Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident Due to planned maintenance there will be periods of time where the website may be unavailable. We apologise for any inconvenience.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 January 2018
In recent years the meaning of the word ‘interview’ has become central to the regulatory framework of PACE. In part, this flows directly and inevitably from the terms of the act itself. If a verbal exchange between suspect and police is an interview, certain procedural consequences follow: it must normally be contemporaneously noted verbatim or taped; if the suspect is a juvenile or mentally disordered, it must usually take place in the presence of an ‘appropriate adult’. Furthermore, as a result of the recent revision of Code C on ‘Questioning’, persons arrested for an offence may not normally be interviewed about it except in a police station.
My thanks to Peter Alldridge and David Miers for helpful comments on an earlier draft.
2. Code C, ‘Detention, Treatment and Questioning of Persons by Police Officers’, paras 11. 1, 11.4 and 11.5. For extensive review of the revision, see D. Wolchover and A. Heaton-Armstrong ‘The Questioning Code Revamped’ [1991] Crim LR 232.
3. See D. Dixon et al ‘Safeguarding the Rights of Suspects in Police Custody’, Policing and Society (1990) 115 at 133-135; M. McConville et al (1991) The Case for the Prosecution at 60-65; A. Sanders et al (1989) Advice and Assistance at Police Stations and the 24 Hour Duty Solicitor Scheme at 140-144; M. Maguire and C. Norris The Conduct and Supervision of Criminal Inuestigationr Royal Commission on Criminal Justice, Research Study 5, (HMSO, 1992), ch 5.
4. Para 11.3.
5. Code C, op cit, para 11.13. D. Wolchover and A. Heaton-Armstrong regard this as an important safeguard, see ‘Nearly there on the Questioning Code 4’ (1990), NLJ 1693.
6. Verballing involves the invention of damaging admissions by police officers which are then falsely attributed to the suspect.
7. It should also be noted that the courts seem to be developing distinctive criteria in relation to undercover police. My discussion will not deal with that special situation. But see Christou [1992] 3 WLR 228 and Bryu (1992) The Independent, 1 July.
8. R v William (1992) Times, 6 February LEXIS transcript.
9. R v Cox (1992) 2 December LEXIS transcript.
10. See the discussion in Cox, supra.
11. The Court of Appeal in Williams saw it as based at least in part on Absolam (1989) 88 Cr App R 332. A. Hall ‘Interviews and the PACE Codes of Practice’ (1990) 135(19) SJ, sees it as based on Maguire (1990) 90 Cr App R 115. Both cases are discussed below.
12. The Note said interviews were hot necessarily' done to obtain admissions which must have meant that they might be for that purpose. But the purpose of ‘any’ interview was to obtain an explanation. Therefore the two purposes could not be mutually exclusive. See Oliphant for Court of Appeal comment to that effect, [1992] Crim LR 40, LEXIS transcript, 9 May 1991.
13. Absolum (1989) 88 Cr App R 332 RT 336. My emphasis
14. (1990) 90 Cr App R 115.
15. Ibid, at 119.
16. Ibid.
17. There is evidence that some officers were/are aware that the PACE provisions might usefully be interpreted in this way. See Maguire and Norris, op n't, ch 5, s 4(a).
18. [1991] Crim LR 457, LEXIS transcript, 7 February 1991.
19. See Hunt, [I992] Crim LR 583, LEXIS transcript, 4 March 1992.
20. D. Birch [1989] Crim LR 815; A. Flynn [1989] J Crim Law 248.
21. Sparks [I991] Crim LR 128, LEXIS transcript, 23 July 1990.
22. Ibid.
23. [1991] Crirn LR 455, LEXIS transcript 28 January 1991.
24. Note the stress in Maguire, both at first instance and in the Court of Appeal, on what the police officer said he was trying to do (op cit, at 118, 119.)
25. Opcif, at 119.
26. Op cif.
27. My emphasis.
28. Times, 15 May 1992, LEXIS transcript, 1 May 1992.
29. Revised Code C, Note of Guidance 11A.
30. This is not surprising if it is intended to be a summary of the import of the cases for the guidance of officers.
31. It should be remembered that cell visits are sometimes entered in custody records as ‘welfare visits’ D. Dixon ct up, cit, at 134.
32. Other commentators argue that it follows the logic of Maguire with its stress on purpose. Contrast Hall, op cit, at 603 with Wolchover and Heaton-Armstrong, op cit.
33. For the use of custody records as protective form, see I. Mackenzie ct al, ‘Helping the Police with their Inquiries: the Necessity Principle and Voluntary Attendance at the Police Station’ [1990] Crim LR 22 at 26, and M. McConville ct al, op cit, at 98.
34. This was the basis of the decision in Pullen (see above).
35. See Maguire and Norris, op cit, ch 5, s 4(a), for evidence that officers justify off-the record deals by stressing that they are suspect initiated and thus not recordable under PACE.
36. [1990] Crim LR 425, LEXIS transcript, 19 January 1990.
37. Matthews (1990) 91 Cr App R 43 at 48.
38. Parchment [1989] Crim LR 290.
39. William, n 7.
40. Officers already know this and sometimes get custody officers to record such requests where they have not been made, Sanders et al (op n't) at 143.
41. Even now, most suspects do not get independent legal advice at the station. See Sanders, at 24–42.
42. There is evidence that this happens. See Sanders at 141.
43. Maguire and Norris, ch 5, s 3(b)(ii).
