scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Author

Paul Jonathan King

Bio: Paul Jonathan King is an academic researcher. The author has contributed to research in topics: Discretion & Suspect. The author has an hindex of 1, co-authored 1 publications receiving 5 citations.

Papers
More filters
Dissertation
01 Dec 2002
TL;DR: In this paper, the impact of substantially attenuating a suspect's right to silence on the relative positions of the police and defence in custodial interviews was considered, and it was shown that pre-interview disclosure has assumed increased importance, and can be instrumental to the interrogation outcome.
Abstract: This thesis considers the impact of substantially attenuating a suspect's right to silence on the relative positions of the police and defence in custodial interviews. The main hypothesis argues that these provisions have had a significant, unforeseen impact on the working dynamic between police officers and legal advisers. Interview strategies have developed, which seek to reinforce advantages to the police associated with control of pre-interview evidential disclosure. A second hypothesis postulates that introduction of the inference provisions has influenced suspect behaviour during custodial interrogation, leading to a reduced reliance upon the exercise of silence. The study drew upon data collected from in-depth, tape-recorded interviews with police officers involved at various stages of the investigative process, representing a wide variety of roles and experience. Full transcripts of the interviews were prepared and then subjected to a close-grained, qualitative analysis in which various themes were identified. The findings reveal, inter alia, that pre-interview disclosure has assumed increased significance, and can be instrumental to the interrogation outcome. Police officers are accorded considerable discretion in the management of police-suspect relations, which is evident in the emergence of control strategies for case-related information. Greater openness has flowed from the development of better-trained lawyers, and was manifest in the increased emphasis by police officers on truth-seeking during interview. Evidence emerged of controlled disclosure being used as a mechanism for securing or negotiating the co-operation of an interviewee. The extent of disclosure varied according to a number of factors, although, in serious or complex cases, non-disclosure formed the basis for the strategy. The incremental release of information has been shown to have an unsettling effect on interviewees and can undermine the legal adviser's presence. The police claim fewer no-comment interviews and improved content from the use of these tactics - findings that are echoed in recent studies by the Home Office and in Northern Ireland. The research therefore indicates that there is evidence to support both hypotheses.

5 citations


Cited by
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The authors brings together the opposing research and arguments from the two disciplines of psychology and law, and suggests a new way forward for future research and policy on how the police should disclose evidence.
Abstract: The police frequently present their evidence to suspects in investigative interviews. Accordingly, psychologists have developed strategic ways in which the police may present evidence to catch suspects lying or to elicit more information from suspects. While research in psychology continues to illustrate the effectiveness of strategic evidence disclosure tactics in lie detection, lawyers and legal research challenge these very tactics as undermining fair trial defense rights. Legal research is alive to the problems associated with strategically disclosing evidence to a suspect, such as preventing lawyers from advising the suspect effectively, increasing custodial pressure for the suspect, and worsening working relations between lawyers and police. This paper brings together the opposing research and arguments from the two disciplines of psychology and law, and suggests a new way forward for future research and policy on how the police should disclose evidence.

10 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, the authors recruited 100 criminal defence lawyers to participate in an online study, where they read fictional scenarios and provided custodial legal advice to a hypothetical client (Christopher) when given either pre-interview disclosure or disclosure at various points during the police interview.
Abstract: Presently, the police in England and Wales disclose their evidence at different points during the arrest and detention of a suspect. While the courts have not objected to this, past field research suggests that lawyers can only advise their clients accurately when the police disclose their evidence before the police interview. To examine this from a law/psychology perspective, we recruited 100 criminal defence lawyers to participate in an online study. Lawyers read fictional scenarios and provided custodial legal advice to a hypothetical client (Christopher) when given either pre-interview disclosure or disclosure at various points during the police interview (early, gradually or late). Lawyers given pre-interview disclosure provided considerably more informed legal advice compared to those who were only provided with disclosure during the hypothetical police interview. Using an interdisciplinary approach, this article provides further evidence that pre-interview disclosure is essential for lawyers to del...

4 citations

Dissertation
01 Sep 2017
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors take an interdisciplinary approach and consider strategic evidence disclosure within the broader legal context of a suspect's custodial detention and find that it impinges upon the suspect's legal rights and is unlikely to make interviewers less guilt-presumptive.
Abstract: Police around the world present evidence to suspects at different points during the interview. Some psychologists suggest that police should strategically delay disclosing evidence and test the truthfulness of a suspect’s account by comparing it with the evidence. Moreover, psychologists suggest interviewers who plan strategic evidence disclosure might be less guilt-presumptive about the suspect because they must consider alternative explanations of the evidence as part of their planning. In contrast, many lawyers argue that police should not strategically disclose evidence as it undermines a suspect’s fair trial rights and prevents lawyers from advising suspects effectively before the interview. To address these conflicting perspectives from the domains of psychology and law, this thesis takes an interdisciplinary approach and considers strategic evidence disclosure within the broader legal context of a suspect’s custodial detention. First, a field study of police disclosure briefings with lawyers, lawyer-client consultations, and police interviews, and a survey of lawyers highlights how lawyers rely upon the police’s evidence to advise suspects in custody. When police strategically disclose evidence, lawyers cannot provide informed legal advice and tend to advise suspects to not answer police questions. Second, three experiments and a mini meta-analysis show that generating alternative evidential explanations for criminal cases, as interviewers planning strategic evidence disclosure might do, has a very small effect, or plausibly no effect, on people’s beliefs about the suspect’s guilt. Finally, a mock crime experiment shows that, even two months after a crime, truthful suspects’ accounts fit evidence that was strategically withheld more than deceptive suspects’ accounts did. Independent laypeople from a follow-up experiment could distinguish between these truthful and deceptive accounts. Together, these findings suggest that strategic evidence disclosure could help deception detection even months after a crime, but it also impinges upon suspects’ legal rights and is unlikely to make interviewers less guilt-presumptive.

1 citations

Book
15 Feb 1996
TL;DR: The second edition of an easy-to-use guide to the powers used by law enforcement officers (customs and excise as well as police) to investigate criminal offences is presented in this paper.
Abstract: The second edition of an easy-to-use guide to the powers used by law enforcement officers (customs and excise as well as police) to investigate criminal offences. It reproduces and comments upon the 1991 PACE codes of practice.

1 citations