Don Grubin: The Psychiatrist Who Brought PCSOT to the UK

From the United States to Newcastle University

Don Grubin is originally from the United States but came to England to study at the age of 20 and has remained there since [1]Verified Don Grubin — IATSO Conference Profile
Confirms Grubin's American origin, move to England at age 20, training at Institute of Psychiatry, Maudsley and Broadmoor, and role as Project Director of Sexual Behaviour Unit. He trained at the Institute of Psychiatry, and the Maudsley and Broadmoor Hospitals — three of the most prestigious psychiatric institutions in Britain [1]Verified Don Grubin — IATSO Conference Profile
Confirms Grubin's American origin, move to England at age 20, training at Institute of Psychiatry, Maudsley and Broadmoor, and role as Project Director of Sexual Behaviour Unit. He eventually joined the faculty at Newcastle University, becoming Professor of Forensic Psychiatry and Honorary Consultant Forensic Psychiatrist with the Northumberland, Tyne and Wear NHS Foundation Trust [2]Verified The Polygraph and Forensic Psychiatry
Confirms Grubin's position as Professor of Forensic Psychiatry at Newcastle University and Hon Consultant Forensic Psychiatrist with Northumberland Tyne and Wear NHS Trust. His academic output has been prolific, with an h-index of 24 and over 52 co-authored publications spanning topics including polygraph testing, sexual offending, fitness to plead, and health screening in custody [3]Verified Don Grubin — SciSpace Academic Profile
Confirms h-index of 24 and 52 co-authored publications at Newcastle University.

What distinguished Grubin from many academic contemporaries was his willingness to engage with applied, real-world problems in offender management. He served as Project Director of the Sexual Behaviour Unit in Newcastle, psychiatric advisor to the English National Offender Management Service sex offender programmes, a member of the Ministry of Justice Correctional Services Accreditation Panel, and sat on the boards of the Home Office Independent Safeguarding Authority [1]Verified Don Grubin — IATSO Conference Profile
Confirms Grubin's American origin, move to England at age 20, training at Institute of Psychiatry, Maudsley and Broadmoor, and role as Project Director of Sexual Behaviour Unit. These roles gave him a unique vantage point from which to identify the supervisory challenges facing British probation services — and the tools that might address them.

The UK Sex Offender Supervision Challenge

In the late 1990s and early 2000s, British probation services faced a fundamental challenge: sex offenders released on licence into the community were routinely providing incomplete and deliberately misleading information to supervising officers and treatment providers. Probation officers had limited tools to verify offender self-reports, and research consistently showed that sex offenders significantly underreported their offending histories, minimised the severity of their crimes, and concealed ongoing risk behaviours.

This information gap compromised both public safety and the effectiveness of treatment interventions. Treatment programmes designed around incomplete self-reports were unlikely to address an offender's actual risk factors. It was within this context that Grubin began investigating whether polygraph testing — already used extensively in American sex offender management — could address the disclosure deficit in the British system. Grubin's approach was fundamentally empirical: rather than arguing ideologically for or against polygraph validity, he proposed testing whether the technique produced measurably better outcomes in a UK context. For those interested in the history of polygraph use in corrections, the UK adoption represented a watershed moment in European criminal justice.

The American Framework Grubin Built Upon

Post-Conviction Sex Offender Testing had been developing in the United States since the mid-1960s [4]Verified Post-conviction polygraph testing of sex offenders
Confirms PCSOT is common in US, increasingly applied in England and Wales; Grubin is CEO of company providing training and supervision to probation and police examiners. By the time Grubin began exploring the concept for the UK, nearly 80% of community treatment programmes and over 50% of residential programmes for adult male sex offenders in the US incorporated polygraph maintenance tests [5]Verified Polygraphs and sex offenders: The truth is out there
Confirms nearly 80% of US community programmes use polygraph; documents Royal Commission consideration; confirms Grubin's two aims of PCSOT. The American PCSOT model operates as a component of the "containment approach" — a multi-agency framework that coordinates probation supervision, treatment, and polygraph testing.

American PCSOT programmes typically include several types of polygraph examinations: the sexual history disclosure examination explores the offender's complete sexual history; the instant offense examination focuses on the specifics of the crime for which the offender was convicted; and the maintenance examination monitors ongoing compliance with supervision conditions [6]Verified Types of Polygraph Examinations in PCSOT: Complete Guide
Provides comprehensive overview of PCSOT examination types including sexual history, instant offense, and maintenance examinations. Research from US programmes showed that polygraph testing led to significant increases in disclosure, with sex offenders admitting substantially more victims and offending behaviours. However, critics pointed out methodological limitations including selection bias and lack of randomised controlled trials [7]Verified Polygraph Examination of British Sexual Offenders: A Pilot Study on Sexual History Disclosure Testing
Early UK pilot demonstrating feasibility and effectiveness of SHDE polygraph testing with British sexual offenders.

Grubin was well aware of both the promising results and the legitimate criticisms when he began designing his UK research programme. His goal was to conduct more rigorous studies that could withstand academic scrutiny while producing results relevant to operational practice. Pioneering researchers like John Larson and Harold Burtt had laid the foundations of polygraph science decades earlier, but applying it systematically to post-conviction offender management was an entirely different challenge.

Why the UK Had Never Adopted Polygraph Testing

Unlike the United States, where polygraph testing had been embedded in law enforcement and national security since the mid-20th century (including its use in World War II spy testing), the United Kingdom had virtually no tradition of polygraph use. Prior to the Newcastle research, polygraphy was not used in the UK for sex offender supervision, and the academic community was mostly sceptical about its accuracy and reliability [8]Verified REF Case Study: Polygraph Testing of Sex Offenders — Newcastle University
Confirms Grubin's research timeline from 2001, funding amounts, pilot study details, mandatory trial with 332 offenders, and MoJ confirmation of policy impact. The Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure of 1981 had considered introducing polygraphs into England and Wales, with members even observing them in action during visits to the USA, but concluded the technology's evidential uncertainty was too great [5]Verified Polygraphs and sex offenders: The truth is out there
Confirms nearly 80% of US community programmes use polygraph; documents Royal Commission consideration; confirms Grubin's two aims of PCSOT.

The British Psychological Society had published a 2004 review of polygraph detection that did not endorse its general use [9]Verified The case for polygraph testing of sex offenders
Confirms Grubin's arguments for PCSOT utility, references BPS 2004 review, and Ben-Shakhar's counterargument in same journal. British courts did not admit polygraph evidence, and no government agency routinely used polygraph examinations. There was no domestic training infrastructure, no regulatory framework, and no political constituency advocating for adoption. Grubin's achievement must be understood against this backdrop: he was proposing to introduce an entirely unfamiliar technology into a system that had never used it, in a country culturally sceptical of it, for application to one of the most sensitive populations in criminal justice.

Phase One: Early Voluntary Research (2001–2004)

Grubin's approach was methodical and strategic. Since 2001, he led trials to test whether polygraph assessment could help case officers manage high-risk sex offenders released on licence in England and Wales [8]Verified REF Case Study: Polygraph Testing of Sex Offenders — Newcastle University
Confirms Grubin's research timeline from 2001, funding amounts, pilot study details, mandatory trial with 332 offenders, and MoJ confirmation of policy impact. Initial Home Office funding of £27,000 in 2001 supported the first evaluation of polygraph use in the treatment and supervision of sex offenders [8]Verified REF Case Study: Polygraph Testing of Sex Offenders — Newcastle University
Confirms Grubin's research timeline from 2001, funding amounts, pilot study details, mandatory trial with 332 offenders, and MoJ confirmation of policy impact. A subsequent NHS grant of £59,035 between 2001 and 2003 funded research into the use of polygraph in monitoring high-risk behaviours [8]Verified REF Case Study: Polygraph Testing of Sex Offenders — Newcastle University
Confirms Grubin's research timeline from 2001, funding amounts, pilot study details, mandatory trial with 332 offenders, and MoJ confirmation of policy impact.

Grubin worked with trained American polygraph examiners who travelled to England to conduct the examinations, since no qualified PCSOT examiners existed in the UK at that time. His 2004 prospective study (co-authored with Madsen, Parsons, Sosnowski, and Warberg) examined whether polygraph testing would result in sex offenders engaging in fewer high-risk behaviours [10]Verified A prospective study of the impact of polygraphy on high-risk behaviors in adult sex offenders
Confirms 42% completed second test, 71% disclosing behaviours, and finding that polygraph resulted in less high-risk behaviour. Twenty-one subjects (42%) completed a second polygraph test, with 71% disclosing an average of 1.57 behaviours — a significant decrease compared with the first test [10]Verified A prospective study of the impact of polygraphy on high-risk behaviors in adult sex offenders
Confirms 42% completed second test, 71% disclosing behaviours, and finding that polygraph resulted in less high-risk behaviour. The study concluded that polygraph testing resulted in offenders engaging in less high-risk behaviour, and that offenders seemed to be more honest with their supervisors after experiencing the test [10]Verified A prospective study of the impact of polygraphy on high-risk behaviors in adult sex offenders
Confirms 42% completed second test, 71% disclosing behaviours, and finding that polygraph resulted in less high-risk behaviour. Parallel to Grubin's work, Daniel Wilcox and Daniel Sosnowski conducted an early UK pilot demonstrating the feasibility and effectiveness of sexual history disclosure examination (SHDE) polygraph testing with British sexual offenders, finding significant increases in disclosure and supporting international applicability beyond North America [11]Verified Polygraph Examination of British Sexual Offenders: A Pilot Study on Sexual History Disclosure Testing
Early UK pilot demonstrating feasibility and effectiveness of SHDE polygraph testing with British sexual offenders.

Phase Two: Large-Scale Voluntary Pilot (2003–2006)

Grubin secured substantial Home Office funding of £353,874 between 2003 and 2006 for a large-scale evaluation of voluntary polygraph testing across ten English probation areas [8]Verified REF Case Study: Polygraph Testing of Sex Offenders — Newcastle University
Confirms Grubin's research timeline from 2001, funding amounts, pilot study details, mandatory trial with 332 offenders, and MoJ confirmation of policy impact. Over a two-year period, 347 offenders attended for testing (43% of those eligible), and outcomes were compared with offenders from four probation areas where polygraphy was not introduced [12]Verified A Trial of Voluntary Polygraphy Testing in 10 English Probation Areas
Confirms 347 offenders tested, 70% vs 14% disclosure rates, odds ratio of 14.4, severity ratings of disclosures.

The results were striking: case managers of polygraphed offenders reported new disclosures relevant to supervision in 70% of first tests, compared with only 14% of case managers of non-polygraphed offenders — producing odds 14 times greater for meaningful disclosure [12]Verified A Trial of Voluntary Polygraphy Testing in 10 English Probation Areas
Confirms 347 offenders tested, 70% vs 14% disclosure rates, odds ratio of 14.4, severity ratings of disclosures. Of the disclosures made during polygraph testing, 27% were rated as being of "medium" severity and 10% "high" [12]Verified A Trial of Voluntary Polygraphy Testing in 10 English Probation Areas
Confirms 347 offenders tested, 70% vs 14% disclosure rates, odds ratio of 14.4, severity ratings of disclosures. Polygraph and non-polygraph case managers reported making revisions in risk assessment with similar frequency, but non-polygraph case managers were much more likely to consider risk to have reduced, while changes made by polygraph case managers were usually upwards [12]Verified A Trial of Voluntary Polygraphy Testing in 10 English Probation Areas
Confirms 347 offenders tested, 70% vs 14% disclosure rates, odds ratio of 14.4, severity ratings of disclosures.

The findings were reported to the government in July 2006 and directly informed the Child Sex Offender Review of 2006, which recommended a trial of mandatory polygraph testing [8]Verified REF Case Study: Polygraph Testing of Sex Offenders — Newcastle University
Confirms Grubin's research timeline from 2001, funding amounts, pilot study details, mandatory trial with 332 offenders, and MoJ confirmation of policy impact. About 90% of probation staff said polygraph tests helped them monitor sex offenders and assess their treatment progress [13]Verified Lie Detection Testing — Inside Time
Confirms 2006 pilot with 350 sex offenders, 90% of probation staff found tests helpful, and Grubin's comments to BBC Radio 4. Grubin published the formal research in Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment in 2010 [12]Verified A Trial of Voluntary Polygraphy Testing in 10 English Probation Areas
Confirms 347 offenders tested, 70% vs 14% disclosure rates, odds ratio of 14.4, severity ratings of disclosures. These earlier British applications of the polygraph to sex offender work were also documented by Daniel Sosnowski in a 2002 NOTA News article [14]Verified British applications of the polygraph to sex offender work: An update
Early documentation of British polygraph sessions facilitating disclosures not obtained through standard interviews.

Phase Three: Mandatory Polygraph Trial (2009–2012)

Following passage of the Offender Management Act 2007, Ministry of Justice funding of £174,283 between 2008 and 2011 supported a large-scale trial of mandatory polygraph testing [8]Verified REF Case Study: Polygraph Testing of Sex Offenders — Newcastle University
Confirms Grubin's research timeline from 2001, funding amounts, pilot study details, mandatory trial with 332 offenders, and MoJ confirmation of policy impact. The pilot began in April 2009 in the East Midlands and West Midlands probation regions, with Yorkshire & Humberside and North West regions serving as comparison areas [8]Verified REF Case Study: Polygraph Testing of Sex Offenders — Newcastle University
Confirms Grubin's research timeline from 2001, funding amounts, pilot study details, mandatory trial with 332 offenders, and MoJ confirmation of policy impact. A total of 332 offenders received a polygraph test over the course of the trial, and they were compared with 303 individuals in the comparison areas [8]Verified REF Case Study: Polygraph Testing of Sex Offenders — Newcastle University
Confirms Grubin's research timeline from 2001, funding amounts, pilot study details, mandatory trial with 332 offenders, and MoJ confirmation of policy impact.

Newcastle University was responsible for implementing the polygraph testing under Grubin's leadership, while the University of Kent was contracted to independently evaluate the pilot [15]Verified The evaluation of the mandatory polygraph pilot
Confirms 332 polygraph offenders vs 303 comparison offenders, Newcastle University implemented testing, University of Kent evaluated. The evaluation, led by Professor Theresa Gannon and published as Ministry of Justice Research Series 14/12 in July 2012, found that offender managers in the polygraph group reported a significantly higher proportion of offenders making at least one disclosure — 76.5% versus 51.2% in the comparison group [16]Verified An evaluation of mandatory polygraph testing for sexual offenders in the United Kingdom
Confirms 76.5% vs 51.2% disclosure rates, mean disclosures 2.60 vs 1.25, one third failed first test with Deception Indicated. Polygraph offenders also made more total disclosures overall (means of 2.60 versus 1.25) [16]Verified An evaluation of mandatory polygraph testing for sexual offenders in the United Kingdom
Confirms 76.5% vs 51.2% disclosure rates, mean disclosures 2.60 vs 1.25, one third failed first test with Deception Indicated.

The mandatory trial achieved similar outcomes to the voluntary trial, and crucially demonstrated that the disclosure effect held even under compulsory conditions [8]Verified REF Case Study: Polygraph Testing of Sex Offenders — Newcastle University
Confirms Grubin's research timeline from 2001, funding amounts, pilot study details, mandatory trial with 332 offenders, and MoJ confirmation of policy impact. Nearly half of interviewed individuals said that being polygraph tested made them more inclined to abide by their licence conditions [17]Verified Parole and licence conditions: PCSC Act 2022 factsheet
Confirms polygraph used successfully since January 2013, nearly half of tested offenders more inclined to abide by licence conditions. A 2014 study by Wilcox and Donathy reported on mandatory pilot data from 635 offenders, confirming significantly more clinically relevant disclosures compared to non-polygraphed controls [18]Verified British Experiences of Polygraph Testing Sexual Offenders: an Update
Mandatory pilot data from 635 offenders showed significantly more clinically relevant disclosures; testing within 8-16 weeks of release.

Reframing Polygraph as a Truth Facilitator

At the heart of Grubin's advocacy for PCSOT was what he termed the "disclosure effect" or "truth facilitator" concept. Rather than framing polygraph testing primarily as a deception detection tool — a framing that invited longstanding debates about polygraph accuracy — Grubin argued that the primary value of polygraph testing in sex offender management was its capacity to facilitate disclosure [9]Verified The case for polygraph testing of sex offenders
Confirms Grubin's arguments for PCSOT utility, references BPS 2004 review, and Ben-Shakhar's counterargument in same journal. He argued that the polygraph created a context in which offenders were more likely to reveal clinically relevant information they would otherwise conceal.

This reframing was strategically important. By emphasising disclosure rather than detection, Grubin sidestepped much of the traditional criticism of polygraph technology from researchers like Gershon Ben-Shakhar. Critics who challenged polygraph accuracy on the basis of false positive and false negative rates found their arguments less directly relevant when the claimed benefit was the overall testing process producing better information [9]Verified The case for polygraph testing of sex offenders
Confirms Grubin's arguments for PCSOT utility, references BPS 2004 review, and Ben-Shakhar's counterargument in same journal. In his 2008 paper in Legal and Criminological Psychology, Grubin argued that the evidence for accuracy and utility, although not definitive, was sufficient to justify the use of PCSOT, and that much criticism arose from confusion between PCSOT and other applications of polygraphy [9]Verified The case for polygraph testing of sex offenders
Confirms Grubin's arguments for PCSOT utility, references BPS 2004 review, and Ben-Shakhar's counterargument in same journal.

The Therapeutic Polygraph Model

Grubin's conceptualisation of the polygraph's role was fundamentally therapeutic rather than punitive. He set out two primary aims: to enhance treatment and to improve supervision, rather than simply an approach of "pass" or "fail" [5]Verified Polygraphs and sex offenders: The truth is out there
Confirms nearly 80% of US community programmes use polygraph; documents Royal Commission consideration; confirms Grubin's two aims of PCSOT. This therapeutic model called for close coordination between polygraph examiners, probation officers, and treatment providers, with polygraph results feeding into a shared risk assessment framework. Understanding PCSOT informed consent requirements and proper examination question formulation were essential elements of this integrated approach.

Grubin consistently argued that disclosures made during polygraph examinations should be used primarily for risk management and treatment planning rather than prosecution. This position was enshrined in the eventual legislation: Section 30 of the Offender Management Act 2007 specifically prevents any information obtained during the polygraph from being used in criminal proceedings against the offender [19]Verified Offender Management Act 2007, Section 30 — Use of polygraph results
Confirms Section 28 enables Secretary of State to include polygraph condition, Section 30 prevents use in criminal proceedings. The distinction between private and court-ordered polygraph testing became an important consideration as the UK programme developed its own unique protocols.

A systematic review by Elliott and Vollm (2018) examined 19 studies from the US, UK, and Netherlands, confirming that PCSOT significantly increased relevant disclosures across all studies [20]Verified The utility of post-conviction polygraph (PCSOT) in the treatment and management of sexual offenders
PCSOT significantly increased relevant disclosures across all 19 studies; no impact on sexual recidivism; some evidence of reduced violent reoffending. While the review found no impact on sexual recidivism specifically, there was evidence of reduced violent (non-sexual) reoffending — supporting the broader value of PCSOT as a risk management tool [20]Verified The utility of post-conviction polygraph (PCSOT) in the treatment and management of sexual offenders
PCSOT significantly increased relevant disclosures across all 19 studies; no impact on sexual recidivism; some evidence of reduced violent reoffending.

From Research to Legislation

The translation of Grubin's research into legislation required navigating the British political system, addressing civil liberties concerns, and overcoming institutional inertia. The Head of Public Protection Partnerships at the Ministry of Justice confirmed that "without Professor Grubin's research it is unlikely that the CSOR [Child Sex Offenders Review] would have been aware of the potential role of polygraphy in managing offenders nor is it likely to have become a manifesto commitment" [8]Verified REF Case Study: Polygraph Testing of Sex Offenders — Newcastle University
Confirms Grubin's research timeline from 2001, funding amounts, pilot study details, mandatory trial with 332 offenders, and MoJ confirmation of policy impact.

Grubin's role extended beyond providing research data. He participated in policy briefings, advised parliamentary committees, and worked with civil servants drafting the legislation. He gave evidence before the Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Bill Public Bill Committee in June 2020, where he described becoming interested in polygraph testing about 20 years earlier and finding that American practitioners considered it indispensable for offender management [21]Verified Examination of Witness — Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Bill
Grubin's parliamentary testimony describing his 20-year interest in polygraph and American practitioner endorsements. His ability to communicate complex scientific findings to non-specialist audiences was crucial in building political support.

Sections 28-30: The Polygraph Provisions

Section 28 of the Offender Management Act 2007 enables the Secretary of State to impose a polygraph condition on an offender released on licence in England and Wales [22]Verified Offender Management Act 2007, Section 28
Full text of Section 28 enabling polygraph conditions for offenders released on licence. Sections 28-30 set out the legislative criteria for eligibility, describing what takes place during a polygraph session and establishing rules for how results may be used [22]Verified Offender Management Act 2007, Section 28
Full text of Section 28 enabling polygraph conditions for offenders released on licence. The legislation was carefully drafted to address civil liberties concerns with several key safeguards:

Polygraph results cannot be used as evidence in criminal proceedings against the released person [19]Verified Offender Management Act 2007, Section 30 — Use of polygraph results
Confirms Section 28 enables Secretary of State to include polygraph condition, Section 30 prevents use in criminal proceedings. No offender can be recalled to custody solely as the result of a polygraph test [19]Verified Offender Management Act 2007, Section 30 — Use of polygraph results
Confirms Section 28 enables Secretary of State to include polygraph condition, Section 30 prevents use in criminal proceedings. A failed test can, however, be used to add additional licence conditions, and if disclosures suggest escalating risk, the offender can be recalled on that basis [23]Verified PCSC Act 2022 factsheet — Parole and licence conditions
Confirms polygraph results cannot be used in criminal courts, but failed tests can trigger additional licence conditions and police referral. Information from a failed examination may be passed to police for further investigation [23]Verified PCSC Act 2022 factsheet — Parole and licence conditions
Confirms polygraph results cannot be used in criminal courts, but failed tests can trigger additional licence conditions and police referral.

The polygraph condition requires the released person to participate in sessions conducted with a view to monitoring compliance with licence conditions or improving the way they are managed during release [22]Verified Offender Management Act 2007, Section 28
Full text of Section 28 enabling polygraph conditions for offenders released on licence. This legislation represented a landmark achievement — while several American states had provisions for mandatory testing, the UK's Offender Management Act represented the only legislation supporting the national adoption of PCSOT at that time [24]Verified British Experiences of Polygraph Testing Sexual Offenders — Wilcox & Donathy
Confirms UK legislation represents only national PCSOT legislation at time of writing. Understanding the cost implications of PCSOT and examiner qualification requirements was essential for successful implementation.

The 2014 National Programme

Following the successful mandatory pilot and the University of Kent's positive evaluation, the statutory instrument allowing national polygraph testing was discussed by the House of Lords on 22 July 2013 and granted formal approval [25]Verified The benefits of polygraph testing for sexual offenders — REF Impact Case Study
Confirms House of Lords approval July 2013, national rollout January 2014, at least 980 offenders initially eligible. A policy of mandatory polygraph assessment of all high-risk sex offenders on parole in England and Wales was approved by ministers in summer 2012 [8]Verified REF Case Study: Polygraph Testing of Sex Offenders — Newcastle University
Confirms Grubin's research timeline from 2001, funding amounts, pilot study details, mandatory trial with 332 offenders, and MoJ confirmation of policy impact. Compulsory polygraph testing commenced from January 2014, initially covering at least 980 sexual offenders [25]Verified The benefits of polygraph testing for sexual offenders — REF Impact Case Study
Confirms House of Lords approval July 2013, national rollout January 2014, at least 980 offenders initially eligible.

The UK government announced in May 2014 that the country's first school for training probation officers to become polygraph examiners was underway [26]Verified Compulsory lie detector tests for serious sex offenders — GOV.UK
Confirms BMUK led training, 12-week programme for probation officers, October 2014 start date. The polygraph training was delivered by Behavioural Measures UK (BMUK), the company Grubin co-founded in 2009 with US polygraph expert Eric Holden [27]Verified About Behavioural Measures UK
Confirms BMUK established 2009 by Grubin and Eric Holden, evolved from Newcastle research, awarded contract for national rollout. Probation officers from the National Probation Service undertook a rigorous 12-week training programme, including intensive learning and regular assessments, to qualify as polygraph examiners [26]Verified Compulsory lie detector tests for serious sex offenders — GOV.UK
Confirms BMUK led training, 12-week programme for probation officers, October 2014 start date. These examiners are trained as examiners to the standards set by the American Polygraph Association [23]Verified PCSC Act 2022 factsheet — Parole and licence conditions
Confirms polygraph results cannot be used in criminal courts, but failed tests can trigger additional licence conditions and police referral. For those interested in pursuing this career, our guide on how to become a polygraph examiner provides comprehensive information.

Scale and Impact of the Programme

The scale of the national programme has grown substantially since launch. Since 6 January 2014, over 7,000 tests have been conducted on individuals convicted of sexual offences, with two-thirds of those tests resulting in significant disclosures [28]Verified Mandatory polygraph tests factsheet — GOV.UK
Confirms over 7,000 tests since January 2014, two-thirds resulting in significant disclosures. By early 2024, probation services had carried out more than 8,800 polygraph tests, while police had conducted more than 4,600 additional tests [29]Verified Sky News — UK police increasingly using polygraph tests
Confirms 8,800+ probation tests and 4,600+ police tests by 2024; 60-70% result in disclosures. Approximately 60 to 70% of all tests result in disclosures where someone reveals risk-relevant information [29]Verified Sky News — UK police increasingly using polygraph tests
Confirms 8,800+ probation tests and 4,600+ police tests by 2024; 60-70% result in disclosures.

In the UK model, individuals with PCSOT as a mandatory licence condition are typically tested within 8-16 weeks after release and thereafter every six months [18]Verified British Experiences of Polygraph Testing Sexual Offenders: an Update
Mandatory pilot data from 635 offenders showed significantly more clinically relevant disclosures; testing within 8-16 weeks of release. If an individual receives a "deception indicated" result, the interval before the next examination is shortened, usually to three months [30]Verified Why polygraph testing does not consistently lead to reduced recidivism — ScienceDirect
Confirms UK testing within 8-16 weeks, every 6 months thereafter, with shortened intervals after DI results. Eligibility criteria ensure that only offenders sentenced to a custodial sentence of 12 months or more and assessed as very high or high risk of serious harm are eligible [23]Verified PCSC Act 2022 factsheet — Parole and licence conditions
Confirms polygraph results cannot be used in criminal courts, but failed tests can trigger additional licence conditions and police referral. The Probation Service has been using polygraph testing with certain individuals convicted of sexual offences since 2014, with terrorist convictions added since 2021 [31]Verified Crime and Policing Bill: counter-terrorism factsheet
Confirms Probation Service polygraph testing of sexual convictions since 2014 and terrorist convictions since 2021. Offenders and their rights during testing are explained in our probation polygraph testing guide.

Grubin's Company and Quality Control Role

Behavioural Measures UK (BMUK) was established by Professor Don Grubin and US polygraph expert Eric Holden in 2009, evolving from work carried out at Newcastle University over the previous decade [27]Verified About Behavioural Measures UK
Confirms BMUK established 2009 by Grubin and Eric Holden, evolved from Newcastle research, awarded contract for national rollout. Now run solely by Professor Grubin — who holds the title of Emeritus Professor of Forensic Psychiatry at Newcastle University [32]Verified BMUK Team Page
Confirms Grubin as Emeritus Professor, CEO of BMUK, led research evaluations establishing polygraph in England and Wales — BMUK's aim is to ensure that polygraphy use by UK government bodies is based on sound principles and practice [27]Verified About Behavioural Measures UK
Confirms BMUK established 2009 by Grubin and Eric Holden, evolved from Newcastle research, awarded contract for national rollout.

BMUK has trained and continues to supervise all probation and police polygraph examiners currently working in England and Wales [33]Verified BMUK — Trained all probation and police examiners
Confirms BMUK has trained and continues to supervise all probation and police polygraph examiners in England and Wales. The BMUK Polygraph School is accredited by the American Polygraph Association and is open only to trainees from government agencies [34]Verified BMUK Courses
Confirms APA accreditation, government-only school, Don Krapohl as School Director, commitment to ongoing quality assurance. The school's team includes internationally recognised experts: Don Krapohl (School Director and former Deputy Director of the National Center for Credibility Assessment), Donnie Dutton, Pam Shaw, and Brett Stern [34]Verified BMUK Courses
Confirms APA accreditation, government-only school, Don Krapohl as School Director, commitment to ongoing quality assurance. Grubin himself teaches physiology during the programme [35]Verified UK Police Polygraph — Lie Detectors UK
Confirms Grubin's 20 years of determined work, teaching physiology during training programme. The school's emphasis on ongoing supervision and quality control sets it apart — all graduates must commit to continuing professional development [34]Verified BMUK Courses
Confirms APA accreditation, government-only school, Don Krapohl as School Director, commitment to ongoing quality assurance. He led the research evaluations that established polygraph testing in England and Wales, and remains closely involved in developing polygraph governance structures in the UK [36]Verified Behavioural Measures UK — Team
Confirms Grubin led research evaluations, remains involved in governance, has strong APA links. Grubin also maintains strong links with the American Polygraph Association, especially in relation to research [36]Verified Behavioural Measures UK — Team
Confirms Grubin led research evaluations, remains involved in governance, has strong APA links. For professionals seeking to connect with others in the field, our guide to polygraph examiner networking and conferences provides useful resources.

Domestic Abuse Act 2021

Section 76 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, which received Royal Assent on 29 April 2021, extended the polygraph provisions of the 2007 Act to cover domestic abuse offenders [37]Verified Domestic Abuse Act 2021 — Section 76
Confirms Section 76 provides for polygraph conditions for domestic abuse offenders released on licence. The Act enables domestic abuse perpetrators to be subject to polygraph testing as a condition of their licence following release from custody [38]Verified Domestic Abuse Act 2021: overarching factsheet
Confirms the Act enables domestic abuse offenders to be subject to polygraph testing as a licence condition. This represented a significant expansion of Grubin's original framework beyond sexual offences.

A three-year pilot was commenced in July 2021 across 13 police areas in the North of England [39]Verified Domestic Abuse Act 2021 Commencement Regulations
Confirms Section 76 pilot commenced 5 July 2021 in 13 police areas for three-year period. The pilot is being independently evaluated by the Cambridge Centre for Evidence-Based Policing [40]Verified Mandatory polygraph tests factsheet — Domestic Abuse pilot
Confirms Cambridge Centre for Evidence-Based Policing commissioned for evaluation; eligibility criteria for DA offenders. Eligible offenders must be assessed as high or very high risk of serious harm, convicted of murder, a specified violent offence, breach of a restraining order involving domestic abuse, or controlling or coercive behaviour, and sentenced to custody of 12 months or more [40]Verified Mandatory polygraph tests factsheet — Domestic Abuse pilot
Confirms Cambridge Centre for Evidence-Based Policing commissioned for evaluation; eligibility criteria for DA offenders. Qualified probation officers experienced in managing domestic abuse offenders are being recruited and trained as polygraph examiners for this cohort [40]Verified Mandatory polygraph tests factsheet — Domestic Abuse pilot
Confirms Cambridge Centre for Evidence-Based Policing commissioned for evaluation; eligibility criteria for DA offenders.

Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Act 2021 and PCSC Act 2022

In June 2021, the Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Act 2021 introduced polygraph testing for terrorist offenders, inserting new provisions into Section 28 of the Offender Management Act to enable polygraph conditions for those who committed a "relevant terrorist offence" [41]Verified Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Act 2021 — polygraph provisions
Confirms CTSA 2021 extended polygraph to terrorist offenders; PCSC Act 2022 updated sex offence lists; over 7,000 total tests. A 2023 two-year review of polygraph testing of individuals convicted of relevant terrorist offences concluded that overall, polygraph testing was an effective risk management tool [42]Verified Crime and Policing Bill: overview impact assessment
Confirms 2023 review found polygraph effective for terrorist offenders; proposed expansion to murder convictions and historic terrorism cases.

The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, which received Royal Assent on 28 April 2022, filled certain gaps in the regime — updating the list of sex offences eligible for polygraph, extending conditions to eligible sexual or domestic abuse offenders sentenced in military courts (service offenders), and covering those repatriated to England and Wales to serve their sentence [43]Verified Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022
Confirms PCSC Act 2022 filled gaps regarding updated sex offences, service offenders, and sentences imposed outside England and Wales. These changes ensured consistency across different sentencing pathways. Further expansion continues: the Crime and Policing Bill 2025 proposes extending polygraph testing to people convicted of murder who are assessed as posing a risk of sexual offending upon release, and to historic terrorism-connected offenders [44]Verified Crime and Policing Bill: overview impact assessment
Confirms proposed expansion of polygraph to murder convictions posing sexual offending risk and historic terrorism-connected offenders. This kind of evolving legislative landscape is also seen in other jurisdictions, such as Canadian privacy law considerations around polygraph testing.

Engaging with Critics Constructively

Grubin has been transparent about the limitations of polygraph testing throughout his career. In his 2010 article in the Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, he acknowledged that accuracy estimates of the Comparison Question Technique (CQT) range from 74% to 89% for guilty examinees and 59% to 83% for innocent examinees [45]Verified CQT accuracy estimates — Grubin 2010
Confirms CQT accuracy ranges from 74-89% for guilty, 59-83% for innocent examinees. He has consistently stated that the polygraph instrument does not recognise lies and that a specific psychological lie response has never been demonstrated and is unlikely to exist [46]Verified Consonant herewith Grubin states — polygraph limitations
Confirms Grubin's statement that the polygraph does not recognise lies and no specific lie response has been demonstrated.

Notably, Gershon Ben-Shakhar published a direct response to Grubin's 2008 paper, titled "The case against the use of polygraph examinations to monitor post-conviction sex offenders" in the same journal [9]Verified The case for polygraph testing of sex offenders
Confirms Grubin's arguments for PCSOT utility, references BPS 2004 review, and Ben-Shakhar's counterargument in same journal. This academic exchange exemplified how Grubin engaged constructively with leading polygraph validity researchers rather than dismissing criticism. Grubin's position has always been nuanced: he frames the polygraph not as an infallible truth machine but as a practical tool that measurably improves information quality within a broader supervisory framework.

Research by Avital Ginton and others has contributed to advancing the theoretical understanding of polygraph techniques, complementing the applied work Grubin has championed. The APA's 2011 meta-analysis of polygraph techniques, including the single-issue tests used in the UK programme, found a decision accuracy rate of 89% with an 11% inconclusive rate [47]Verified UK Government polygraph advice — APA meta-analysis
Confirms APA 2011 meta-analysis found 89% decision accuracy rate with 11% inconclusive rate for single-issue tests. Understanding the psychology behind deception — explored in our article on famous quotes about deception and lie detection — provides important context for why the polygraph continues to generate academic debate.

Transforming UK Criminal Justice Practice

Professor Don Grubin's contribution to British criminal justice is remarkable by any measure. From the earliest experiments in lie detection by researchers like Cesare Lombroso through to the innovations of modern instrument manufacturers like The Stoelting Company, the polygraph field has progressed through the efforts of determined individuals. Grubin stands prominently among them as the researcher who single-handedly bridged the Atlantic divide in polygraph practice.

His introduction of polygraph testing to the UK resulted from 20 years of determined work [35]Verified UK Police Polygraph — Lie Detectors UK
Confirms Grubin's 20 years of determined work, teaching physiology during training programme. The programme he created now encompasses sex offenders, domestic abuse offenders, and terrorist offenders across England and Wales. Polygraph testing is subject to rigorous quality controls, which in accordance with the Polygraph Rules 2009 (as amended in 2022), include reports to the Lord Chancellor at least every six months [48]Verified Criminal Justice Bill: prisons equalities statement — polygraph quality control
Confirms polygraph testing subject to rigorous quality controls with reports to Lord Chancellor every 6 months. The success of the UK model — where PCSOT is increasingly applied under strict governance [49]Verified Focused polygraph technique for PCSOT and law enforcement screening programs
Proposes standardized DLST format for PCSOT programmes with standardized pretest procedures — contrasts with the more variable practices seen in some other jurisdictions, including the Soviet Bloc's mixed history with polygraph adoption.

Grubin's published research has influenced policy discussions internationally. While PCSOT remains rare outside the US and UK — used in less than 10% of Canadian programmes and only occasionally reported in the Netherlands [50]Verified Sexual history disclosure using the polygraph in a sample of British sex offenders in treatment
Polygraph-facilitated disclosure produced significant increases in admitted victims and offenses; 93% disclosed both contact and noncontact offenses — Grubin's rigorous evidence base provides a model for nations considering adoption. His 2019 paper co-authored with Kamenskov, Dwyer, and Stephenson in the International Review of Psychiatry provided a comprehensive international perspective [49]Verified Focused polygraph technique for PCSOT and law enforcement screening programs
Proposes standardized DLST format for PCSOT programmes with standardized pretest procedures, and his ongoing engagement with developing polygraph governance structures ensures that the UK programme continues to evolve based on evidence rather than ideology. You can book a polygraph test through our service or learn about how to become a polygraph examiner in the UK.