21st Century Interviewing Techniques

'Review of 21st Century Interviewing Techniques adopted within contemporaneous Police Investigations involving suspects'



'Review of 21st Century Interviewing Techniques adopted within contemporaneous Police Investigations involving suspects'

History

Prior to the enforcement of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE), police officers interviewing suspects generally transcribed questions and answers from memory after completing the interview. (Goodey 2000) It was fairly common at trial for the defence to challenge the admissibility of the police record of interview. Noting that the lack of an independently validated record was, in part, responsible for allegations of police malpractice and protracted disputes about unreliable confession evidence, (Gaensslen 2008)

the Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure recommended the gradual introduction of audio recording of police interrogation in police stations. Although the Commission ruled out video recording of interviews at the time on grounds of cost, it recommended that subordinate legislation 'should be drafted in such a way to leave. (Evans 2007)

The rules regulating the police in the exercise of their investigative powers, including the recording of interviews with suspects, are contained in codes of practice provided for by section 66 of PACE. The codes of practice, which can be revised by statutory instrument, must be readily available at all police stations for consultation by police officers, detained persons and members of the public. Issued alongside the codes of practice are notes for guidance which aim to assist the police in applying and interpreting the codes. Earlier this year, the Home Secretary announced a review of PACE and the codes of practice. (West Mercia 2008) This review aims to identify changes to the structure of the PACE framework which may simplify police practices, reduce procedural or administrative burdens, save resources and speed up the process of justice.

Failure to comply with the codes of practice may give rise to the exclusion of evidence. From the outset, the Court of Appeal repeatedly acknowledged that the codes of practice were designed by Parliament to set standards of fairness by providing procedural safeguards for the suspect, (Williamson 2006) increasing the reliability of the prosecution evidence and reducing the opportunity for unfounded allegations of improper conduct against the police. In Keenan, for example, police officers failed to make a contemporaneous record of interview in breach of the Codes of Practice.

The appellant submitted that his answers had been fabricated. Lord Mustill, allowing the appeal, noted that the provisions of Code C were specifically designed to prevent allegations of 'verballing'. (Quas 2000) Acknowledging that lawyers and judges were struggling to understand and apply the new provisions, the court held that in failing to comply with the code the police had caused the defendant to be placed at a considerable disadvantage; 'if the breaches are “significant and substantial,” we think it makes good sense to exclude [evidence obtained as a result of the breaches]'. (Pepper 2005) Although in certain circumstances the Court of Appeal is prepared to admit as evidence 'spontaneous' statements made before the formal interview, PACE and the Codes of Practice have limited the ...