Investigative interviewing: the literature - New Zealand Police

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Investigative Interviewing: viewing: THE LITERATURE A great deal of psychological research (too much to be described in detail here) has been done on this subject (see particularly the work of Loftus, 1984; Gudjonsson, 1992; and Kassin & Gudjonsson, 2004). Findings suggest that the three components of suggestibility - uncertainty, interpersonal trust and expectation - can be easily manipulated by an interviewer. Milne and Bull (1999, pp92-98) provide a range of suggestive techniques that can influence an interviewee’s reporting of events: • suggestive questioning (asking leading, misleading and non-neutral questions) • other people (telling the interviewee that information has been received from another source) • positive consequences (giving praise for having said something in particular) • negative consequences (criticising the interviewee or giving the impression his/her report is inadequate) • asked and answered (re-asking a question the person has already answered, thereby making them think their first answer was wrong). • inviting speculation (asking for opinions on events not witnessed). Even the way an interviewer is dressed can act as a suggestive technique for influencing how people respond to questions (NCF, 1996). This area of research has more recently expanded the focus on the interviewer’s demeanour and ‘Interrogative Pressure’ (IP), and the effect this can have on the interviewee (Baxter, 2004). Baxter suggests that interviewers who fail to monitor and control their demeanour risk applying inappropriate levels of IP. As a result “interviewers may bias witnesses’ recall … particularly by causing them to change answers which they would not have changed in the absence of IP” (Baxter, 2004, p305). Baxter suggests a way of reducing IP distortions is for interviewers to warn interviewees “to be vigilant and to think critically in responding to questions”. This is similar to the advice given in UK training material for the ‘Engage and Explain’ part of PEACE interviews (e.g., NCOF, 2003) and in the ‘enhanced cognitive interview’ (Milne & Bull, 1999). Baxter (2004) advocates the use of Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scales (see Gudjonsson, 1992, pp101-164 for discussion on GSSs) as an assessment and training tool in order to help eliminate any inappropriate pressure from interview practice. “It must of course be left to the judgement of interrogating officers as to the amount of IP that may be appropriate to apply to a hostile witness or suspect whom police have sound reasons to believe may be deceitful or obstructive, but they should apply such IP with full awareness of what they are doing and in what manner, and of the attendant benefits and risks to the strength of evidence which they obtain as a result” (Baxter, 2004, pp306-7). Baxter (2004) suggests further research is “needed to identify variations in IP arising from differences in the person styles which police interviewers may present, naturally or deliberately” (p307). Key points 1. Memory. The memory is made up of three sequential stores: the sensory store, the shortterm store and the long-term store, and involves three distinct processes: encoding, storage and retrieval. A first attempt at recall usually reveals broad outlines but little detail. A lack of interruption by the interviewer, and instructions to concentrate and report everything will greatly help get the level of detail required. 2. Body language / Non-verbal cues. Research has found that facial expression, voice tone, silence, body positioning, eye movements, pauses in speech, and others aspects of BL and NVCs all send messages. These may confirm, obscure, or contradict what is being said. Research warns against interviewers developing an over-confidence on their ability to ‘read’ the interviewee’s BL/NVCs. 3. Deception. There is no typical non-verbal behaviour which is associated with deception. Despite this, research has found that people (including both interviewers and interviewees) often hold stereotypical views about nonverbal behaviour which are incorrect. Thus, conclusions based solely on someone’s behaviour in the interview room are not reliable. 4. Suggestibility. Interviewers need to be aware that interviewees are vulnerable to a range of suggestive techniques that can affect their recall. 36
REVIEW OF INVESTIGATIVE INTERVIEWING INTERVIEWEES WITNESSES A great deal of the research covering investigative interviewing emphasises the importance of statements from witnesses. For example, Milne and Bull (1999, p1) say “A major factor that determines whether or not a crime is solved is the completeness and accuracy of the witness account”. Similarly, Heaton-Armstrong & Wolchover (1999, p222) maintain that “The bedrock of adversarial process is the evidence of witnesses for the prosecution, not the confession of the accused”. Sometimes the only evidence that police have to guide an investigation is what witnesses tell them. Ideally, all witnesses would be articulate and easily able to provide a coherent, reliable and accurate account that then leads inexorably to the offender’s apprehension and subsequent conviction. But this is not the case. Witness accounts can be unreliable or insufficient. In worst case scenarios, poor or mistaken witness accounts can lead to a wrongful conviction (Kassin & Gudjonsson, 2004) or cause the investigation to follow incorrect leads or even to founder (Maguire, 2003). Yet commentators continue to note things like the following: “The concentration on obtaining and recording utterances by defendants contrasts very remarkably with the lack of attention paid to obtaining and taking statements from potential witnesses” (Heaton-Armstrong & Wolchover, 1999, p223) Recognition of personal costs A victim or witness may have no relationship to the criminal activity other than where he or she was at a particular time (Swanson et al, 2002). They may never have been involved with the police or criminal justice system before. Even so there continue to be criticisms about police being heavy-handed with witnesses (Milne & Bull, 1999). Police need to be sensitive to the fact that people usually have little to gain by agreeing to be a witness. Indeed the personal costs can be significant. For example, Ord, Shaw and Green (2004, p52) state the following: “[Witnesses] may have to give up a significant amount of their personal time by being interviewed and providing a witness statement. They may later be required to attend a court or tribunal, often in such circumstances in which they may feel they have been given less consideration than the accused. Witnesses may [also] have to: • confront the accused person; • give evidence in the presence of the offender’s relatives and supporters; • face the accused, his or her friends or family after the proceedings are complete; • feel responsible for any subsequent punishment of the alleged offender”. Factors influencing success Some witnesses may not be able to articulate what happened or what they saw. Therefore it is up to the interviewer to get the best possible information from them (Milne and Bull, 1999). And it must be done in a way that stands up to outside scrutiny and protects the integrity of the witness (Ord et al, 2004). In particular, the interviewer must be aware of factors that can affect how successful a witness interview turns out to be (Gudjonsson, 1992; Milne & Bull, 1999; Ord et al, 2004; Strongman, 1994). These include: • how much time is available for the interview • where and when the interview takes place • the witness’s involvement in the event • the witness’s verbal skills • the witness’s level of anxiety (e.g., if straight after the crime) • whether the witness has consumed alcohol or drugs • the nature of the event (e.g., violence present) • the presence of other witnesses or curious bystanders • the open-mindedness of interviewer (not starting from a pre-determined position) • the attitude of the interviewer to the witness (particularly important in the case of informants and the ‘abhorrent’ witness) • the interviewer’s flexibility (the need to be interviewer, counsellor, confidant). 37
Page 1: R E V I E W O F I N V E S T I G AT
Page 4 and 5: ABOUT THE AUTHOR Mary Schollum (BA,
Page 6 and 7: Investigative Interviewing: viewing
Page 90 and 91:
Investigative Interviewing: viewing
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
show all

Investigative interviewing: the literature - New Zealand Police

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?