Polygraph examinations were piloted in England and Wales in 2007 and, in 2008, a 3-year study commenced with the Probation Service evaluating the mandatory use of polygraph on high-risk sex offenders [section 28 of the Offender Management Act 2008]. Following what was deemed to be a successful pilot, in 2014 legislation made it mandatory for high-risk sex offenders on parole to undergo mandatory testing as part of their conditional release.

In February 2018, the Ministry of Justice said that, since the tests had been introduced, 166 sex offenders had been returned to jail after polygraphs flagged concerns about their behaviour and had then faced further investigations.

The use of the polygraph spread even more after the adoption of two draft laws:
1) Domestic Violence Bill, which is aimed at persons who are at high risk of harm in the family (Domestic Abuse Act 2021);
2) Counter-Terrorism & Sentencing Act 2021, which provides for mandatory testing of persons who have committed crimes related to terrorism.

According to information published in November 2023, more than 7,000 polygraph examinations were carried out on people convicted of sexual crimes. Since the adoption of the Law “On Combating Terrorism and Sentencing” in 2021, 97 polygraph tests have been carried out among 42 people convicted of terrorism-related crimes.

Analyzing government websites, UK laws in the context of the use of polygraph tests, I found a BBC article from January 2023 titled “North Yorkshire Police Use Lie Detector for Sex Offenders”.

In this article, Det Supt Heather Whorriskey of North Yorkshire Police said polygraphs had been used 87 times since the equipment was introduced in October 2020.
She told the meeting that many people about to take a test reveal details before it starts as they “realise their answers are likely to give away some untruths”.
“It’s used quite significantly whenever offenders are using communication devices to assess whether or not they have engaged in further communication with children. We’re able to use that to prioritise those devices for examination within our digital forensic unit.

Can individuals be recalled to custody for failing a polygraph examination?

People on supervision subject to a polygraph testing licence condition cannot be recalled to custody solely on the basis of returning a significant response. However, they can be recalled for making disclosures during the examination that reveal they have breached other licence conditions or suggest that their risk has escalated to a level whereby they can no longer be managed safely in the community.
Individuals who return a significant response during their examination will likely be scheduled to undertake a further polygraph examination ahead of their next planned appointment. They may also have further conditions added to their licence.
Information gathered from a polygraph examination may also be shared with the police who are able to conduct further investigations that may or may not result in charges being made.
Individuals who attempt to ‘trick’ the polygraph examination, or who refuse to take it, can be recalled to custody.

Case examples of the use of polygraph with people convicted of sexual offences in the Probation Service

1.J is a 47-year-old man convicted of the sexual abuse of young boys.
J has a licence condition not to have contact with children under the age of 18 years.
J was subject to mandatory polygraph testing as part of his release conditions following a nine year custodial sentence.
During a polygraph examination, J denied any contact with children under the age of 18 years. This response returned a significant result, indicating possible deception.
The polygraph examiner contacted J’s probation practitioner who immediately contacted the police. The police were waiting for J when he returned to his property and found three young boys and another adult in the house.
J was recalled to custody immediately. The police were then able to make further investigations.

2. G is a 33-year-old man convicted of downloading and sharing indecent images of children.
G has a licence condition not to possess any internet devices unless approved by his supervising officer.
G was subject to mandatory polygraph as part of his release licence following a three year custodial sentence.
During a polygraph appointment, G disclosed to his examiner that he had a laptop, but that it was his mother’s and not internet enabled. During his exam, the examiner then asked G, “Other than what you have already told me, do you have any internet-enabled devices?” G responded “No”, which elicited a significant response indicating possible deception. After the polygraph examination, the examiner told G about this response and asked him if there was anything he would like to disclose. G said there was not.
The polygraph examiner notified G’s probation practitioner, who visited G at home with the police who had a warrant to search the property.
The police discovered numerous phones, a laptop and several USB sticks containing indecent images of children. G was recalled to custody immediately and charged.

So, in England and Wales, the polygraph is mandatory and is actively used only for persons who have been convicted of sexual crimes, domestic violence or terrorism as part of a condition of parole.

However, some persons may be asked to undergo a polygraph test at the stage of a police investigation – this applies to suspects of sexual crimes involving children. Such tests are carried out on a voluntary basis.

Lawyers in England drew attention to the fact that recently (2024) there has been an increase in the number of cases of polygraph use at the stage of police investigation against persons arrested on suspicion of sexual crimes related to children.

There is nothing to prohibit police officers in England from using or attempting to use a polygraph in the course of an investigation – they can offer the suspect to be tested. At the same time, participation in such a polygraph test is not mandatory, a person has a choice and can agree or refuse.

Although the polygraph examiner’s report is not “evidence” that will become part of the prosecution, it will be turned over to the Crown Prosecution Service as “confidential unused material” as part of disclosure requirements.

Yuliia BABENKO
Attorney at law, polygraph examiner,
member All-Ukrainian Association of Polygraph Examiners