ABSTRACT
In crime control terms, the police interview occupies a central position in the criminal justice system; it represents an effective use of resources, since if a confession becomes available, the criminal process is likely to be accelerated.2 In particular, since mens rea is a requirement of most offences, admissions provide the most readily available means of establishing the state of mind of the suspect at the relevant time. The interview may, in effect, replace the trial, since its results may play a key part in the pre-trial risk-balancing and negotiating process in which the suspect decides whether to plead guilty. Clearly, the stronger the risk of a conviction which would be unaccompanied by a sentence discount, the less likely it is that he or she will plead not guilty.3 If the suspect has confessed or made some admissions, he may feel that there is no point in pleading not guilty even if the admissions are false, exaggerated or misleading. The interview may also frequently play a part in general criminal intelligence gathering.4 On their face, the crime control advantages of the interview are readily apparent although, clearly, if an intimidating atmosphere and a lack of due process safeguards lead a suspect to make false admissions that cannot advance crime control ends.
