Louise Parker, PhD candidate, University of Chester

In this post, I report on my experiences of presenting my research findings at the Vulnerable Accused Conference in Birmingham.

My research

My doctoral research explores how police interviewers deliver the caution to a suspect during a police interview. Primarily, I am exploring whether any differences exist in this communication when the suspect has been identified as vulnerable. Existing research has found that comprehension of the caution is low across populations, including members of the public [1] university students [2], detained persons [3], individuals with intellectual disabilities [4], and even some police officers [5].

Modifications such as presenting the caution verbally alongside a written copy [6], breaking it down into parts [7], and providing instructions [8], in some instances, increased understanding.

Currently in England and Wales, despite a simplified legal explanation, there are no guidelines on if, and how the cautioning exchange should be modified. If an individual does not understand the caution the evidence may be deemed inadmissible in court. Addressing this, my doctoral research explores if police interviewers modify the cautioning exchange when a suspect has been identified as vulnerable.

The lead-up

I was delighted that my abstract had been accepted to present at the Vulnerable Accused conference in Birmingham. The conference theme, keynote, and the fantastic programme of speakers meant there would be an opportunity to network with emerging scholars and well-established academics and practitioners in the field.

A two-day conference in Birmingham, being a fair distance from home, meant that I needed to factor in overnight hotel stays and travel costs. As a self-funded PhD student, I am accustomed to budgeting, and most conferences can rapidly swallow finances. I was notified that the SLSA were offering several bursaries to PhD students to attend the conference. I was very fortunate to be selected to receive a bursary, which meant my accommodation and travel costs were to be covered.

The conference

On the morning of day one, I looked in the mirror and was faced with imposter syndrome. I was daunted at the prospect of presenting my research for the first time at a conference. However, it was about to become the most important event of my career thus far.

Keynote Professor Penny Cooper opened the conference with a fantastic talk about the importance of ‘humanising’ the criminal justice system with a particular focus on necessary adjustments in the courtroom for the most vulnerable witnesses. Both days included a series of presentations covering vulnerability in police custody, in the courtroom, and considered the suspect, the witness and the defendant.

A key feature of the conference was a chance to participate in one of three workshops – conceptualising vulnerability, defining vulnerability and responses to vulnerability. A recent stumbling block I had encountered within my doctoral research was defining vulnerability, therefore I decided this would be the most suited workshop. In small groups we were able to share different perspectives when it came to defining vulnerability.

I presented some preliminary findings from my research and I was asked a series of thought-provoking questions which allowed me to elaborate on my research, something I am passionate to share. Discussing my ideas in a room full of wisdom and expertise led to lots of ideas that I could take back to my PhD research.

During a book launch event and evening meal I was able to network with a range of academics, practitioners, and fellow PhD candidates to discuss my research further. As a PhD student and a ‘newbie’ to conference networking, I was made to feel very welcome in this community. I exchanged contact details and discussed future collaborations with a wide range of experts.

Highlights

There were many benefits to both attending and presenting at the Vulnerable Accused conference which have helped shape my PhD thesis and my knowledge of vulnerability.

The vulnerability-themed workshops, discussions and presentations have helped me to reflect on how I am defining vulnerability within my research. Previously, I referred to my sample as  ‘Suspects with an Appropriate Adult’ and ‘Suspects without an Appropriate Adult’. However, the discussions I had during my Q&A were centred around the Appropriate Adults’ presence, however, my focus is currently the interviewer-suspect dyadic. In response to this I have now changed the way in which I label the suspect interviews to  ‘identified as vulnerable’ and ‘not identified as vulnerable’ to better reflect my focus.

I have also gained knowledge and awareness as to how my research, which is primarily focused on the entry point of the criminal justice system, is interlinked with the wider criminal justice system. The conference has contributed towards my legal knowledge base and the current issues involved with conceptualising, defining, and responding to vulnerability.

There was a wealth of opportunities to network and engage with academics and practitioners sharing research findings and best practices. A particular highlight for myself was being invited to collaborate with practitioners, which I am very much looking forward to. This opportunity may not have presented itself if it wasn’t for the Vulnerable Accused conference.

The conference was invaluable for me as a PhD candidate, I have begun to establish a network of professional contacts. For my first external presentation it was an extremely positive and engaging experience, and I am already looking forward to the next one!

A special thanks to the SLSA for the bursary to present my research findings.

References

[1] Hughes, M., Bain, S., Gilchrist, E., & Boyle, J. (2013). Does providing a written version of the police caution improve comprehension in the general population? Psychology, Crime and Law, 19(7), 549-564. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2011.644793

[2] Davis, K., Fitzsimmons, C.L. & Moore, T.E. Improving the Comprehensibility of a Canadian Police Caution on the Right to Silence (2011). J Police Crim Psych 26, 87–99 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11896-011-9086-y

[3] Fenner, S., Gudjonsson, G. H., & Clare, I. C. H. (2002). Understanding of the current police caution (England and Wales) among suspects in police detention. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 12(2), 83–93. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.658

[4] Rendall, M., MacMahon, K., & Kidd, B. (2021) The Scottish police caution: do

individuals with intellectual disabilities understand a verbally presented police caution, and

can comprehension be improved?, Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 28:1, 50

69, https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2020.1767710

[5] Clare, I. C. H., Gudjonsson, G. H., & Harari, P. M. (1998). Understanding of the current

police caution (England and Wales). Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology,

8(5), 323–329. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1298(1998090)8:5<323::AID-CASP448>3.0.CO;2-2

[6] Hughes, M., Bain, S., Gilchrist, E., & Boyle, J. (2013). Does providing a written version

of the police caution improve comprehension in the general population? Psychology, Crime

and Law, 19(7), 549-564. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2011.644793

[7] Fenner, S., Gudjonsson, G. H., & Clare, I. C. H. (2002). Understanding of the current police caution (England and Wales) among suspects in police detention. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 12(2), 83–93. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.658

[8] Eastwood J, Snook B. The effect of listenability factors on the comprehension of police cautions. Law Hum Behav. 2012 Jun;36(3):177-83. doi: 10.1037/h0093955. PMID: 22667807.