{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.015113350125944584, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0025188916876574307, 'mean_word_length': 5.0418250950570345, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Inappropriate Adults? A Review of the Current Use of Appropriate Adults in the Criminal Justice System

Appropriate Adults (AAs) are an important procedural safeguard for young and vulnerable people in a criminal investigation. The significance of their role is recognised by Parliament in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) and the appending Codes of Practice, most notably Code C. However, the ability of AAs as to perform their role is being impeded by a lack of clarity around their status and the rules that they are governed by. Often at the behest of lawyers, AAs are excluded from the conversations which lawyers have with their clients as a pragmatic solution to the uncertainty in the status of AAs. This means that AAs are rarely able to properly perform their vital role. Consequently, vulnerable people are not receiving the meaningful support they should receive. This represents a missed opportunity to protect the rights and interests of vulnerable people in the criminal justice system. When AAs are deployed effectively and appropriately, they can empower young or vulnerable suspects in an adversarial criminal justice system which, in turn, can help recalibrate the scales of justice to allow for a fairer outcome. This article will examine and critique the state of the current law, clarify the law on Legal Professional Privilege (LPP) and how that relates to Aas and propose a modest incremental extension to the principles of confidentiality to cover confidential discussions between AAs and young or vulnerable people in the criminal justice system.