Criminal Justice System Support.

FASD: police interview safeguards

Officer briefing | England and Wales | Suspects in custody or attending voluntarily
General information, not case-specific legal advice. Separate rules (further below) apply to victims, witnesses, terrorism and national security cases.

Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD) involves brain injury and lifelong neurodevelopmental impairment caused by prenatal alcohol exposure.[1] Difficulties with understanding, memory and judgement, including suggestibility, can create safeguarding risks. Fluent speech does not prove understanding.[2] Officers retain lawful powers to investigate and protect themselves and others, subject to legal thresholds and safeguards.[3] [4]

Carefully consider and record individualised safeguards under PACE Code C, including an appropriate adult, access to legal advice, communication support and fitness for interview. Apply the Mental Capacity Act 2005 to relevant decisions within its scope and Mental Health Act 1983 provisions, as amended, only where their statutory criteria are met. Neither Act replaces PACE safeguards; FASD alone does not establish lack of capacity or justify mental health detention.

1. Recognise and record vulnerability

Under Code C 1.4 and 1.13(d), treat suspected vulnerability as such unless clear evidence dispels it; enquire and record findings.

Do not wait for diagnosis where prenatal alcohol exposure and significant overlapping needs raise concerns about possible FASD, or a report describes “likely” or “at risk of” FASD; these descriptions are not confirmed diagnoses but are clinical terms through the clinical guidance for alcohol, SIGN 156 and NICE Quality Standards for FASD. PACE vulnerability safeguards are not conditional on evidence of exposure as needs should also be carefully considered.

Look for or request relevant evidence of impaired understanding, confusion or suggestibility. Where concerns remain unresolved, seek or commission an assessment by a suitably qualified professional with FASD expertise.⁵

Confabulation is not deliberate fabrication: it involves sincerely believed but unintentionally inaccurate accounts. It can occur in FASD, dementia and acquired brain injury, and may include inaccurate allegations or admissions. Pressure and suggestive questioning can increase the risk.⁶

Do not presume dishonesty or dismiss an allegation because of needs or a diagnosis. Investigate impartially, record the person’s exact words, seek independent evidence and appropriate clinical advice, and maintain safeguarding.

2. Arrange safeguards before substantive questioning

Appropriate adult: juveniles and vulnerable suspects must not ordinarily be interviewed or provide/sign statements under caution without one (11.15); limited exceptions, including 11.18, are not routine alternatives. Legal advice: explain and facilitate free, independent legal advice. A solicitor and an appropriate adult perform different roles; neither replaces the other.[7]
Caution: apply section 10, explain meaning accessibly and check understanding - not just repetition or “yes”. Apply 10.12 where a caution was initially given without the appropriate adult.[8]

3. Assess caution understanding and fitness for interview

Under PACE Code C, Annex G, paragraphs 2–4, consider whether interview could significantly harm physical/mental health, or the person’s state could make answers unreliable. Assess functional ability to understand the interview and questions, appreciate answers’ significance and decide whether to speak. Obtain clinical advice where needed on safeguards, reassessment and any further specialist opinion (Annex G, paragraph 5). Identified risks should be quantified, including prospects for improvement or treatment and timescales (paragraph 6).

Record the healthcare professional’s determination and recommendations in writing as part of the custody record (paragraph 7); the custody officer decides whether to proceed and with what safeguards (paragraph 8).

FASD does not automatically establish unfitness for interview. Fitness does not remove the appropriate-adult requirement.

Specialist FASD-informed assessment: where confirmed or suspected FASD raises concerns that cannot be adequately resolved by the initial assessment, seek a further specialist opinion before substantive questioning, subject to the Code’s narrowly defined urgent exceptions.

A suitably qualified clinical psychologist or neuropsychologist with demonstrable expertise in FASD and forensic assessment may be appropriate. A brief assessment of medical stability or conversational ability does not, by itself, resolve concerns about comprehension, suggestibility or the reliability of answers. Review existing specialist reports where available, but assess current functioning and the demands of the proposed interview. This is an individualised clinical recommendation supported by Annex G’s provision for further specialist opinion - not a statutory requirement for every person with FASD to undergo a full neuropsychological assessment.

The specialist opinion should address: understanding of the caution and its practical implications, rather than mere repetition; receptive language and processing time; memory and sequencing; suggestibility, compliance and possible confabulation; ability to appreciate the significance of answers and decide whether to speak; and the effects of stress, fatigue and questioning. It should identify necessary communication adjustments, interview duration and breaks, review or stopping criteria, and any remaining limitations. These are assessment recommendations tailored to the person, not a list of tests mandated by PACE.

Understanding the caution is distinct from fitness for interview. Under Code C, Note for Guidance 10D, if a person does not appear to understand the caution, the person giving it should explain it in their own words. Apply paragraph 10.12 concerning an appropriate adult. Where understanding remains uncertain, obtain legal and appropriate clinical advice and resolve the concern before ordinary substantive questioning. Do not present “fitness to be cautioned” as a separate formal PACE certification: clinical assessment informs understanding and interview safeguards, but does not replace the officer’s responsibilities. Giving a caution on arrest is a separate procedural issue; see paragraph 10.4.

Reference for this section: Home Office, PACE Code C (December 2023), paragraphs 10.4 and 10.12, Note for Guidance 10D, and Annex G, paragraphs 2–8. Annex G supports individual functional assessment and consideration of further specialist opinion; it does not name FASD or prescribe a particular specialist qualification.

4. Interview adjustments: individualise, monitor, document

Use concrete language, one question at a time and adequate processing time. Avoid leading, repeated or forced-choice questioning that increases suggestibility. Check comprehension without coaching answers. Plan breaks and review points; pause and seek reassessment if concerns emerge. Record adjustments, interventions and reasons for decisions.[9] Consider local Liaison and Diversion/equivalent provision.[10]

FASD-informed communication protocol

Purpose and limits: agree and record an individual communication plan before substantive questioning wherever practicable. The steps below are practice recommendations, not a separate statutory protocol. They support participation without coaching an account and supplement - not replace - the caution, appropriate adult, legal advice and fitness assessment. Do not use preliminary communication checks to question the person about the alleged offence without the applicable safeguards. Urgent medical or safeguarding action must not be delayed.

1. Prepare and identify support. Ask the person what helps them understand and communicate. Review relevant reports or communication passports and seek information from carers or professionals where lawful and appropriate; do not assume a carer can act as the appropriate adult. Record the preferred language, FASD communications wallet card or communication method, sensory needs, useful adjustments, signs of overload, agreed breaks and who will review concerns. Arrange an interpreter or other specialist communication advice where needed. Brief the appropriate adult and solicitor on identified needs while maintaining the confidentiality of legal advice. A communication aid or support professional does not replace either role.

2. Explain the process calmly and concretely. Identify who is present, their roles, what will happen next and how the person can indicate confusion or request a break. Use one speaker at a time, short sentences and a neutral tone. Reduce avoidable noise and distraction where practicable; do not demand eye contact. Helpful process statements include: “I will explain one thing at a time”; “You can tell me if a word is unclear”; and “If you do not know or cannot remember, say that. Do not guess.” Use declarative language to explain the process, not to assert disputed facts. Never replace the prescribed caution with an informal script or make promises about release, outcomes or leniency.

3. Check understanding without testing obedience. Do not rely on “Do you understand?”, a nod, fluent speech or verbatim repetition. Where appropriate, invite the person to explain a procedural point in their own words, without requiring an account of the alleged offence. Explain unclear wording neutrally and check again without suggesting the desired answer. Caution explanations must remain legally accurate; involve the appropriate adult and facilitate legal advice. If understanding remains uncertain, record the difficulty and seek appropriate advice before ordinary substantive questioning. Do not record understanding as established merely because the person agrees.

4. Question neutrally and allow processing time. Use accessible open prompts, followed by focused, non-leading clarification where appropriate.

Ask one question about one point at a time. Avoid double negatives, implied answers, unnecessary jargon and forced choices that exclude “I do not know” or “I cannot remember”.

Allow the individually agreed processing interval; there is no universal FASD waiting time due to deficits in brain damage, but up to 20 seconds may help.
Do not rapid-fire, interrupt or repeatedly reword a question before the person has had time to respond.
If a question must be revisited, explain why neutrally and do not imply that the previous answer was wrong.
Do not praise agreement or use disapproval to obtain a changed account.
Record uncertainty and inconsistencies accurately; do not supply missing details, turn estimates into certainty or treat an adjustment as confirmation of reliability.

5. Monitor, pause and reassess. Watch for changes such as repeated automatic agreement, increasing confusion, loss of the question, marked fatigue or difficulty expressing uncertainty. These observations are reasons to enquire, not proof of FASD or unreliability. Invite the appropriate adult to raise concerns and follow agreed clinical review and stopping criteria. If participation or fitness becomes doubtful, pause substantive questioning, inform the custody officer where applicable and obtain appropriate reassessment. A short break alone does not resolve a continuing comprehension or fitness concern. Record the concern, action taken and reasons and safeguards for any decision to resume.

6. Close clearly and hand over the plan. Explain the next procedural step in accessible language and check understanding without inviting uninformed agreement to a summary of evidence. Record the wording or method that helped, processing time, breaks, unresolved concerns, support provided and any clinical recommendations. Preserve the person’s own words and distinguish observations from interpretations. Make necessary communication information available to subsequent officers and relevant professionals through lawful information-sharing arrangements, without disclosing confidential legal advice. Review the plan if the person’s presentation or circumstances change.

Protocol references: Home Office, PACE Code C (2023), paragraphs 1.4 and 1.13(d), section 6, section 10 and Note 10D, paragraphs 11.15 and 11.17, and Annex G, paragraphs 2–8; College of Policing, Investigative interviewing, particularly “Dealing with suggestibility”, “Engage and explain”, “Questions”, “Closure” and “Evaluation”. These sources support the legal safeguards and general interviewing principles; the six-step FASD-informed plan above is a tailored practice recommendation, not a verbatim official protocol.

Evidence: failure to caution does not automatically exclude every answer. Confessions may require exclusion under PACE s76; prosecution evidence may be excluded for unfairness under s78.[1] Apply safeguards now—not only when admissibility is challenged.

5. Supporting officers: suggestibility safeguards and FASD-informed training

Safeguards support officers as well as suspects. Recognising possible suggestibility, arranging appropriate support and documenting decisions helps protect the integrity of an investigation and provides an auditable account of the officer’s actions. A person may agree with a suggested account or change an answer under pressure without appreciating the consequences.

Use neutral questions, allow processing time and seek independent evidence rather than treating agreement as confirmation. FASD does not establish that an admission or allegation is false: investigate impartially and maintain safeguarding. Training and accurate records support defensible practice; they do not confer immunity from complaints, misconduct proceedings, civil claims or evidential challenge.

Police Federation support: the Police Federation of England and Wales is a staff association, rather than a police officers’ trade union. Officers seeking representation or advice should contact their local Federation representative or the staff association appropriate to their role. PFEW legal assistance is subject to its Fund Rules, eligibility and approval; it is not automatic. Support from a representative does not replace force procedures, operational supervision or legal advice about an investigation. Local representatives can also be asked to raise identified training and welfare needs with force leadership. This is a recommendation, not a claim that PFEW endorses this webpage or any FASD training provider.

Recommended FASD-informed training: forces should consider role-specific, scenario-based learning for response officers, custody teams, interviewers and supervisors. It should cover recognising vulnerability without waiting for diagnosis; the distinction between suggestibility, compliance, confabulation and deliberate deception; accessible explanation of the caution; appropriate adults and legal advice; specialist assessment and Annex G; neutral questioning and processing time; reassessment and stopping criteria; and accurate recording of decisions. Training should supplement PACE and the College of Policing’s investigative interviewing guidance, be reviewed against current law and force policy, and be evaluated through practical exercises rather than attendance alone. Officers are not expected to diagnose FASD; they need to recognise concerns, apply safeguards and access suitable expertise.

Points of reference: Home Office, PACE Code C (December 2023), paragraphs 1.4 and 1.13(d), sections 6, 10 and 11, and Annex G, paragraphs 2–8; College of Policing, Investigative interviewing, particularly “Dealing with suggestibility”, “Questions” and the PEACE framework; Police Federation of England and Wales, “About us” and “Legal advice & assistance”. The training recommendations above are not a separate statutory FASD training requirement.

References

Home Office. PACE Code C (December 2023). Paragraphs 1.4 and 1.13(d) (vulnerability); section 6 (legal advice); section 10, particularly paragraphs 10.4 and 10.12 and Note for Guidance 10D (caution); section 11, particularly paragraphs 11.15, 11.17 and 11.18 (interview safeguards); and Annex G, paragraphs 2–8 (fitness for interview, specialist opinion, recording and custody officer decisions).
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Section 76 (confessions) and section 78 (exclusion of prosecution evidence on fairness grounds).
College of Policing. Investigative interviewing. Particularly “Dealing with suggestibility”, “Engage and explain”, “Questions”, “Closure”, “Evaluation” and the PEACE framework.
Police Federation of England and Wales. “About us”. Information on its role as a staff association.
Police Federation of England and Wales. “Legal advice & assistance”. Information on legal assistance, subject to applicable Fund Rules, eligibility and approval.

Legal disclaimer

This briefing provides general educational information about FASD and police interview safeguards in England and Wales. It is not legal advice, a clinical assessment or operational authorisation, and must not be relied upon as the sole basis for a decision in an individual case. It does not replace the applicable law, current PACE Codes of Practice, force procedures, legal advice or suitably qualified clinical advice. Legal requirements and guidance may change; readers should check the current authoritative sources.

References to FASD, suggestibility and confabulation describe possible difficulties, not findings about any particular person. Confirmed or suspected FASD does not, by itself, establish incapacity, unfitness for interview, the unreliability of a statement or grounds to dismiss an allegation. Decisions must be individualised, evidence-based and made by the responsible officer or professional within their lawful role, with appropriate safeguards and a recorded rationale. This briefing must not be used to delay urgent safeguarding or medical assistance.

Supplement: separate rules for victims, witnesses, terrorism and national security cases

England and Wales. This supplement explains distinct legal frameworks; it does not authorise operational action or replace specialist advice. Identify the person’s role and the actual statutory power being used. A case’s subject matter alone does not determine the applicable Code.

FASD-informed communication and individualised safeguarding remain important across these settings, but suspect safeguards must not simply be copied into witness interviews or border examinations, they need to be carefully considered clinically by an FASD informed specialist.

Communication protocol: read this supplement alongside section 4, “FASD-informed communication protocol”, in the main briefing (above).

Its six steps cover preparation and support, accessible process explanations, understanding checks, neutral questioning and processing time, monitoring and reassessment, and clear closure and handover. Adapt those communication recommendations to the person’s needs and the applicable legal framework: use ABE and relevant intermediary arrangements for victims and witnesses, and the applicable Code for terrorism, national security or border examinations.

Do not transfer ordinary suspect caution or silence-rights explanations into another regime without checking their legal basis. The protocol is supplementary practice guidance, not a statutory protocol or a substitute for required safeguards or specialist advice.

Victims and witnesses: best evidence and communication support

Use Achieving Best Evidence in Criminal Proceedings (ABE) to plan interviews with children and vulnerable or intimidated adult victims and witnesses. Assess communication, support and safeguarding needs early; do not rely on fluent speech or wait for an FASD diagnosis. For victims, apply the Victims’ Code, including the right to understand and be understood, needs assessment, support referrals and enhanced rights where eligible. Not every witness is a victim entitled to the Victims’ Code.[1]

Consider a Registered Intermediary early where communication difficulties warrant specialist assessment. An intermediary facilitates impartial two-way communication; they do not coach evidence or act as a solicitor or appropriate adult. Under the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, sections 16–19 and 23–30, eligible witnesses may receive special measures, including communication aids, intermediary assistance and video-recorded evidence. Under-18 witnesses qualify on age grounds; adult eligibility depends on the statutory criteria, not diagnosis alone. Discuss needs and preferences, provide the information needed for a prosecution application and recognise that the court decides the measures granted.[2]

Preserve the person’s account and investigate impartially. Use neutral, accessible questions and sufficient processing time; record uncertainty and avoid supplying missing details. Possible suggestibility or confabulation does not establish that an allegation is false. Seek independent evidence and maintain safeguarding. Appropriate-adult requirements for suspects do not automatically govern interviews conducted solely as a witness: follow ABE’s distinct support arrangements. If reasonable suspicion of an offence arises, reassess the person’s status and apply the relevant caution and suspect safeguards before offence-related questioning; do not continue a witness interview to bypass those protections.[3]

Terrorism detention: PACE Code H

Code H governs the specified terrorism detention and questioning regimes, including detention under section 41 of and Schedule 8 to the Terrorism Act 2000; its scope also covers section 43B detention and authorised post-charge questioning under section 22 of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008.

Do not assume every terrorism-related investigation falls under Code H: establish the arrest or detention power and applicable provisions.

Apply Code H’s own vulnerability, appropriate-adult, legal-advice, caution and healthcare provisions. Fitness for interview is addressed in Annex G. Assess functional understanding, suggestibility, fatigue and the effects of questioning; obtain relevant clinical advice and record safeguards and decisions. Special powers concerning detention or delayed rights have specific conditions and authorisation requirements: seriousness of the allegation does not itself permit safeguards to be set aside. Seek specialist counter-terrorism supervision and legal advice where interpretation or exceptions are in issue.[4]

National security detention: PACE Code I

Code I governs detention, treatment and questioning under section 27 of and Schedule 6 to the National Security Act 2023. Apply its own provisions for vulnerable people, appropriate adults, legal advice, cautions, interpreters, healthcare and detention review. Fitness for interview is Annex F - not Annex G. Identify the actual power used; a national security connection alone does not make Code I applicable. Record individual needs and specialist advice, and apply any restrictions or exceptions only where the relevant statutory and Code conditions are met.[5]

Border examinations: distinct statutory Codes

Examinations under Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000 and Schedule 3 to the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019 have separate statutory Codes of Practice; the current published versions are dated October 2025. These are not ordinary voluntary witness or suspect interviews. Apply the relevant Code’s rules on examination, detention, duties to answer, legal advice, healthcare, children and vulnerable people, appropriate adults and recording. Do not import an ordinary suspect caution or silence-rights explanation into this different regime without checking its legal basis. Explain applicable rights and duties accessibly, obtain specialist advice where comprehension is uncertain and reassess the framework if the person’s legal status changes.[6]

Across all frameworks: lawful powers and required safeguards operate together. Neither FASD nor apparent agreement determines capacity, fitness or reliability. Record the applicable power, identified needs, adjustments, advice, authorisations and reasons for decisions. This supplement is an orientation, not an exhaustive account of these specialist regimes. Check current law, Codes, amendments in force and force procedures; obtain specialist legal review before publication.

Reference list: full briefing and supplement

This consolidated list covers the main briefing and the supplement. It supplements the existing references and footnotes. Use legislation as amended and provisions in force at the relevant time; check the current official Codes and guidance. Clinical literature informs individual assessment and practice recommendations, not additional statutory requirements.

Legislation and statutory Codes

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Sections 24, 76 and 78: arrest, confessions and exclusion of evidence.
Home Office (2023). PACE Code C. December 2023 edition. Paragraphs 1.4 and 1.13(d); sections 6, 10 and 11; Note for Guidance 10D; Annex G, paragraphs 2–8.
Mental Capacity Act 2005. Sections 1–3: principles and decision-specific assessment of capacity.
Mental Health Act 1983, as amended. Including sections 135–136 where applicable; specific statutory criteria must be met.
Criminal Law Act 1967, section 3; Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, section 76. Reasonable force and self-defence provisions.
Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999. Sections 16–19 and 23–30: eligibility, directions and special measures for witnesses.
Terrorism Act 2000. Sections 41 and 43B; Schedules 7 and 8. Counter-Terrorism Act 2008, section 22. Relevant detention and authorised post-charge questioning provisions.
Home Office (2023). PACE Code H. December 2023 edition: specified terrorism detention and questioning regimes; Annex G addresses fitness for interview.
National Security Act 2023. Section 27 and Schedule 6. Home Office (2023). PACE Code I. December 2023 edition; Annex F addresses fitness for interview.
Home Office (2025). Examining Officers and Review Officers under Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000: Code of Practice. October 2025 edition.
Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019, Schedule 3. Home Office (2025). Examining Officers and Review Officers under Schedule 3 to the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019: Code of Practice. October 2025 edition.
Ministry of Justice. Code of Practice for Victims of Crime in England and Wales (Victims’ Code). Official publication updated 29 January 2025; particularly Enhanced Rights and Rights 1–4.

Official practice guidance and officer support

Ministry of Justice (2022). Achieving Best Evidence in Criminal Proceedings: Guidance on Interviewing Victims and Witnesses, and Guidance on Using Special Measures. Fourth edition; official publication updated 21 June 2023.
Ministry of Justice. Witness Intermediary Scheme. Official guidance updated 13 August 2026: Registered Intermediaries, communication assessment and requests for assistance.
College of Policing. Investigative interviewing. Authorised Professional Practice; particularly suggestibility, PEACE, planning, questioning, closure and evaluation.
NHS England. About liaison and diversion. Identification, screening, assessment and referral in England.
Police Federation of England and Wales. About us; Legal advice & assistance. Staff-association role and assistance subject to applicable Fund Rules, eligibility and approval. Inclusion does not imply endorsement of this briefing.

FASD and confabulation: clinical evidence

NHS. Fetal alcohol spectrum disorder. Information on prenatal alcohol-related brain damage and lifelong difficulties.
Department of Health and Social Care (2021). Fetal alcohol spectrum disorder: health needs assessment. Published 9 September 2021; England.
Brown, J., Asp, E., Carter, M. N., Spiller, V. and Bishop-Deaton, D. (2020). Suggestibility and confabulation among individuals with Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder: A review for criminal justice, forensic mental health, and legal interviewers. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 73, 101646. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijlp.2020.101646.
Brown, J. et al. (2022). Fetal alcohol spectrum disorder and confabulation in psycholegal settings: A beginner’s guide for criminal justice, forensic mental health, and legal interviewers. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 40, 46–86. DOI: 10.1002/bsl.2540.
Francis, C., MacCallum, F. and Pierce, S. (2022). Interventions for confabulation: A systematic literature review. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 36(8), 1997–2020. DOI: 10.1080/13854046.2021.1948612.
Brooks, E. (2022). Exploring the clinical management of confabulation within neuropsychology services. DClinPsy thesis, University of Glasgow. Includes a systematic review concerning adults with acquired brain injury or dementia.

[1] Ministry of Justice, Achieving Best Evidence in Criminal Proceedings, fourth edition (2022, publication updated June 2023); Code of Practice for Victims of Crime in England and Wales, updated January 2025, Enhanced Rights and Rights 1–4. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/achieving-best-evidence-in-criminal-proceedings; https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-code-of-practice-for-victims-of-crime/code-of-practice-for-victims-of-crime-in-england-and-wales-victims-code.

[2] Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, ss16–19 and 23–30, as amended; CPS, Special Measures (updated October 2024); Ministry of Justice Witness Intermediary Scheme (updated August 2026). https://www.cps.gov.uk/prosecution-guidance/special-measures; https://www.gov.uk/guidance/ministry-of-justice-witness-intermediary-scheme. Court direction and statutory eligibility must be established; diagnosis does not itself grant a particular measure.

[3] Ministry of Justice, Achieving Best Evidence in Criminal Proceedings (2022, updated 2023), planning, questioning and interview support; PACE Code C (2023), section 10 and vulnerable-suspect interview provisions. The FASD-specific application is a practice recommendation, not an official standalone protocol.

[4] Home Office, PACE Code H (December 2023), scope, sections 1, 6 and 9–11; Annexes B, E and G; Terrorism Act 2000, s41 and Schedule 8. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/pace-code-h-2023/pace-code-h-2023-accessible. Consult the precise conditions for any restriction, exception or authorised post-charge questioning.

[5] Home Office, PACE Code I (December 2023), scope, sections 1, 6, 9–12; Annexes B, E and F; National Security Act 2023, s27 and Schedule 6. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/pace-code-i-2023/pace-code-i-2023-accessible. Annex F addresses fitness for interview; Annex G is the observation list.

[6] Home Office, Examining Officers and Review Officers under Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000: Code of Practice (October 2025); Examining Officers and Review Officers under Schedule 3 to the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019: Code of Practice (October 2025). See examination, detention, legal advice, healthcare and children/vulnerable-person provisions. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/68e7b52b187483de54d766d2/Schedule+7+Code+of+Practice.pdf; https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/68e8caec187483de54d76728/Schedule+3+Code+of+Practice__1_.pdf.

Newly published document: Police & Mental Health; how to get it right locally

"As the National Policing lead for Mental Health and Disability, I really welcome this guide which offers practical advice to officers and staff when interacting with people with mental health problems, and provides examples of some of the innovative police practice from around the country. The findings and recommendations contained in the report section 'At risk', yet dismissed highlight where police practice could be improved to better support and encourage victims with mental health problems to report crime; this guide is an excellent resource that can be used to support forces and partner agencies in developing their policies and practices to achieve this".

Chief Constable Simon Cole, National Policing Lead for Mental Health and Disability

Disclaimer and Exclusion of Liability Statement