There is no point in interviewing a suspect who, for whatever reason, does not understand the nature or purpose of the questions you wish to ask. This may be temporary, where the suspect is under the influence of drugs or alcohol, or in a state of shock or stress. You may need to call a “break” where the suspect is too upset to continue and a respite in questioning is required. Be aware that a suspect’s mental and physical state can change and it is possible that conditions may arise during the interview whereby the suspect requires medical attention, even where they were previously in a fit state. The suspect may suffer from learning disabilities or impaired social functioning that may affect their ability to give fully informed answers, or adequately comprehend the meaning or significance of questions asked. Suspects can be interviewed where they appreciate fully the significance of questioning. However, even if this is not the case, there may be exceptional circumstances when immediate questioning may be justified, for example where life or property is in danger, or there is a risk that evidence may be lost or offenders may escape. The individual circumstances of the case must inform your decision but you should always have consideration for the suspect’s welfare. Reading the suspect – A word of caution Some police officers like to refer to their “gut instinct” and pride themselves on their ability to read a person’s body language and other cues in order to ascertain when a suspect is lying or even if they are guilty of a particular offence. This is totally contrary to the openness of mind required of a professional investigator. It can lead you to ignore or devalue significant information that disproves or runs counter to such unfounded beliefs. Do not depend on any ability to identify deception but rather uncover and follow the evidence. A lack of evidence against a particular suspect should not always be seen as problematic as it may prove useful. The absence of substantive evidence may point to the possibility of some other guilty party and thereby may suggest that taking a new direction in the investigation is required. An officer who fails to keep an open mind and instead believes that they “know” the truth is likely to be more prone to seeking justification for their views by coercing or threatening or otherwise manipulating a suspect to confess. Focusing too much energy and interest on obtaining a confession may close the officer’s mind to other information that may point to guilt lying elsewhere. Even where an officer may have correctly noted that a suspect is lying, the reason for this “untruth” may be complex. It may indeed relate to guilt but it may also be due to something else, including fear, confusion, a desire to please the interviewer Professional interviewing ► Page 15