Published on 12, July, 2020
I am totally prepared to start a campaign if there is not one to support ASD Adults going to court on criminal convictions. There are NO specialist solicitors. The Police are dreadful not trained completely for ASD. The courts need to improve advocate support inside then just a solicitor alone then generally get guilty pleas instead of looking at the whole. ASD sadly do not always have a voice and always go along with solicitors bad advice. I would like to see solicitors and courts support cases where ASD and social isolation to be taken seriously in any charges and always seek reports as protocol when is known ASD person is before the courts. Can anyone help me know how to improve the system where guilty pleas are forced then the truth and innocence is lost due to ASD going along with early guilty pleas when innocent to criminal convictions then the entire?
I might regret this but I'm going to stick my head above the parapet here. I'm a police detective and am currently waiting for my autism assessment. I've taken a lot of interest in this particular post for obvious reasons and wanted to share my experience. Firstly, not all police are the same. I agree that we do not receive proper training around ASD and that many officers will not recognise this and not act sympathetically. However I will say that whenever I have interviewed someone with ASD I utilise the Appropriate Adult Service and they always send a representative who will talk to the person before interview and sit with them throughout to make sure they understand and that the interview is conducted fairly. This is standard practice when dealing with ASD, mental health or under 18s and not only me but all my colleagues follow the same approach. I did notice in this conversation that no one mentioned the Appropriate Adult Service. In relation to solicitors, in my experience, they themselves will request an appropriate adult if the person detained has any issues with ASD and some, although not trained, are very good at identifying when it would not be appropriate to interview without one. With interviewing I have been trained to interview suspects and victims. We are NOT trained to trick people or put words in their mouth and I'm really saddened that this has been suggested. My job is not only to prove an offence but also to disprove if there is clear lack of involvement. It would be morally wrong and unethical of me to "put words in someone's mouth" to make them look guilty. I do not do this and none of my colleagues do either. I gather evidence and present it to the CPS. I do not manipulate or fabricate evidence. I have no reason to do this and would not benefit from doing so.
I agree that the justice system has many flaws and the way in which mental health is perceived does need a lot of work through training and funding. There is not one organisation at fault and it is a problem with the entire system. I welcome any questions around police involvement and ASD but will not respond to abuse. Take care everyone.
In my case I was asked to sign a statement that gave no context and was incomplete , so could be used in court to indicate something completely different to what happened. In my view this is a trick.
The police certainly did lots to intimidate and wrong foot me.
At no time was I offered any appropriate adult. I was dissuaded from speaking to a solicitor and when I insisted was only allowed 2 or 3 minutes alone with him. I was only offered the duty solicitor and not informed I could see any other solicitor
www.olliers.com/.../
the duty solicitor was friendly with the police and did not advise me appropriately. the solicitor had no understanding of autism
I believe no one should be questioned without being allowed an amount of time with a truely independent solicitor , for at least 20 minutes. The important facts should be given including, the potential maximum sentence, the likely questions, the significance of refusing to answer questions etc
i feel I was tricked and trapped by police questions, for an horrendous charge which I was found not guilty of.
nowhere in the system was my autism ever noted. Particularly with regard to my Mens Rea, which was unusual and made out to be falsehood
most people on the asd spectrum are unaware and there are no screening questions done
Then in court the techniques are to withhold certain vital evidence and get the judge and jury to disregard aspects of the defence story.
Hi Dave
I'm sorry to hear that you've had a bad experience. I cannot comment on your case as I don't know the full facts but I can provide insight into the points you've raised. I'm making an assumption that you are based in England or Wales as these are the laws I work to being baser in London. Apologies if this isn't the case.
You mention that you were asked to sign a statement. I take it this was a prepared statement prepared by your solicitor in conjunction with yourself? If you are suspected of a criminal offence then police will not take a statement but you will be interviewed under caution as per the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. The police would have had no part in this and would purely have been legal advice from your solicitor.
It's a common misconception that duty solicitors work with the police. This is simply not true. Duty solicitors work for independent legal firms that participate in the government duty scheme that provides free legal advice to people being investigated by police. The firms also are paid by clients as well as being in the scheme. The solicitor you had one day could be working for the scheme and the next day could be being paid privately. There are not a pool of solicitors that solely work for the scheme. Solicitors, like police officers, are not all the same and some will provide different advice to others. You are under no obligation to take that advice. It is simply advice. I agree that anyone being questioned should have sufficient time beforehand with a solicitor. There is no time limit to this. I have dealt with people who have had over an hour with their solicitor before I have interviewed them. Before a solicitor speaks to their client, I as the investigating officer must provide the solicitor sufficient information with which to advise their client. This will include the offence being investigated and why we think that person is involved. We will not provide likely questions as this simply is not realistic. Questions are never set in stone and will change depending on the responses in interview.
Your autism should have been noted by a custody sergeant if you were held at a police station. I'm sorry if this didn't happen. If myself or someone in my department is interviewing someone with autism we will contact the appropriate adult service. This is to make sure that the interview we conduct is fair, legal and will stand up in court. I personally feel that this is my duty as a professional and that I have a duty of care towards the person being interviewed. I stand nothing to gain from tricking that person or treating them unfairly.
I cannot comment on court processes as my area of expertise is the police part of the process. The mens rea that you mention raises a very interesting point that could be debated for hours. The problem we have as a society is we attempt to create one size fits all systems but this simply is not feasible. I'm genuinely sorry if you were treated badly and I hope some of what I've written helps around understanding the other side of the legal system.
All the best
Thanks James. My experience was very different from what you write. The solicitor was clearly a buddy of the Cps barrister and the police.
I have been nearly killed and £2m loss through police actions and I am left permanently disabled and suicidal.
I believe I was used as an example by the Cps to scare people from internet use as they knew they had a weak case and I was vulnerable. The police officer even wrote in his summary he was very concerned about the effects of prosecution for what I was found not guilty of unanimously.
I was caught in an internet trap as I keep writing on here and have been convicted for following national guidance for saving lives when suicidal. The police made out this was malicious communication.