SERVICIOS CADA 250 HORAS DE TRABAJO

The first legislation sought to ensure that access to justice is fair and equal for vulnerable individuals who encounter The Justice System was PACE (Home Office, 1984). Section C of the Code of Practice which accompanies this provides guidance regarding the interviewing of vulnerable witnesses, and states that ‘mentally handicapped’ defendants (including those with a learning difficulty) and those under the age of 17 are entitled to an appropriate adult during police questioning. The revised Code of Practice 2014 (Home Office, 2017) introduced a new definition of ‘vulnerable adult’ replacing references to the Mental Health Act and to

‘mentally vulnerable’. It also updated the role description of the appropriate adult and who may or may not act in this capacity.

21

The appropriate adult’s role is to provide support and comfort; to help explain legal terms and the rights of the individual; to give advice; to contact relatives and to ensure the suspect is treated fairly. These roles are particularly important for individuals with learning difficulties to ensure they understand procedures and are aware of their rights during interview. As with all protocols and measures used to support individuals with learning difficulties, the initial stage is to recognise the presence of a learning difficulty, in order to implement the correct support measures. However, the first problem encountered when trying to introduce the use of an appropriate adult is that professionals do not always recognise the client's needs. Leggett, Goodman and Dinani (2007) conducted a study exploring the experiences of fifteen young offenders with learning disabilities who had been interviewed by the police, finding that four of the sample was not informed of their right to an appropriate adult. This finding has been replicated on different occasions elsewhere within the literature (Robertson, Pearson, & Gibb, 1996; Medford, Gudjonsson, & Pearse 2003). More recently, a joint inspection of the treatment of offenders with learning disabilities (HMI Probation et al., 2014) found that, although police were often informed by detainees that they had poor reading and writing skills and some attended Special Schools, these signs were not consistently recognised by the police as potential indicators of a learning disability. As such, it was often not recognised that the young person could benefit from the support of an appropriate adult, thus suggesting a need for further training in order to ensure that those within The Justice System are given access to an appropriate adult if required. Flaws in the assessment of learning difficulties within The Justice System are also discussed later in this literature review.

In addition to difficulties in identifying need, the joint inspection by HMI Probation et al. (2014), found that even when a learning disability had been identified, in only 63% of cases, an appropriate adult was utilised. This finding suggests the need for either better training around the area of learning disabilities for health professionals, or the use of a professional for

22

whom learning disabilities is within their areas of expertise, for example, an appropriately qualified Educational, Clinical or Forensic psychologist.

In further investigating the use of an appropriate adult, Medford et al. (2003) sampled the audiotapes of 501 adults and juveniles undergoing police interviews, who had learning difficulties or literacy problems. The striking finding within this study identified that the physical presence of an appropriate adult increased both the probability that a legal representative was present and that the legal representative would intervene if questioning became inappropriate. Additionally, with reference to the behaviour of the police during an interview, questioning was deemed fairer and less interrogative pressure was applied to the suspect. However, when considering the nature of the contributions made by the appropriate adult within this study, although the majority of contributions were apt, there were a large proportion of unsuitable responses, particularly when the appropriate adult was a lay person or a family member, as opposed to a professional. Unsuitable responses included: answering questions for the respondent; playing the role of the interrogator and giving responses that were not constructive within the context of the interview. This study could be considered useful in providing insight into the benefits of the presence of an appropriate adult, independent of the verbal contributions made and the value of having legal representation present. However, it also highlights the need for clear guidance to be provided to the appropriate adult, particularly if he/she is a family member.

PACE (Home Office, 1984) guidelines concerning the use of appropriate adults has also been criticised within the literature. Gendle and Woodhams (2005) highlighted that police are expected to be able to make the distinction between learning disabilities and mental illness, yet the Code of Practice (Home Office, 1984) implies that the needs of the two groups are identical and thus, protocol is the same when conducting an interview. Although the 2014 guidance on the revised Code of Practise introduced a new definition of ‘vulnerable adult’ replacing

23

references to the Mental Health Act and to ‘mentally vulnerable’, it is still plausible that a lack of distinction between the needs of individuals with learning disabilities and mental illnesses could lead to confusion and a further lack of understanding of the specific needs of those with learning difficulties. Training in this area by a professional, such as an EP, who is well versed in the distinction between the two could aid understanding by CJP and therefore support the provisions offered to YPLDs.

2.4.2 The Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act and the Role of the Registered