A Survey of Volunteer Appropriate Adult Services in England and Wales
| Author | Harriet Pierpoint |
| Published date | 01 April 2004 |
| DOI | 10.1177/147322540400400104 |
| Date | 01 April 2004 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
England and Wales
Harriet Pierpoint
Correspondence: Harriet Pierpoint, Centre for Criminology, School of Humanities, Law
and Social Sciences, University of Glamorgan, Pontypridd, Mid Glamorgan CF37 1DL.
E-mail: hlpierpoVglam.ac.uk
Abstract
The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (CDA) s. 38(4)(a) required local authorities to ensure
the provision of appropriate adults for young people and CDA s. 39(7)(a) provided that it
was Youth Offending Teams’ duty to co-ordinate such provision. Bearing in mind the
virtual absence of any guidance, the first published national survey of Youth Offending
Team managers was conducted to determine the nature of appropriate adult
arrangements. This article reports on the issues that emerged concerning management,
protocols, recruitment and selection, training, monitoring and support, which will be of
particular interest to those engaged in the establishment and maintenance of appropriate
adult services. Of broader interest, this article concludes that as appropriate adult
arrangements differ between Youth Offending Teams (YOTs) across England and Wales,
the nature and quality of services for young people in police custody inevitably varies.
Introduction
Under the provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) and the
associated Codes of Practice, an appropriate adult should accompany a suspect, who
is ‘juvenile’ (Home Office, 2003: Code C para. 1.5), or ‘mentally disordered or mentally
vulnerable’ (ibid.: Code C Note for Guidance 1D), at the police station. The focus here
will be on appropriate adult services for juveniles – young people under the age of 17
years (ibid.: Code C para. 1.5). The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (CDA) s. 38(4)(a)
required local authorities to ensure the provision of appropriate adult services for
young people, and CDA s. 39(7)(a) provided that it was Youth Offending Teams’
(YOTs’) duty to co-ordinate such provision. This article will consider how YOTs have
operationalised these statutory requirements and it is based upon a unique
questionnaire survey of YOT managers in England and Wales. The article commences
by contextualising the research in terms of what is known about the role and provision
of appropriate adults, before briefly explaining the research design. It then summarises
the principal findings and begins to critically evaluate arrangements for providing
volunteer appropriate adults.
Setting the Scene
The ambiguous nature of the role of appropriate adults
According to the Codes of Practice, the appropriate adult’s presence is required when
the young person is: informed of his or her rights (Home Office, 2003: Code C para.
3.17); cautioned (ibid.: Code C para. 10.12); interviewed or asked to provide or sign a
Youth Justice Vol. 4 No. 1
33
written statement under caution or record of interview (ibid.: Code C para. 11.15);
subject to an identification procedure (ibid.: Code D para. 2.15); charged (ibid.: Code
C para. 16.1-6) or given a reprimand or final warning (CDA s. 65(5)(a)). An appropriate
adult, of the same sex as the young person, must also be present in cases when the
young person is intimately (Home Office, 2003: Code C Annex A para. 5) or strip
(ibid.: Code C Annex A para. 11(c)) searched, unless the person indicates that he or
she would prefer otherwise.
The appropriate adult is expected to give ‘advice’ and to ‘assist’ the young person
(ibid.: Code C para. 3.18). The role of the appropriate adult during the police interview
is considered later in the Codes of Practice:
If an appropriate adult is present at an interview, they shall be informed: they are not expected
to act simply as an observer; and the purpose of their presence is to: advise the person being
interviewed; observe whether the interview is being conducted properly and fairly; facilitate
communication with the person being interviewed.
(Home Office, 2003: Code C para. 11.17)
However, this definition of the role is ambiguous (Thomas, 1995; Palmer, 1996;
Pierpoint, unpublished). First, should the appropriate adult advise the young person on
the grounds of welfare and/or legal rights (Palmer, 1996; Pierpoint, unpublished)?
Secondly, what does ‘properly and fairly’ mean in respect of a police interview? From
a due process point of view, the nature of acceptable and unacceptable interviewing
techniques have not been clearly defined by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984
or the Codes of Practice (Home Office, 2003), and little guidance has been given by
the courts (Palmer, 1996; Pierpoint, 1999, 2000a, 2000b, 2001 and unpublished; Sanders
and Young, 2000). Third, what does ‘facilitating communication’ mean? Does it mean
assisting the constituent elements of communication such as comprehension and
articulation, or does it mean forcing responses from reluctant suspects in the pursuit
of crime control? Surely the latter would be inconsistent with ensuring that the
interview was conducted properly and fairly, and would detract from the (albeit
curtailed) right to silence (Brown et al., 1992; Evans, 1993).
The limited case law on the role of appropriate adult has further muddied the waters.
For example, as Williams (2000) pointed out, it is unclear whether the appropriate adult
should be an empathetic (DPP v Blake [1989] 1 WLR 432; R v O’Neill (Birmingham
Crown Court, 16th October 1990)) or authority figure (R v Palmer (Acton Crown
Court, 17th January 1991)).
As well as being present at the key stages of police questioning, the appropriate adult
has a number of other responsibilities and rights. He or she should receive the written
notice of any charge (Home Office, 2003: Code C para. 16.3) and details of statements
from, or interviews with, third parties (if, after a young person has been charged with
an offence, an officer wants to tell him or her about any written statement or interview
with another person relating to such an offence) (ibid.: Code C 16.4A). The appropriate
adult has the right to: consult the young person’s custody record (ibid.: Code C paras.
2.4; 2.4A; 2.5); ask for legal advice on behalf of the young person (ibid.: Code C para.
3.19); read and sign the interview record (ibid.: Code C para. 11.12); delay or interrupt
the young person’s eight hour rest period (ibid.: Code C para. 12.2(b)); agree to or
34
A Survey of Volunteer Appropriate Adult Services in England and Wales
refuse permission for a police officer or member of the civilian support staff to act as an
interpreter (ibid.: Code C para. 13.9) and make representations about detention to the
reviewing officer (ibid.: Code C para. 15.3). Finally, there is a duty on all those involved
in the youth justice system, which, according to Williams (2000) includes appropriate
adults, to prevent offending by young people (CDA s. 37). However, the extent to
which some appropriate adults, particularly parents, can be regarded as being part of the
youth justice system is clearly debatable. In sum, the role of the appropriate adult, as
defined by the Codes of Practice (Home Office, 2003) and case law, is not entirely clear.
The provision of appropriate adults
An appropriate adult may be a parent or guardian, a social worker or another
responsible adult aged 18 years or over who is not a police officer or employed by the
police (Home Office, 2003: Code C para. 1.7(a); CDA s. 65(7)). In the past, there has
been some debate over whether the list constitutes a ‘knock down’ list prioritising the
parent (Littlechild, 1998) or a list with no order of priority (Haley and Swift, 1988).
However, the Youth Justice Board National Standards for Youth Justice 2004 now provide
that the parent, other relative or carer should act as the appropriate adult, unless there
are exceptional circumstances, which prevent this or render it inappropriate, when the
YOT must provide an appropriate adult (YJB, 2004 para. 2.3). The same standards also
maintain that it is unacceptable to use a non-relative appropriate adult in relation to a
reprimand or final warning except in exceptional circumstances and with the agreement
of the YOT manager (YJB, 2004 para. 2.12).
Prior to this guidance, Philips’ and Brown’s (1998) research revealed that 63 per cent
of appropriate adults were parents or guardians and 20 per cent were social workers
(n:599). Other appropriate adults included family relatives (ten per cent), lay persons
from panels of appropriate adults (two per cent) and probation officers and children’s
home or care workers (two per cent). However, prior to the implementation of the
Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (CDA), social services departments were not statutorily
obliged to provide appropriate adults. Following calls for a clear, statutory duty to be
laid on social services departments (Littlechild, 1993, 1995a and 1995b), CDA s.
38(4)(a) required local authorities (in co-operation with the police, probation committee
and health authority) to ensure the provision of persons to act as appropriate adults.
CDA s. 39(7)(a) provided that it was the YOT’s duty to co-ordinate the provision of
appropriate adults. YOTs, comprising representatives from the police, probation
service, social services, health and education had to be in place by April 2000 (Home
Office, 1998). Guidance on CDA suggested that, in practice, appropriate adults would
be provided in many areas by...
To continue reading
Request your trial