Autistic son interviewed without appropriate adult

[taylorwhite883]

Hi my son who is 19 and autistic was not provided with an appropriate adult during the interview when he was arrested for breach of a restraining order which he confessed to in the interview.

He declined a solicitor at the police station so he had no support from anyone at the station during the custodial process and interview.

He was seen by a nurse shortly before the interview and then she gave the green light for him to be interviewed.

He is currently RUI and I was wondering what are the chances the confession could be excluded under S78 of PACE since this is a clear breach of PACE?

England.

Thanks.

If the confession was false, surely the laptop would just show this too?

And why does the sex of the person he is harassing and has a restraining order against him matter?
Very much agree with pp that if he is so vulnerable re internet access he shouldn't be doing so unsupervised.

But he refused a solicitor and confessed.

But the OP's saying he doesn't have the capacity to make those choices without a responsible person present.

If his confession was false the laptop would fail to provide any supporting evidence, but that would not necessarily be fatal to the prosecution. The prosecution could argue that lack of evidence did not mean it didn't happen. Juries have a propensity to believe confessions when there is a lack of supporting evidence and even, sometimes, when there is strong evidence that the confession is false.

The sex of the person who obtained the restraining order is not relevant. I was responding to someone who talked about the "woman/women" he has harassed and pointing out that we don't know if this is correct.

Would there be evidence from the other side? Or is the argument that someone falsified it?

But the nurse who saw him prior to interview said he was

It may be a small victory for you and your son that he got off on a technicality. Autism is not absolute and didn't excuse his original behaviour.
I hope he will address his behaviour and abide by his restraining order for the sake of his victim.

I'm really pleased that worked out op. The police were foolish here and will be annoyed that they fluffed the justice process so badly.

I've been wondering how you have been getting on.

Does he understand his restraining order?

The nurse isn't qualified to make that decision.

We don't know what the nurse said. The nurse can recommend an appropriate adult, but it is the custody sergeant's decision. However, even if the nurse did say no appropriate adult was needed, they she was wrong. If she was aware of his autism and she said no adult was needed, she did not do her job. If she was not aware of his autism, that would mean the police had failed to tell her this information thereby depriving her of important information that she needed to make the correct decision.

Can anyone say they are autistic/vulnerable or do they need proof?

Thanks for updating OP. Regardless of anything else, the police do need to make sure they follow good practice.

@toomuchlaundry Anyone could say it and they'd have to accept that. There's no great advantage though, the appropriate adult is not legally trained they are just there to make sure you understand what is happening and that your rights are being respected.

Thank you @orbitalcrisis

But in this case there has been 'an advantage' op says *My son was charged with breaching a restraining order however his solicitor contacted the CPS before court to explain to them that in his view anything that was said in the interview is unreliable evidence because there was no appropriate adult.

The CPS agreed and it proved fatal to the case against my son because the CPS decided a discontinuance of proceedings meaning that my son does not have to attend court.

The case could be restarted again in the future but this is most likely an end to theo matter according to his solicitor who said the CPS rarely restart proceedings.*

So could anyone then say, but I need an appropriate adult and didn't get one so case gets discontinued, and no proof of this need is required?

@MichelleScarn Let me clarify... If somebody claimed in advance that they had autism then the police would take their word for it, if they claimed after the fact, the cps would check it was true before determining whether the police had followed procedure. If the person is lying, then procedure was followed and they would have no advantage and a confession would stand. If they were telling the truth they would judge it on individual merit.

In this case the police knew he had autism, had used an appropriate adult with him before, had him assessed by a nurse and still chose not to follow procedure and appoint an AA. This is why the CPS dropped the case.

Point still remains:

If you need an appropriate adult for a police interview, you shouldn't be given unfettered internet access to the internet by your carer. Especially if you've already got a restraining order on you.

OP hasn't mentioned what happens now with his internet access. She's avoided the question.

Ultimately, it looks like it won't be followed up because of a technicality, but the responsible adult in this scenario is burying head in sand over her responsibility in letting it get to this situation in the first place.

I feel for the victim.

Well OP short victory now for your son but the future isn't looking good. He's faced no consequences for his actions if he gets caught again it will be on his record he was arrested. It's looking likely he would be jailed the next time. You need to have internet filters on.

@RedToothBrush I am an autistic adult who under the regulations should not be interviewed without an appropriate adult. Not only do I have complete unfettered access to the internet and am legally responsible for 3 other human beings. Vulnerability does not not mean we are incapable or have fewer rights, some of us just may be easier to manipulate, get flustered more easily in stressful situations, may misunderstand questions, may need longer to answer, may mishear, etc. It does not mean we need a permanent carer and restrictions to our freedom.

I guess his poor victim will just have to wait until he breaches it again (which he will, as he’s had fuck all consequences thus far, even from you!).

But you havent previous for harassment though....

Totally agree

@RedToothBrush Unless it's ordered by the court, OP has no right to place any restrictions on her son just because he has a disability. He has rights too. Can you imagine if you were caught speeding and your mum came and took your car keys away as you were no longer to be trusted?

@RedToothBrush And carers work for the disabled person, they do not control them. Does OP even say she is his carer or that he has one?

Would that not only br the same if reds mum came along and said 'that's wrong they were only speeding due to autism, last time they were charged with speeding they were treated differently'?