This area of the police surgeons work has steadily grown in the last few years from an embryo to a
potential monster.
There has been no formal training on the subject, the expectations placed upon FMEs vary
depending on the particular interest, slant and responsibility of the lay professional viewing the
doctor, and it is unclear exactly what is the responsibility of the police surgeon.
It appears that this whole area of work stemmed from the original Codes of Practice constituting s
66 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE).
In this chapter and Chapter 11 on Mental Health when referring to the codes of practice in
general, the PACE codes will be referred to as Codes (PACE) and the Codes of Practice of the
Mental Health Act 1983 will be referred to as Codes (MHA).
In paragraph 12.3 of Code C of PACE it states
"No person who is unfit through drink or drugs to the extent that he is unable to appreciate the
significance of questions put to him and his answers may be questioned about an alleged offence in
that condition except in accordance with Annex C. [See Note 12C]"
Annex C is still extant and is discussed on page 86.
Note 12B states
"The police surgeon can give advice about whether or not a person is fit to be interviewed in accordance with
paragraph 12.3 above".
There is no mention of the police surgeon being involved with regard to fitness for interview in any
other condition including mental health disorders.
The only apparent change between the original Codes (PACE) and the current edition which became
effective on 10 April 1995 is that Note 12C had become Note 12B on publication of the second draft
of the Codes (PACE) and remains so.
There is mention of calling the police surgeon, and immediately so, if a person brought to the police
station appears to be suffering from a mental illness or is incoherent except through drunkenness
alone, 58 but there is no mention of involvement with fitness for interview.
However it is apocryphally stated that FMEs are involved in fitness to be interviewed for many
detainees suffering from a legion of conditions.
There is no claim in this text that such a use of forensic clinicians is improper, but it is an area
which had not been specifically researched with a goal of producing set parameters for such an
assessment.
As there are no set protocols to assess fitness for interview, this rests with the clinical judgement of
the forensic clinician in attendance.
It is interesting that the Victoria Police Forensic Medical Officers Manual, published in 1992
written and compiled by Drs David Wells, Edward Ogden, Simon Young and Faika Jappie, adopted
a similar approach to this in their advice for fitness to interview.
That Manual states:
"You do not have to make a definitive diagnosis. You simply need to establish:-
1. Is (s)he mentally alert and orientated to answer questions?
2. Is (s)he physically well enough to answer questions?"
Other work which will be mentioned may suggest that more needs to be done than answering the
simple questions above.
This chapter will explore this area and, for convenience only, the subject has been split into the
following headings:
General Aspects
Clinical Assessment of Interviewee
Responsibilities of Forensic Clinician
General Aspects
There has been much publicity and, now, not inconsiderable work on false confessions.
Though the FME cannot audit interrogation techniques, they can do their best to apply their clinical
skills to identify vulnerable patients.
It must be remembered that not everyone interviewed is in detention. Not everyone interviewed is a
suspect. A police surgeon may come across a situation where they are asked to assess an individual
who is a complainant or a non participating witness to the alleged events.
The assessment for fitness to be interviewed could be considered to be threefold. Firstly that an
interview, which may be verbally rigorous, does no harm. Secondly that the interviewee is fit such
that they are capable of recall and recounting the "facts". Lastly, that they are not so vulnerable that
they are
potential monster.
There has been no formal training on the subject, the expectations placed upon FMEs vary
depending on the particular interest, slant and responsibility of the lay professional viewing the
doctor, and it is unclear exactly what is the responsibility of the police surgeon.
It appears that this whole area of work stemmed from the original Codes of Practice constituting s
66 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE).
In this chapter and Chapter 11 on Mental Health when referring to the codes of practice in
general, the PACE codes will be referred to as Codes (PACE) and the Codes of Practice of the
Mental Health Act 1983 will be referred to as Codes (MHA).
In paragraph 12.3 of Code C of PACE it states
"No person who is unfit through drink or drugs to the extent that he is unable to appreciate the
significance of questions put to him and his answers may be questioned about an alleged offence in
that condition except in accordance with Annex C. [See Note 12C]"
Annex C is still extant and is discussed on page 86.
Note 12B states
"The police surgeon can give advice about whether or not a person is fit to be interviewed in accordance with
paragraph 12.3 above".
There is no mention of the police surgeon being involved with regard to fitness for interview in any
other condition including mental health disorders.
The only apparent change between the original Codes (PACE) and the current edition which became
effective on 10 April 1995 is that Note 12C had become Note 12B on publication of the second draft
of the Codes (PACE) and remains so.
There is mention of calling the police surgeon, and immediately so, if a person brought to the police
station appears to be suffering from a mental illness or is incoherent except through drunkenness
alone, 58 but there is no mention of involvement with fitness for interview.
However it is apocryphally stated that FMEs are involved in fitness to be interviewed for many
detainees suffering from a legion of conditions.
There is no claim in this text that such a use of forensic clinicians is improper, but it is an area
which had not been specifically researched with a goal of producing set parameters for such an
assessment.
As there are no set protocols to assess fitness for interview, this rests with the clinical judgement of
the forensic clinician in attendance.
It is interesting that the Victoria Police Forensic Medical Officers Manual, published in 1992
written and compiled by Drs David Wells, Edward Ogden, Simon Young and Faika Jappie, adopted
a similar approach to this in their advice for fitness to interview.
That Manual states:
"You do not have to make a definitive diagnosis. You simply need to establish:-
1. Is (s)he mentally alert and orientated to answer questions?
2. Is (s)he physically well enough to answer questions?"
Other work which will be mentioned may suggest that more needs to be done than answering the
simple questions above.
This chapter will explore this area and, for convenience only, the subject has been split into the
following headings:
General Aspects
Clinical Assessment of Interviewee
Responsibilities of Forensic Clinician
General Aspects
There has been much publicity and, now, not inconsiderable work on false confessions.
Though the FME cannot audit interrogation techniques, they can do their best to apply their clinical
skills to identify vulnerable patients.
It must be remembered that not everyone interviewed is in detention. Not everyone interviewed is a
suspect. A police surgeon may come across a situation where they are asked to assess an individual
who is a complainant or a non participating witness to the alleged events.
The assessment for fitness to be interviewed could be considered to be threefold. Firstly that an
interview, which may be verbally rigorous, does no harm. Secondly that the interviewee is fit such
that they are capable of recall and recounting the "facts". Lastly, that they are not so vulnerable that
they are
0 comments:
¿Te animas a decir algo?