Editorial: People with learning disabilities in the criminal justice system in England and Wales: a challenge to complacency

✍ Scribed by Dr Timothy J. Howard; Stephen P. Tyrer

• Publisher: John Wiley and Sons
• Year: 1998
• Tongue: English
• Weight: 79 KB
• Volume: 8
• Category: Article
• ISSN: 0957-9664
• DOI: 10.1002/cbm.243

✦ Synopsis

People with learning disability form an important group among those arrested by the police. Whilst Robertson et al. (1995) estimated the proportion of those arrested with a learning disability in England and Wales to be small (less than 1%), Lyall et al. (1995), in a sample of 251 arrestees taken to a Cambridge police station over a three-month period, found that 11.5% had received special education and 4.4% had attended schools for children with moderate learning difficulties. Gudjonsson et al. (1993) found the average IQ of 160 randomly selected detainees at two London police stations to be 82; approximately 9% had an IQ below 70, i.e. intellectual functioning within the range of learning disability (WHO, 1994) with a further 42% functioning in the borderline range.

Learning-disabled suspects are at considerable disadvantage with regard to the investigative process. They frequently fail to understand their legal rights, notably the police caution and the written 'Notice to Detained Persons' (Gudjonsson et al., 1992), are more suggestible (Tully and Cahill, 1984;Clare and Gudjonsson, 1993), and more acquiescent (Siegelman et al., 1981;Clare and Gudjonsson, 1993) than people of normal intelligence. Poor literacy may render them unable to check their statements before signing and social naivety may lead them to overly trust police officers. Autistic people will have particular difficulties in understanding the meaning and purpose behind questions as a result of theory of mind deficits (Baron-Cohen, 1990). Finally, people with learning disabilities often fail to appreciate the long-term consequences of their actions and are likely to be significantly impaired in their overall understanding of the investigative process as well as the need for legal advice (Clare and Gudjonsson, 1995). Unless proper allowances are made for these handicaps, people with learning disabilities will sometimes falsely implicate themselves (Gudjonsson and Mackeith, 1988) or others (Howells and Ward, 1994) in the commission of crime.

Safeguards are required to protect people with learning disabilities from self-incrimination. The present safeguards purporting to protect the interests