About this case:

• Judgment:
  External link

The man was sentenced to six months imprisonment at trial, and appealed this conviction on the basis that he should have been treated as a “mentally vulnerable” person under the PACE Code of Practice.

However, the Court of Appeal dismissed the man’s arguments regarding the admissibility of his interview evidence and stated that the trial judge’s findings were “unscrupulously fair” and “unimpeachable”.

Background

In April 2015, Mr Alfred David Beattie was a serving police officer when he crashed his car into a tree after drinking a half bottle of wine.

The Court heard that he left the car and walked home without reporting the accident to police, and then drank more alcohol “to calm himself”.

Thereafter Mr Beattie returned to the car, and damaged it with a screwdriver to make it look as if it had been stolen.

When police officers called at his home the next day, Mr Beattie advised them that had not been out of the house since he parked the car at 6.30pm the previous evening, and claimed not to own the screwdriver found in the car.

The following day, Mr Beattie went to Lisburn Police Station where he admitted what he had done, and was then arrested and cautioned.

Interview

Mr Beattie was assessed by the custody sergeant at Antrim Custody Suite, where he said he was “frightened of where he stood now”. It was noted at the time that he was “upset, shaking, and making noises indicative of crying”.

Mr Beattie was considered to be in need of an assessment by the forensic medical officer (FMO) for fitness for detention and interview.

Pending the FMO assessment, the Custody Sergeant directed that Mr Beattie should be subject to 15-minute checks.

The FMO considered that Mr Beattie was fit for detention and interview, and recorded that he was to be released into the care of relatives. He had no concerns that Mr Beattie would “cause any harm to himself if he was released from custody as he had stated that he loved his parents too much to do any harm to himself”.

Admission of interview evidence

Mr Beattie claimed that he should have been treated as a “mentally vulnerable” person under Code C of the Police and Criminal Evidence (NI) Order 1989 (“PACE”) Code of Practice for the Detention, Treatment and Questioning of Persons by Police Officers; and objected to the admission of his interview evidence

At Mr Beattie’s trial, the judge conducted a voir dire, hearing evidence from the arresting/interviewing officer, the FMO, and Professor Farnan, a FMO called on behalf of Mr Beattie was noted to have never examined him.

The FMO who examined Mr Beattie immediately prior to the interview was noted to have been privy to ‘a clear account of’ Mr Beattie’s background; and was satisfied that Mr Beattie was not mentally vulnerable.

At trial, the arresting/interviewing officer gave evidence that Mr Beattie “was clearly upset to find himself in that situation and that he had liaised with the custody sergeant… whose responsibility it was to determine whether the appellant was mentally vulnerable”

The custody sergeant, who had since retired, was not called as a witness.

The trial judge was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Beattie was not mentally vulnerable at the time of the interview, and there was no reason to exclude his interview evidence.

Mr Beattie was subsequently found guilty of one count of intending to pervert the course of justice, and was sentenced to six months imprisonment.

Court of Appeal

In the Court of Appeal, Mr Beattie contended that the failure to provide an “appropriate adult” to him as a “mentally vulnerable” person; was contrary to the requirements of Code C of the PACE Code of Practice for the Detention, Treatment and Questioning of Persons by Police Officers

It was noted that the trial judge had no evidence from the custody sergeant and no statement had been taken from him.

The Court of Appeal was however satisfied that the absence of evidence from the custody sergeant did not mean that the trial judge should have adopted an adverse inference about whether he had a suspicion of mental vulnerability:

“The custody sergeant was careful in light, in particular, of the comments made in the police vehicle on the way to Antrim Custody Suite. His decisions to require assessment by the FMO and to order a 15 minute check on the appellant were indicators of that care. It is clear, however, that was able to deal with the concerns about the appellant’s vulnerability and the custody record shows that he communicated this directly to the custody sergeant. The fact that the saw the appellant placed him at a considerable advantage. His conclusion was supported by . It was also supported by the fact that the experienced solicitor attending the appellant did not raise any issue about the need for an appropriate adult. We consider that the drawing of an adverse inference in this case was not supported by that evidence.”

Dismissing the appeal, the Court of Appeal accepted that charge to the jury had been scrupulously fair; and the trial judge’s conclusion that there was no breach of Code C was unimpeachable.