ABSTRACT
One could assume that custody officers defined vulnerability in the same way as Code C (soft law) defines it: an adult suspect was ‘vulnerable’ if he or she had a mental disorder or was mentally vulnerable. Therefore, whilst the law provides some guidance on what is required for the appropriate adult safeguard, this guidance is subject to some form of interpretation by custody officers. The general consensus was that Code C was inaccessible and thus deterred custody officers from reading it. Moreover, the impression was such that Code C was not necessarily written with the custody officer in mind and did not deal with the ‘nuts and bolts’ of the day-to-day work. Custody officers neither mentioned the phrase ‘any disorder or disability of the mind’ when asked to explain mental disorder nor at any other point during the interview. Custody officer responses also included references to medication and diagnosis as well as behavioural problems and cognitive impairments.
