Search

This article examines the treatment of vulnerable suspects in police custody, with particular emphasis upon how the police define vulnerability in relation to adult suspects. Drawing upon qualitative data produced through observation of and interviews with custody officers (COs) at a custody suite in England, the article will explore why the appropriate adult (AA) safeguard is often left unimplemented. It builds upon previous research on the identification of vulnerability, but goes further by also addressing how vulnerability is defined. In discussion, the article draws upon legalist, culturalist, and structuralist arguments to offer explanations for non-implementation of the AA safeguard.

This paper furthers the debate on vulnerable suspects by bringing together research on appropriate adults and criminal defence lawyers. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) 1984 forbids all lawyers from acting as appropriate adults. The courts, in very limited case law, have taken a different approach, leaving a space in which lawyers might be considered suitable to fill the gap left by an appropriate adult’s absence. This account is supported by exploring the views of custody officers on the appropriate adult and its use, drawing upon empirical data. Fieldwork with defence lawyers is then explored to highlight how lawyers might have some of the suitable characteristics of the appropriate adult but could not realistically perform such duties in practice (or conceptually). This paper illustrates that lawyers are ill-equipped to deal with a client’s vulnerability and therefore argues that they should never be viewed as an ‘appropriate adult replacement’.

This article addresses one of the issues with Code C to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) 1984—how vulnerability is defined for the purposes of implementing the appropriate adult safeguard. The article draws upon qualitative data (observation of and semi-structured interviews with custody officers) to assess how custody officers define vulnerability. It illustrates why custody officers may experience difficulty in identifying vulnerability, drawing upon a problem that I have previously identified. Yet, it goes further than previous discussion by also offering suggestions for policymakers and practitioners.

Within England and Wales, by virtue of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, police custody officers may detain suspects in police custody for up to 24 hours. Intended as a last resort, the power to detain is instead being used routinely. Within this paper I will examine the intended use of detention and how detention is being used, highlighting a number of problems herewith. Most notably perhaps, detention is detrimental for the detainee, a theme which will be drawn out in a number of dimensions. Whilst detention may be permissible from a crime-control or human rights perspective, it is contrary to due process. Given the numerous issues outlined, it is perhaps time to consider alternatives. This paper begins, or re-opens, the dialogue, seeking to rebalance the process in favour of the suspect/detainee.