belfast) 1990 1997 * * Borderline IQ, compliance, anxiety proneness
15. Andrew Evans 1973 1997 * * Memory problems, confabulation, false internalized belief
16. Derek Bentley 1952 1998 * * Misdirection at trial (there was also epilepsy, educational
and behavioural problems)
17. John Roberts 1983 1998 * * Compliance
18. Ashley King 1986 1999 * * Borderline IQ, suggestibility, compliance
19. Darren Hall 1988 1999 * * Personality disorder, compliance, impulsivity, poor
self-esteem, habitual lying
20. Donald Pendleton 1986 2001 * * Suggestibility, compliance, acquiescence, anxiety proneness
(this case was heard in the House of Lords after a
failed appeal in 2000)

21. Iain Hay Gordon (Belfast) 1953 2000 * Suggestibility, confabulation, sensitivity about sexuality
22. Peter Fell 1985 2001 * * Personality disorder, compliance, attention seeking
Appendix. (Continued)
Year of Year of Oral

Name of case conviction appeal evidence PV PI Nature of vulnerability
23. Stephen Downing 1974 2002 * na

24. Anthony Steel 1979 2003 * Borderline IQ, suggestibility, compliance
25. Shane Smith 1993 2003 * Confabulation, suggestibility, compliance
26. Kayed Antar 2003 2004 * Suggestibility
27. Paul Blackburn 1978 2005 * * Youth, fatigue
28. Robert Hindes and Hugh Hanna 1977 2005 * Youth for both, failure to provide an appropriate adult,
suggestibility for Hugh Hanna
29. John Flanagan 1989 2005 * Personality disorder, habitual liar
30. Robert Adams 1976 2005 * Alcoholic, suggestibility, compliance
31. Patrick Nolan 1983 2006 * Interviewed over several days without a solicitor. Had
problems coping with pressure in police interviews
32. Raymond Gilmour 1982 2007 * Naivety, anxiety, and high compliance
33. Robert Hodgson 1982 2009 DNA exoneration. Severe personality disorder and a
‘pathological liar’
34. Ian Lawless 2002 2009 * Pathological need for attention
Note. PV, psychological vulnerability; PI, police/procedural impropriety; na, not applicable.
*Oral evidence heard, psychological vulnerabilities (PV) and/or police/procedural impropriety (PI) saliently present and important in overturning conviction.
Psychological vulnerabilities
175

How Criminals Are Arrested

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

How Criminals Are Arrested

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Copyright © The British Psychological Society

162 Gisli H. Gudjonsson

The continually growing scientific knowledge about psychological vulnerabilities in

Traditional versus recent approaches to witness testimony

Psychological vulnerabilities 163

164 Gisli H. Gudjonsson

interviewing and acting as consultants in several different countries, including

The competency requirements of witnesses

Psychological vulnerabilities 165

166 Gisli H. Gudjonsson

Psychological vulnerabilities 167

168 Gisli H. Gudjonsson

Cases of miscarriage of justice 1989–2009

Psychological vulnerabilities 169

170 Gisli H. Gudjonsson

recommendations represent an excellent opportunity for police and health care

Psychological vulnerabilities 171

Drake, K. E. (2010). Interrogative suggestibility: Life adversity, neuroticism and compliance.

172 Gisli H. Gudjonsson

relationship with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) symptoms. Psychological

Psychological vulnerabilities 173

Received 5 March 2010; revised version received 9 March 2010

Year of Year of Oral

1. ‘Guildford Four’ 1975 1989 * na

174 Gisli H. Gudjonsson

failed appeal in 2000)

Year of Year of Oral

23. Stephen Downing 1974 2002 * na

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi