Automatic authorisation: an exploration of the decision to detain in police custody

The Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) 1984 was implemented in 1986 to, inter alia, routinise police powers and procedures in England and Wales, and to improve protection for those suspected of committing a criminal offence. Yet, in the thirty years since its inception, various provisions within PACE have attracted fervent criticism for their ineffectiveness. Drawing upon empirical data collected at two custody suites in England, this paper illustrates, in line with previous studies, that custody officers are still failing to act as a ‘check’ on police powers and are routinely authorising detention. Perhaps more problematically, custody officers may go beyond authorisation and may assist arresting officers in finding sufficient grounds for detention. As such, in the thirty years post- PACE, s 37 is still having little to no impact on custody practices. This paper explores the factors which influence the authorisation of detention and offers tentative conclusions about how the refusal or authorisation of detention may be regulated

Interrogating vulnerability: reframing the vulnerable suspect in police custody

This article considers the definition of the term ‘vulnerability’ in relation to the suspect in police detention and more specifically in relation to the appropriate adult safeguard. Using Fineman’s vulnerability theory, this article argues that all suspects are ‘vulnerable’ and, rather, attention should be focussed on how resilience is depleted, reduced or removed. In doing so, it points towards the limitations of the focus of the current legislative provisions. It situates this discussion within the broader frame of the impact and very nature of police detention and the implications of the broader criminal process as mechanisms that reduce resilience (and possibly deliberately so). Further, it reflects on how the framing of vulnerability in legislation relating to the police detention does not fully capture the position of the suspect in police detention. It concludes then by urging that the definition of the vulnerable suspect is reconceptualised so as to more adequately capture the position of the suspect of the criminal investigation

Protecting vulnerable suspects in police investigations in Europe: lessons learned from England and Wales and Belgium

This article provides an analysis of the provisions relating to vulnerable suspects, with a focus on adults, in England and Wales and in Belgium. In doing so, the various problems and lessons learned from each jurisdiction are examined. Situated within the context of how these provisions have been developed, both at a domestic level and at a European level, we argue that neither system offers an ideal approach to the vulnerability of suspects, but we also posit that the two jurisdictions can learn from one another in their approach. Herein, we suggest that both jurisdictions must do more to protect adult vulnerable suspects and offer potential avenues for improvement

The crisis in legally aided criminal defence in Wales: bringing Wales into discussions of England and Wales

This article explores the impact of cuts and continued fee stagnation on publicly funded criminal defence in England and Wales. In so doing, we take an explicit focus on Wales, which has been neglected in socio-legal scholarship on criminal justice matters. Drawing on 20 interviews with criminal defence lawyers in south Wales, we examine how they have experienced the changes to criminal legal aid in recent years. The lawyers in this study largely considered underfunding as a key political issue, with criminal legal aid identified as an easy target, also highlighting concerns around the impact of underfunding on their practice and how they can work for clients. As such, lawyers queried whether there is a viable future for criminal legal aid. These findings have implications for Wales, and the whole England and Wales jurisdiction, as we will discuss throughout

Custody officers, Code C and constructing vulnerability: implications for policy and practice

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

Defining the “Appropriate” in “Appropriate Adult”: restrictions and opportunities for reform

The appropriate adult (AA) safeguard is potentially an important source of protection for vulnerable suspects in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. This paper maps out the role of the AA as provided in law and guidance, drawing attention to some of the problems with—and restrictions placed on—the safeguard. In identifying the ‘appropriateness’ of the AAs role, it is argued that various aspects of the role be more clearly defined, and it is further suggested that the safeguard needs to be reworked with an explicit commitment to the needs of the suspect. Finally, the paper urges that future research focuses on the qualities and activities when determining ‘appropriateness’ rather than simply the AA’s identity

Automatic authorisation: an exploration of the decision to detain in police custody

The Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) 1984 was implemented in 1986 to, inter alia, routinise police powers and procedures in England and Wales, and to improve protection for those suspected of committing a criminal offence. Yet, in the thirty years since its inception, various provisions within PACE have attracted fervent criticism for their ineffectiveness. Drawing upon empirical data collected at two custody suites in England, this paper illustrates, in line with previous studies, that custody officers are still failing to act as a ‘check’ on police powers and are routinely authorising detention. Perhaps more problematically, custody officers may go beyond authorisation and may assist arresting officers in finding sufficient grounds for detention. As such, in the thirty years post- PACE, s 37 is still having little to no impact on custody practices. This paper explores the factors which influence the authorisation of detention and offers tentative conclusions about how the refusal or authorisation of detention may be regulated