Abstract

In 2018 revisions to PACE code C amended the threshold for identification of vulnerability for the purpose of securing an Appropriate Adult. Previously, the threshold for identification of vulnerability was where “an officer [had] any suspicion, or [was] told in good faith” (para 1.4.); where an officer had “any doubt”, an Appropriate Adult was to be called (Note 1G).
Under the revised paragraph 1.4, this is amended to “an officer has any reason to suspect”.
The phrases mentally disordered and otherwise mentally vulnerable are exchanged for the term vulnerable, and reference is now made to the MHA Code of Practice’s list of clinically recognised conditions. While this list is more specific and therefore arguably of more practical use, it has clear implications for the role of Liaison and Diversion within decision making.
Based upon qualitative data gathered from a range of volunteers and professionals working within custody suites in a single police force region, this research considers the impact of the revisions within the broader complexity of decision making processes regarding mental vulnerability, amid wider concerns about the prioritisation of nature of offence over vulnerability.
This paper considers officer decision making when identifying vulnerability within the context of a broad set of situational and contextual factors that influence decisions, including organisational, professional and environmental factors. The findings are presented with a specific focus upon the impact of the recent revisions to PACE for the ability of ‘vulnerable’ suspects to secure justice.