I was watching an interview with a woman who had been assigned to be the serial killer Fred West’s “Appropriate Adult.”
I thought that in the British legal system an Appropriate Adult was a person assigned in cases involving children to safeguard their rights, is that incorrect?
Also, why was Fred West assigned an Appropriate Adult?
It’s an adult who assists and supports a child or other vulnerable person who is under arrest or subject to a police interview. They have a right to be present during questioning under PACE Code C (the piece of legislation which governs what the police are supposed to do when they detain or question suspects). In most cases, the appropriate adult will be a parent, but there is a defined hierarchy of people who can serve as appropriate adults in case no one else is available; for this reason, it can also be a social worker, as happened with Fred West. He was illiterate, which was why he was treated as vulnerable and hence entitled to an appropriate adult even though he was not a minor in terms of age.
Also, as a nitpick, it’s usually (although not always) incorrect to speak of “British” law. The UK consists of three jurisdictions (England and Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland), and laws can differ significantly, especially between Scotland on the one hand and the other jurisdictions on the other. In most cases (also here), it’s better to speak of “English” law.
Thanks for the answer. I didn’t know West was illiterate. He ended up kind of confiding in the Appropriate Adult which seemed to have been pretty unsettling for her.
Noted on the nitpick.
I think he just needed someone to read police reports and other written evidence to him. That’s something that would be left to a defense attorney and their staff in the US.
Was she the one who was discredited at trial for making some sketchy deal with journalists?
I have no idea, it was just a clip from some Netflix documentary that popped up in my feed. Don’t ask me why, I mostly watch nerdy history vids and stuff like that. I had heard of West and was just curious why he was assigned an Appropriate Adult and what they do.
For anyone interested, it’s worth reading the Wikipedia page on Janet Leach - The Appropriate Adult in question.
Unexpectedly called to testify against Rosemary, Leach had a stroke in the witness box after falsely claiming that she had not signed a deal with the press to sell her story. In fact, she had sold her story to the Daily Mirror and admitted this when she returned to the witness box several days later, following treatment at a hospital.
Just read that, I had no idea. What a sad, sordid story.
Sounds vaguely like a “guardian ad litem” in US law.
With the difference that an appropriate adult applies only in criminal cases (the equivalent in civil litigation would be a “litigation friend” in England), and that the appropriate adult comes into play at the initial police arrest already, so way before the case reaches the court (if ever).
In .vic.au, an “Independant Person”, also known as an “Independant Third Person”, attends bail and police interviews for children and people with “cognitive impairment”. Within the ITP program is a subset known as “Corrections Independent Support Officers” who attend prison disciplinary hearings.
I don’t know how “people with cognitive impairment” are identified – it mostly seems to be up to the police unless there is a previous record, or (for bail), the bail justice identifies a problem. It doesn’t seem to include people just with illiteracy or poor language skills.
ITP are volunteers. They aren’t required for court hearings, because at court a child or “person with cognitive disability” would be represented by an appointed lawyer.