Managing investigative interviews with vulnerable suspects in the UK: do specialist interview managers (IM’s) understand vulnerability?

Figures & data

Table 1. Frequency of themed responses in respect of vulnerability definition content (N = 44).

Themed response	Frequency
Mental disorder	19
Physical	15
Age -U18	10
Lacks understanding of a situation	7
Learning disability	6
Requiring support	4
Anyone	4
Nature of offence	3
Drugs/alcohol	3
Harm	3
Performing below an average person	2
No clear definition	2
Social pressure	1
Financial	1
Sexual	1
Lifestyle	1
Easily manipulated	1

Table 2. Perceived differences between an Appropriate Adult and an Intermediary (N = 48).

	Themed response	Frequency
Appropriate Adult	No training	12
	Facilitates communication	9
	Supports suspect	9
	Ensures legal compliance	8
	Ensures understanding	7
	Used in suspect interview	5
	Ensures fairness	4
	Not involved in the investigation	2
Intermediary	Assist communication	29
	Specially trained and accredited	16
	Assess level of understanding	5
	Provide specialist support	4
	Used in witness interviews	4
	Act as a mediator	1

Table 3. Percentage of cases requiring either an AA or an Intermediary during a 12-month period (N = 49).

	%	Frequency
Appropriate Adult	0	8
	1–25	21
	26–50	11
	51–75	4
	76–100	5
Intermediary	0	19
	1–25	24
	26–50	5
	51–75	0
	76–100	1

Table 4. Training received on dealing with vulnerable suspects (N = 51).

Training	Count
No training provided	32
E learning packages	9
1 day refresher (CPD)	8
Academic course	2

Table 5. Suggested training improvements.

Themed Response	Frequency
Refresher Training (including partner agencies)	20
Improvement course material	12
Included on SIO course	4
Peer reviews	3
Online training	3
Briefing	2
Conferences	1
Legal updates	1
Mentoring	1
Self-study	1
Vulnerability checklist	1
Improved NOS	1

Data availability statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to restrictions e.g. their containing information that could compromise the privacy of research participants.