The failure to follow the requirements to have an appropriate adult in the interview of a mentally disordered suspect meant that, despite his apparent lucidity in interview, it was unfair to admit it in evidence. [MHLR.]
Summary supplied by Kris Gledhill, Editor of the Mental Health Law Reports.
Police interview of a man with schizophrenia who did not have an appropriate adult present – admissibility in criminal trial - R v Paul James Aspinall – [1999] MHLR 12
Points Arising: The failure to follow the requirements to have an appropriate adult in the interview of a mentally disordered suspect meant that, despite his apparent lucidity in interview, it was unfair to admit it in evidence.
Facts and Outcome: After A was arrested near to a cache of drugs, his schizophrenia was confirmed by a medical examination, the doctor also indicating that he was fit to be interviewed. A was interviewed without an appropriate adult or legal advice (though the officer who allowed the interview to proceed was not aware of A’s mental illness): despite a psychiatrist giving evidence that it was possible that A was less able to cope with questions as a result of his illness and might have given answers which he thought were more likely to result in his release from custody (the interview occurring after A had been in custody for some time), the judge allowed the interview into evidence because A’s apparent ability to deal with the interview obviated the need for an appropriate adult. The Court of Appeal overturned the conviction, holding that the judge was wrong to admit the interview, inter alia because he had given too much weight to A’s apparent lucidity and not considered the purpose of the safeguard of an appropriate adult, including the latter’s role in considering the question of legal advice being obtained. Since it was clear that A should have had an appropriate adult, it was unfair to have admitted the interview evidence, particularly as A had been interviewed without legal advice.
No Bailii link