Search

The aim of this research is to critically explore the working practices of detectives and third parties involved in the detention and interviewing of vulnerable suspects, who have been arrested on suspicion of committing homicide (and attempted murder) offences in England and Wales. Vulnerable suspects (juveniles under 18 years of age and adults with a mental health condition or mental disorder (Code C PACE)) are over-represented within the criminal justice system (Loucks, 2007; Bradley, 2009) and are at a higher risk of making false confessions or being unable to act in their best interests during a suspect interview (Gudjonsson, 2003). Those who are arrested on suspicion of committing homicide offences can be detained in custody for up to 96 hours and may experience lengthy and complex interviews, potentially exacerbating their vulnerability. Therefore, it is important to explore how these interviews take place and whether the safeguards that vulnerable suspects are entitled to enable fair treatment. This research explores what takes place prior to and during the suspect interview and the working practices of detectives and third parties (e.g., the appropriate adult (AA) and legal advisor). To achieve this aim, a case study design was employed. Fieldwork was undertaken between July 2018 and January 2020. 125 police suspect interviews and 29 custody records were analysed for 27 vulnerable suspects on 26 investigations, across three police forces. This was supplemented with 37 semi-structured interviews with police officers, AAs and legal advisors. This research identified that detectives and third parties do not always adhere to the rules and guidance which govern the detention and interviewing of vulnerable suspects. Theoretical explanations include police culture and pro-social rule-breaking and these highlight the tensions between the crime control objectives of the police, which prioritise obtaining an evidential account from a suspect, and the due process or welfare objectives of third parties. The research concludes that vulnerable suspects are not always treated fairly, and the implications of these findings for policy and practice are explored. This thesis proposes that the rules which govern the practices of detectives and third parties need to be defined clearly, and that when breaches occur those responsible are held accountable. Proposals also include specialist training (similar to a 'Tier' system) for AAs to prepare them for participation in major crime interviews.

In England and Wales, the rate of known domestic homicides has remained relatively stable over the last decade (Office for National Statistics, 2021a), despite sustained attempts to reduce and prevent it. Understanding how and why such homicides occur is paramount if future incidents are to be prevented. Domestic Homicide Reviews (DHRs) were introduced in the 2004 Domestic Violence, Crimes and Victims Act, and have been operational since 2011 (Home Office, 2016b). DHRs are instigated when a suspected domestic homicide or suicide occurs, and the offender is either an intimate partner or someone the victim lived with (Home Office, 2016b). Each DHR is set up to objectively assess cases on a local and multi-agency basis, and to identify good and poor areas of practice, with the overarching aim of reducing and preventing future domestic homicide (Home Office, 2016b). The aim of this PhD research is to examine and critically analyse both the principles and operation of Domestic Homicide Reviews (DHRs) in England and Wales. Thirty-four semi-structured interviews were held; thirty-two with professionals involved in the DHR process, and two with co-victims of domestic homicide. Six observations were also undertaken of selected components of the DHR process, totalling to just under twenty hours of observations. Private documents (such as case details, Terms of Reference, agency chronologies or Individual Management Reviews, and draft overview reports) were acquired and analysed, which contextualised the data that emerged from both the interviews, and the observations. The findings reveal that the current DHR system is flawed in a number of ways. First, this research demonstrates that there are issues with how the DHR process itself is conducted. For example, reviews regularly exceed the prescribed 6-month timeframe; the DHR data collection method is outdated, and DHRs are not a priority for all agencies involved. Second, the findings reveal an influence of organisational culture in the DHR context. For instance, agency panel members can exert different levels of influence over DHR proceedings, depending on how engaged they are in the process. Last, the no-blame approach that underpins the process has theoretical importance that does not always translate into practice. The research provides evidence that no-blame is a difficult concept to understand, and difficult to implement in the DHR context. The implications of these findings for policy and practice are considered and the thesis concludes by stating that the DHR process needs to undergo a series of changes as soon as possible, so that it can truly cement its importance within both criminal justice and society more generally.

New psychoactive substances (NPS) appeared on the drug market in 2005/2006 reportedly in an attempt to circumvent existing drug legislation. At first, they appealed mainly to young, recreational drug users. However, in the second half of 2012, reports from a few countries around Europe indicated that NPS had also started to make their way into the repertoires of long-term users of heroin, amphetamines and cocaine (often referred to as 'problem drug users'). In the UK, the first reports of NPS use among problem drug users came from South Wales, in the autumn of 2012. Albeit anecdotally, drug agencies, local newspapers and the police in this area reported that long-term heroin users had switched to injecting a stimulant NPS - mephedrone, which was previously only popular among recreational drug users. Little is known about NPS use among 'problem drug users' as research has tended to focus on recreational drug users. The thesis fills this gap in knowledge by investigating the motivations and characteristics of NPS use among a sample of problem drug users in South Wales. Three qualitative research methods were used, in combination, to investigate NPS use at initiation, during periods of persistence and at desistance. This involved: (1) in-depth interviews with 26 problem drug users, 17 of which were repeated after an average of six months, (2) in-depth interviews with 11 experienced drug professionals, and (3) a 13-month microethnography at a busy drug treatment service operating in South Wales. Zinberg's (1984) classical drug, set, setting theoretical framework, not previously used in relation to NPS use, was adopted to disentangle the findings of this study. The analysis revealed that setting factors were most important in terms of initiation. Yet, a complex interplay of set, setting and drug were important for persistence and desistance. Stigma and 'recovery capital' played a particularly important role in explaining desistance. The results of this study have implications for policy and practice in the field of substance misuse, most of which relate to access to, content and delivery of substance misuse treatment programmes. In addition, the findings can inform drug policy, drug legislation, criminal justice interventions, prevention and harm-reduction initiatives.

The six-year investigation by West Yorkshire Police to apprehend Peter Sutcliffe, the Yorkshire Ripper, in the late 1970s and early 1980s was roundly criticised and led to a public inquiry that called for wide-ranging changes to homicide investigation. With a history already marred by corruption and miscarriages of justice, it was a pivotal case, which triggered a process of reform that has continued to the present day. Yet, flawed investigations continue, suggesting that the investigation of homicide remains fallible. Moreover, the homicide detection rate has declined since the 1960s. Despite this, homicide investigation is a topic that has been subject to minimal academic scrutiny. This study addresses this gap by exploring how and why the investigation of homicide in England and Wales has changed since the 1980s and what has been lost and/or gained as a consequence. Adopting a qualitative approach, the research is based on in-depth interviews with twenty-seven former and serving homicide detectives, the analysis of three police murder files from the 1980s, 1990s and 2000s, and observations of homicide investigation and detective training. Original documentation from the Yorkshire Ripper investigation was also examined. This research has established that homicide investigation has changed almost beyond all recognition across the last four decades. This is the consequence of four central drivers: a growing preoccupation with risk; the changing political economy; reactions to miscarriages of justice or problematic cases; and advances in science and technology. The impact of change has been considerable and whilst there have been benefits, today's more risk averse homicide detectives face new challenges that are compounded by cuts to police budgets and prioritisation of other crimes such as terrorism.

Until recently the involvement of females in gangs has been a relatively neglected area of inquiry for academic research and criminal justice policy in the UK (Campbell, 1991; Chesney-Lind, 1993). In contrast the media have become increasingly interested in female gang involvement in the UK reporting stereotypical images of girl 'gangsters' as malicious violent aggressors (Young, 2009). This intense media scrutiny has distracted from the 'necessary and long overdue focus' of research into female gang membership (Chesney-Lind and Hagedorn, 1999). Research that has acknowledged females participation in gangs has downplayed their involvement to an auxiliary capacity . Based on interviews with female gang members and experts in the field, the current research aims to address this gap in knowledge by unravelling the roles of females in mixed gender gangs across the UK. In contrast to existing literature, the current research proposes that females play a significant role within gangs that are distinctly separate from their male counterparts. Results revealed a typology of female gang membership where females' roles were intrinsically tied up with their relationships to male members. Increased emphasis is placed on negative peer associations and lack of social control mechanisms as a precursor for female gang membership than ethnic and economic marginality highlighted by previous research (Thrasher, 1927; National Youth Gang Centre, 2000). Findings indicate female gang members operate within an environment of conflict in which they act as both perpetrators and victims of serious crime and violence. The current research therefore advocates that an increased emphasis should be placed on the gendered nature of gang membership, where gender differences are highlighted as opposed to ignored or downplayed (Batchelor, 2009). The research therefore concludes that policies and interventions aimed at tackling the female gang problem in the UK should uphold an appreciation of the dual-role performed by gang involved females as both offender and victim.