Unfitness to Interview at a Kent Police Station: What PACE Code C Says

Introduction

If you or someone you know is at a Kent police station, you may hear talk of being “unfit to interview” or “not fit to be interviewed.” That language is widely used by police, solicitors, and healthcare staff — but it is not a single standalone criminal offence or one-line statute. In England and Wales it is mainly governed by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) and PACE Code C, which sets out how suspects are treated and questioned in custody.

This guide explains, in plain English, what practitioners mean by unfitness to interview, how Code C defines fitness to be interviewed, and how that is different from fitness to plead at court. It is general information only — not advice about any individual case.

Police Station Agent is a private defence website operated by Robert Cashman — NOT Kent Police. Legal services are delivered through Tuckers Solicitors LLP (SRA ID: 127795).

1) What does “unfitness to interview” mean?

In everyday use, someone is described as unfit to interview when they are not in a state to be questioned safely or fairly — for example because of acute mental illness, severe learning disability, head injury, intoxication combined with other risk factors, or extreme distress. Lawyers and police often use the phrase interchangeably with Code C’s concept of fitness to be interviewed.

Code C does not use the exact words “unfitness to interview” as a defined term. Instead, it sets out:

• when a person is vulnerable and needs an appropriate adult (paragraph 1.13(d));
• when clinical attention is required (section 9, including paragraph 9.5);
• how fitness to be interviewed is assessed (paragraph 12.3 and Annex G); and
• when an interview must not proceed or must stop (paragraphs 11.15, 11.18 and 12.3).

2) How Code C defines fitness to be interviewed (Annex G)

Annex G to PACE Code C is headed “Fitness to be interviewed.” It explains that a detainee may be at risk in an interview if:

• conducting the interview could significantly harm the detainee’s physical or mental state; or
• what they say might be considered unreliable in later court proceedings because of their physical or mental state.

Annex G requires consideration of whether the detainee can understand the nature and purpose of the interview, comprehend questions, appreciate the significance of answers, and make rational decisions about whether to speak. A healthcare professional should advise on functional ability — not simply a diagnosis alone (Annex G, paragraph 4). Code C notes that a person with severe mental illness may still, in some circumstances, be fit for interview.

3) The custody officer’s decision (paragraph 12.3)

Before interview, the custody officer — in consultation with the officer in charge and healthcare professionals as necessary — must assess whether the detainee is fit enough to be interviewed. Paragraph 12.3 states the custody officer:

• must consider risks to the detainee’s physical and mental state if the interview took place; and
• shall not allow a detainee to be interviewed if the custody officer considers it would cause significant harm to the detainee’s physical or mental state.

Vulnerable suspects listed at paragraph 11.18 are treated as always being at some risk during interview and may not be interviewed except in accordance with paragraphs 11.18 to 11.20 (urgent interview exceptions with superintendent authorisation and safeguards).

4) Vulnerable suspects and the appropriate adult

Code C paragraph 1.13(d) defines a vulnerable person as someone who, because of a mental health condition or mental disorder, may have difficulty understanding or communicating about detention, voluntary attendance, or their rights — or who may be prone to providing unreliable or misleading information without intending to.

If an officer has reason to suspect vulnerability, the person must be treated as vulnerable unless there is clear evidence to dispel that suspicion (paragraph 1.4). A juvenile or vulnerable person must not be interviewed about an offence in the absence of an appropriate adult, except in limited urgent circumstances (paragraph 11.15).

The appropriate adult’s role includes advising the detainee, observing whether the interview is conducted properly, and facilitating communication (paragraphs 1.7A and 11.17). They are not merely a silent observer. See our guide on appropriate adults at the police station.

5) Healthcare assessment and clinical attention

Paragraph 9.5 requires the custody officer to ensure appropriate clinical attention if the detainee appears to be suffering from a mental disorder, or in urgent cases to call a healthcare professional or ambulance immediately. Healthcare professionals advise on fitness; their written advice forms part of the custody record (Annex G, paragraph 7). The custody officer then decides whether the interview may proceed and what extra safeguards are needed (Annex G, paragraph 8).

6) Not the same as fitness to plead

Fitness to plead (or fitness to be tried) is a court issue — whether the accused can participate in a criminal trial when prosecuted. The CPS explains that fitness to plead concerns whether a person can participate in a criminal trial at the time they come to be prosecuted. In the Crown Court, the framework is in sections 4 and 4A of the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964.

Someone may be unfit to be interviewed at the police station but later fit to plead (or vice versa). The tests, timing, and procedures are different. Conflating the two causes serious confusion for families at Kent custody suites and voluntary interview stations.

7) What if an interview goes ahead anyway?

Even where an interview takes place, confession or comment evidence may be challenged later:

• PACE section 76 — the court must exclude a confession if it was obtained by oppression or in consequence of something likely to render it unreliable (unless the prosecution proves otherwise beyond reasonable doubt).
• PACE section 77 — where the case depends substantially on a confession by a mentally handicapped person (as defined in the section) not made in the presence of an independent person, the judge must warn the jury of the special need for caution.
• PACE section 78 — the court may exclude evidence if admission would have an adverse effect on the fairness of proceedings.

A breach of Code C does not automatically exclude evidence. In R v Absolam (1988) 88 Cr App R 332, the Court of Appeal held that where there is a breach, the judge has discretion to exclude; the breach must be significant and substantial, and the section 78 fairness test applies. See CPS guidance on confessions and PACE breaches.

In R v Foster [2003] EWCA Crim 178, the Court of Appeal discussed the jury warning under section 77 and the role of the appropriate adult in reducing the risk of unreliable information (referring to Annex E of Code C).

8) Voluntary interviews in Kent

Code C also applies to many voluntary attendances for interview under caution — not only those held in cells at Medway, Gravesend, Tonbridge, Canterbury, or Folkestone. Vulnerability and appropriate-adult rules can apply at voluntary interview stations such as Maidstone or Sevenoaks. See voluntary interview letter advice and voluntary police interview guide.

9) What a solicitor can do

A duty solicitor or accredited representative can:

• argue that interview should be delayed pending clinical assessment;
• require an appropriate adult where Code C applies;
• challenge interview conduct and later seek exclusion of evidence under sections 76 or 78; and
• ensure attendance notes record fitness concerns, clinical advice, and safeguards.

Legal advice at the police station is free under Legal Aid for most interviews. See is police station legal advice free in Kent? and when to ask for a solicitor.

Related guides

• Appropriate adults at the police station
• Vulnerable adults in custody
• PACE Code C overview
• PACE rights guide
• No further action after interview
• Kent custody after arrest

Conclusion

“Unfitness to interview” at a Kent police station is best understood through PACE Code C’s framework for fitness to be interviewed, vulnerability, clinical assessment, and appropriate adults — separate from fitness to plead at court. If fitness is in doubt, seek legal advice before or during attendance.

Sources

• GOV.UK — PACE Code C 2023 (accessible text) — paragraphs 1.4, 1.13(d), 9.5, 11.15, 11.17, 12.3, Annex G
• PACE 1984, section 76 — exclusion of confessions (oppression / unreliability)
• PACE 1984, section 77 — confessions by mentally handicapped persons; jury warning
• PACE 1984, section 78 — exclusion of unfair evidence
• Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964, section 4 — fitness to plead (Crown Court)
• CPS — Mental health: suspects and defendants — appropriate adults, vulnerability, fitness to plead
• CPS — Confessions, unfairly obtained evidence and breaches of PACE
• BAILII — R v Foster [2003] EWCA Crim 178 — section 77 and appropriate adult role
• R v Absolam (1988) 88 Cr App R 332 — Code breaches and exclusion discretion (reported in standard criminal texts; see also CPS PACE breach guidance above)
• SRA register — Tuckers Solicitors LLP (127795)

General information only — not legal advice about any individual case. Statutory references and Code C paragraphs are summarised for readability; always refer to the official published versions linked above for the full text.