Eliciting confessions : an exploration of various interrogating techniques adopted by the Malta Police Force

Abstract

This study explores how police interrogation practices are applied in Malta, incorporating legal perspectives from a criminal attorney. It examines whether current methods align with ethical, legal, and evidence-based standards, particularly in the absence of a nationally standardised framework for suspect interviewing. Prompted by ongoing debates around coercion and the risk of false confessions, the research assesses the practical application and underlying rationale of current investigative interviewing strategies. A qualitative approach was adopted, involving semi-structured, face-to-face interviews with four police inspectors and one criminal attorney. Thematic analysis was used to identify recurring patterns in participant responses, which were then critically examined in the existing literature on ethical interviewing, with particular reference to the PEACE model. Preliminary insights suggest that while participants supported ethical principles and legal safeguards, practices were often influenced by operational pressures and personal experience. The PEACE model was widely valued but inconsistently applied, with greater emphasis on rapport-building and evidence disclosure than on post-interview evaluation. The criminal attorney offered key reflections on procedural gaps and the need for greater oversight. The study indicates a general commitment to ethical interviewing in principle, though its implementation remains uneven. The absence of a unified national framework may contribute to procedural inconsistency. The findings point to the need for structured training, clearer policy, and formal oversight to promote consistent and ethical interviewing practices in Malta.