iIIRG BULLETIN VOLUME 2 ISSUE 1 a

Xxxxxxx

Xxxxxxxxxx

xxxx: xxxxxxx

Xxxxxxxxx

xxxxx

xxxx

XXXXXxxxxxxxxxxx(xxxx)

BULLETINVolume 2 Issue 1

www.tees.ac.uk/iiirgISSN 1758-8669 (Print) ISSN 1758-8677 (Online)

iIIRG BULLETIN VOLUME 1 ISSUE 1b

Given the multi-disciplinary nature of theInternational Investigative InterviewingResearch Group (iIIRG), the worldwidecirculation of this Bulletin and practitionerfocus, a wide range of articles will beconsidered for inclusion. These may includeindividual research papers in relation to thefollowing specialist areas:

• investigative interviewing of suspects,witnesses or victims

• expert advice to interviewers • interview training and policy• interview decision-making processes • false confessions • detecting deception • forensic linguistics

The list of topic areas is purely indicative andshould not be seen as exhaustive. The Editorwill also accept other papers including casestudies, reviews of previous bodies ofliterature, reviews of conference or otherspecialist events, opinion papers, topicalcommentaries and book reviews. However, allarticles, regardless of topic, should have eitherhistoric or contemporary relevance toInvestigative Interviewing. All submissionsmust adhere to internationally recognisedethical guidelines. If you are unsure whetheryour article is suitable, please contact theEditor directly at david@larooy.net

As a general guide, articles should not exceed5,000 words, although the Editor retainsdiscretion to accept longer articles where it isconsidered appropriate. If you are an academic,it is expected that, prior to submission, yourarticle will be formatted to the standards ofthe Publication Manual of the AmericanPsychological Association (APA). If you are notan academic, there is no requirement for yourwork to conform to the format standards of theAPA, however, you must reference your article(where appropriate) and the Editor will formatit prior to publication (should it be required).Please do not use footnotes anywhere in yourarticle.

The Editor retains the discretion to accept ordecline any submitted article and to makeminor amendments to all work submitted priorto publication. Any major changes will bemade in consultation with the author/s.

Please make sure that all acronyms are clearlydefined in brackets the first time they are used.The formatting of diagrams, figures,illustrations and other graphical data will bedealt with on a case-by-case basis. Pleaseinclude contact information with allsubmissions, including name, affiliation and e-mail address. Please e-mail submissions todavid@larooy.net

SUBMISSIONGUIDELINES

iIIRG BULLETIN VOLUME 2 ISSUE 1

It is envisaged that the iIIRG Bulletin will be published bi-annually and contributions areexpected (but not solely) to originate from the membership. Copies of the Bulletin willbe freely available (electronically) via the iIIRG main website (www.tees.ac.uk/iiirg).N

OTE

CONTENTSPage

Note from the Editor 1

Note from the Chair 2

Note from the Membership Co-ordinator 4

Articles1 The psychology of interview suggestibility: Individual differences 5

and practical implications. Kim Drake

2 Searching for truth or confirmation? 11Harriet Jakobsson Öhrn & Christer Nyberg

3 The profile of repeated interviews in Israel: When practice and 20theory come together. Carmit Katz

4 Achieving Best Evidence: The role of the Registered Intermediary 26in assisting vulnerable witnesses, police suspects and defendants to communicate their account to the police and the court. Brendan O’Mahony

5 Investigative interviewing and Islamic extremism: 30The case of public safety interviews. Karl Roberts

6 Investigative Interviewing vs Evidence-in-Chief. Gary Shaw 37

7 PEACE comes to Canada. Brent Snook & John C. House 42

8 Child forensic interviewing in New Zealand. Karen Wilson 43

iIIRG BULLETIN VOLUME 2 ISSUE 1

The iIIRG shares a collaborative (working) relationship with the Association of Chief Police Officers InterviewingGroup, both of which are committed to improvinginvestigative interviewing and in ensuring that suchimprovements are underpinned by a robust evidence base.

Evaluation and effectiveness of investigative interviewing: A multi-disciplinary approach

22 – 24 June 2010, Norwegian Police University College Conference Centre in Stavern, Norway

3rd ANNUAL CONFERENCEof the International Investigative Interviewing Research Group

Confirmed keynote speakers:

Professor Laurence Alison, Director of the Centre for Critical Incident Research, University of Liverpool

Professor Ray Bull, Professor of Forensic Psychology, University of Leicester

Professor Pär Anders Granhag, Professor of Psychology, Göteborg University, Sweden and Visiting Professor, Scottish Institute for Policing Research

Professor Günter Köhnken, Professor of Psychology, Christian-Albrechts-Universität, Kiel, Germany

Professor Martine Powell, Personal Chair (School of Psychology), Deakin University, Australia

This conference will be of interest to all professionalsinvolved in investigative interviewing of suspects,witnesses or victims, those involved in interview trainingand policy, interview decision-making processes,detecting deception, and forensic linguistics.

Investigative Interviewing of Child Witnesses Masterclass20 – 21 June 2010

Professor Michael Lamb, University ofCambridge, UK, a renowned expert in the area of investigative interviewing of children. The masterclass will greatly assistpractitioners who are currently working in the field of investigative interviewing, and will be of great benefit to academics/researchers currently working in thisspecialised area.

Places are limited, so book early to avoid disappointment.

The iIIRG shares a collaborative (working) relationship with the Association of Chief Police Officers InterviewingGroup, both of which are committed to improvinginvestigative interviewing and in ensuring that suchimprovements are underpinned by a robust evidence base.

For further details about the conference and masterclass visit: www.tees.ac.uk/iiirg.

Photos by: NPUC and Kjetil Rolseth

I am pleased to present the second edition of the iIIRG Bulletin and I would like to thank the contributors for their time andeffort. Those of you who attended our last conference will knowthat the initial ‘proposal’ was that we produce an informalnewsletter for our members. However, the contributions wereceived have gone far beyond what was initially envisaged as a newsletter, and we took the decision to produce a moresubstantial publication – the Bulletin. I would like our Bulletin to strive towards becoming a permanent internationally-recognised repository for research and commentary about developments in investigativeinterviewing with input from all members. To this end, I propose that articles in futureeditions should be peer reviewed. I would like to hear your thoughts about moving in thisdirection so please contact me with your views about how this process should work. Iwould, however, like the Bulletin to remain flexible as to the types of articles that arepublished so that it suits the needs of both practitioners and researchers.

Please keep sending me your articles.

Best wishes,

David La RooyBulletin EditorD.LaRooy@abertay.ac.uk

NOTE FROMTHE EDITOR

iIIRG BULLETIN VOLUME 2 ISSUE 1 1

Welcome to Volume 2, Issue 1 of the iIIRG Bulletin. The issue contains various articles from both academicresearchers and practitioners from around the world and it isreally great to see that a great number of members are fullyengaging with submitting articles. Once again, I wouldencourage everyone to consider our Bulletin as an outlet tohaving your work recognised and read by a worldwide audience.This year, the 2nd Annual Conference will be taking place between the 14th and 16th ofApril at the University of Teesside, and I would like to thank the University, in particularthe School of Social Sciences and Law, for kindly allowing us to use their facilities. Wehave also been very fortunate in having various aspects of the Conference sponsoredand I would like to thank Indico Systems, Willan publishing, NEAL, and Wiley & Sons, fortheir support in making the Conference a great success. All our sponsors will havestands at the Conference, so those attending will be able to take full advantage of theirgenerosity.

Since the last Bulletin, I have been in discussions with the Interviewing Group of theAssociation of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) for England and Wales and we have nowagreed on the following statement:

"The iIIRG shares a collaborative (working) relationship with the ACPOInterviewing Group, both of which are committed to improving investigativeinterviewing and in ensuring that such improvements are underpinned by arobust evidence base."

NOTE FROMTHE CHAIR

iIIRG BULLETIN VOLUME 2 ISSUE 12

iIIRG BULLETIN VOLUME 2 ISSUE 1 3

These discussions have been ongoing for a period of time and it is great news what wehave achieved with ACPO and I look forward in working closely with ACPO (and ourother collaborators) in the future. I must thank Gary Shaw, from the National PolicingImprovement Agency (NPIA) (and an active Steering Group member of iIIRG) for all hisassistance in making this possible. I am sure you would also like to join me incongratulating Gary on the recent announcement in Her Majesty the Queen’s NewYear’s Honours List that he has become a Member of The Most Excellent Order of theBritish Empire (MBE) for services to policing. This really is an outstanding achievement.

The iIIRG also has a new administrator. Kat Jamieson from the University of Abertay,Dundee, has very kindly agreed to take this role on in place of Letty Parkinson, whostepped down from this position. I would like to offer my thanks to Letty for hercontribution in helping to make the group the overwhelming success it has become. If you need to contact Kat for any administrative aspect of the group, she can becontacted at k.jamieson@abertay.ac.uk.

Thank you once again for your continued support.

Gavin OxburghChair of iIIRGg.oxburgh@tees.ac.uk

Membership has been very encouraging since the last edition of theBulletin and we now have over 200 members from: Australia,Canada, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Ireland, New Zealand, Norway,South Korea, Spain, Sweden, The Netherlands, UK, and the USA.As you will know from the last Bulletin, we now have three member categories: (i) academic researchers; (ii) practitioners; and (iii) students. Given the very specialistnature of investigative interviewing, we are introducing a fourth member category, thatof Specialist Advisor. This new category is a result of many requests from those whooperate outside of our area, but can offer specialist advice to the iIIRG where necessary.More details will be available soon.

The iIIRG requires active members and, to this end, we have decided that everymembers’ activity should be reviewed every third year. During this three year period,members should have contributed to the organisation (e.g. conducted research,published research findings, training police in the area, or in some other way) tocontinue their membership. In this way, iIIRG will remain a worldwide, leadingorganisation in the forefront of investigative interviewing.

To keep our main website up-to-date, could I ask all members to regularly update theirbiography and publication list. Please send the updates to Kat Jamieson (our newadministrator) at k.jamieson@abertay.ac.uk, including any changes to contact details. If you are not a member and would like to apply to become one, an application form can be found via our main website at www.tees.ac.uk/iiirg.

Should you have any questions regarding membership, please do not hesitate to contactme directly. I wish you all a productive and prosperous 2009.

Trond MyklebustMembership Co-ordinator Trond.Myklebust@phs.no

NOTE FROM THE MEMBERSHIP CO-ORDINATOR

iIIRG BULLETIN VOLUME 2 ISSUE 14

iIIRG BULLETIN VOLUME 2 ISSUE 1 5

ARTICLESThe psychology of interview suggestibility:Individual differences and practical implications.Kim Drake, School of Psychology, University of Leicester, UK ked6@le.ac.uk

‘Since shyness with strangersand anticipated worry/nervousness seem to lie at the root of intervieweesuggestibility, any measureswhich target those factors mayprove beneficial to protectingthe reliability of information’

The notion that individuals could besuggestible first became apparent in theclassical experimental work conducted byBinet at the turn of the 19th century (Binet,1900) and was later corroborated by otherresearchers in the field (e.g., Stern 1910; 1939).At the time this pioneering research providednew empirical evidence indicating that certainpeople could come to accept misleadinginformation – detrimentally affecting theaccuracy of their memory for a witnessedevent – when asked leading questions by aninterviewer. Since that time much researcheffort has been expended in order to try andfurther understand factors influencingsuggestibility levels (see Gudjonsson, 2003;Bruck & Melnyk, 2004), in an attempt to try tominimise its adverse effects. What seems to belacking within the current suggestibilityliterature, however, is a comprehensiveexplanation of what causes intervieweesuggestibility. If the psychology ofsuggestibility is understood in more detail,then effective counteractive strategies may bedeveloped (tailored to the needs of individualinterviewees) in order to minimise suggestiblebehaviour in interviews.

The concept of interview suggestibility centreson two main components: (i) vulnerability toleading questions, expressed in the acceptanceof misleading information, and (ii) degree ofsusceptibility to the negativefeedback/interview pressure from theinterviewer. Across the academic and legalsettings, the Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scale(GSS; Gudjonsson, 1984, 1987) is frequentlyused to assess both of these tendencies; theGSS procedure involves the interviewee beingread a narrative, immediately being asked toprovide a free recall of that narrative, and thensubsequently being interviewed about itscontent. The interview consists of 20 questions– 15 of which contain misleading information.After the 20 questions are asked for the firsttime, negative feedback is administered by theinterviewer, and the 20 questions are thenrepeated. Fundamentally, the GSS wasoriginally designed to identify vulnerableindividuals in need of protection from coerciveor oppressive police interview methods.

The influence of lifeadversity Quite recently, some new research wasconducted into the link between theexperience of life adversity and interviewsuggestibility (Drake, Bull, & Boon, 2008;Drake & Bull, in press). In this research,individuals reporting a high number ofnegative life events were found to accept themisleading information more readily and tochange their answers in response to criticalfeedback more easily. The types of negative lifeevents most associated with suggestibility onthe GSS are those to do with: (i) work, e.g.,employment difficulties, finding a job, ii) school/university, e.g., bullying, failing

exams, iii) love and relationships, e.g., breakups, divorce, iv) family and close friends, e.g.,death, illness, v) personal and social events,e.g., reduced social activity, and vi) being avictim of crime. Evaluated through theGudjonsson and Clarke model (1986) ofinterview suggestibility, interviewees reportinga high number of negative life events (NLEs)face greater feelings of uncertainty combinedwith expectations of success when questioned,thus are more susceptible to misleadingsuggestion and sensitive to negative feedback.However, the link between the experience oflife adversity and increased uncertainty (andtherefore suggestibility) during an interview isnot well explained.

Parents are a child’s first and most significantsource of interaction. This parent-child synergyserves as a foundation, to a degree influencinghow the child (and later adult) copes with lifeevents and interaction with others.Attachment theory supposes that individualsdevelop early on an internal working model,based largely upon parental behaviour, whichserves to guide behaviour, the interpretationof, and responses to events especially stressfuland adverse events (or those perceived to besuch) (Bowlby 1969; 1988). The internal workingmodel, in a sense, can be considered tocontribute towards the mindset of theindividual. Attachment tendency mighttherefore influence the degree to which eventsare perceived as negative and the consequentreporting of negative life events, affectingresilience to negative feedback. Consider alsothat a dyadic interaction is fairly essential inorder for the acceptance of misleadinginformation and responsiveness to negativefeedback to occur in the first place, whichsignifies that variations in both attachmentanxiety and avoidance, observed as assorteddegrees of emotional neediness/dependencyupon others and/or avoidance of conflict andnegativity, may contribute to both differencesin suggestibility (see Quas, Qin, Shaaf &Goodman, 1997; Bruck & Melnyk, 2004).

To an extent this is what was found in one ofmy most recent studies (Drake & Bull, insubmission); interviewees with a high degreeof attachment anxiety (i.e., those scoring highon preoccupied-anxious attachment) tended

towards a greater perception of life adversity(and thus the reporting of more intensenegative life events), which then occasioned agreater sensitivity to the negative feedback,resulting in the acceptance of misleadinginformation following negative feedback andchanges answers. Individuals scoring high onpreoccupied-anxious attachment tend towardsemotional neediness, a lower self-regard, andgenerally speaking a more pessimistic andworrisome perception of events and situations,so finding that these individuals perceive andreport more adverse life events and are moresensitive to negative feedback (so, interviewpressure) greatly supports and furthersprevious work.

A more noteworthy implication of thesefindings, though, is that it suggests that it isthe interviewee’s perception of theinvestigative interview that matters the most;that is, an interview may not, factuallyspeaking, be substandard but, nonetheless,interviewees may still express misleadingresponses affecting the reliability of theirinformation. This could largely be becausevulnerable interviewees may be more prone tonegatively interpreting things that, to most,seem like neutral responses. This is veryimportant to recognise, as it suggests thatinterview suggestibility may arise in partthrough vulnerable interviewees perceivingcoercion or not feeling like they were given thechance to tell the truth (Jakobsson-Ohrn &Nyberg, 2009), rather than whether or not theinterview actually fell short of therequirements (PACE, 1984). When consideringinvestigative interviews it is therefore essentialto consider the interview from the vulnerableinterviewee’s perspective. Could it be possiblethat any aspect of the interview may have beenperceived as coercive or oppressive?

The findings of Drake and Bull (in submission)do not, however, adequately explain thepsychological factors causing the acceptanceof misleading information during the firstround of GSS questions, before any negativefeedback is given. Attachment style and theexperience of adverse life events alone seemnot to adequately explain interviewsuggestibility as a whole, but merely sensitivityto interview pressure.

iIIRG BULLETIN VOLUME 1 ISSUE 16

iIIRG BULLETIN VOLUME 2 ISSUE 1 7

The importance ofpersonality One hundred participants were subsequentlyrecruited and interviewed on the GSS, theiradverse life events as well as attachment stylewere assessed as before, and all completed theNEO Personality Inventory-Revised (Costa &McCrae, 1992; Drake, Bull & Egan, underreview). Research shows that attachmentavoidance is associated with a tendency todisplay greater distrust in others due topossibly a more suspicious mindset. During thefirst round of questions that suspiciousmindset could detrimentally affect theinterviewee’s ability to focus totally on theinterview (i.e. the information in the GSS storyvs. the information in the subsequent interviewquestions), as some of their attention would bedirected towards watching out formisinformation and not falling for anyanticipated interviewer deception (Lane,2006). Interestingly, out of the participantsinterviewed in all of my studies to-date, thosewho claimed to be very familiar withmisinformation experiments (and so wereactively “looking out for” misinformation)actually emerged as the most suggestible onthe GSS.

The findings nevertheless show that selfconsciousness and trust were the personalitytraits most significantly associated withattachment avoidance and the acceptance ofmisinformation during the first round of GSSquestions. Those participants scoring high onattachment avoidance tended to be more selfconscious during the first round of interviewquestions, because of this they were moretrusting of the interviewer, and accepted themisleading suggestions more readily. Itappears that self-consciousness maycontribute towards a more negative mindset,which, in turn, affects how they cope in thepresence of the interviewer and the interviewsituation itself (Gudjonsson & Clarke, 1986). Analternative explanation is that the selfconsciousness prevents interviewees fromtrusting their own judgement of what theyremember (through a fear of appearingunintelligent in the eyes of the interviewer), sothey feel they may have a greater chance ofperforming successfully at interview if they

trust and go along with the interviewer. In thelight of these findings, it seems that theacceptance of misleading information duringthe first round of questions may be governedfundamentally by attachment avoidance plusself consciousness and trust, and thatsensitivity to interview pressure is related tothe perception of the negative feedback; how itis interpreted and responded to, which isultimately due to the (perceived) experience ofadverse life events and attachment anxiety,that infuses interviewees with a negativeperceptive tendency.

Throughout my research program, however,there have always been a significant minorityof participants reporting relatively few adverselife events yet still proving highly responsive tonegative feedback. Why are these adultinterviewees suggestible? Children are anothergroup of individuals who, due to their age,would not have experienced many negative lifeevents yet nevertheless display suggestiblebehaviour. To understand this adult populationthen, it may prove fruitful to briefly turn ourattention to children for an explanation.

Research shows that children are born with a(heritable) temperament, observed as a varietyof characteristics (Cloninger, 1998). Thesecharacteristics may influence subsequentattachment (to others), so how the childresponds to other people and their behaviourin situations (Calkins & Fox 1992; Mangelsdorf,Gunnar, Kestenbaum, Lang, & Andreas 1990).All children are born with a temperament, andit is this that may in part influence how theycope during interviews and how they respondto the interviewer, causing some to be moresuggestible than others (see Bruck & Melynk,2004). This suggests that certain adults may beopen to misinformation and less resilient tonegative feedback more as a result of thepresence of certain temperamentalcharacteristics, rather than a negativeperception of the situation due to theexperience of adversity. In my latest study(Drake, Bull & Egan, in prep) we thereforeexamined temperament, personality(measured by the NEO PI-R; Costa & McCrae,1992), attachment, and negative life events. Itemerged that susceptibility to misinformationon the GSS (pre and post negative feedback)may be explained by a temperamental

tendency towards anticipatory worry/pessimism (so, nervousness as to what mayhappen) and, more importantly, shyness withstrangers; not self consciousness as it mayhave initially seemed (although it could beargued that shyness and anticipatory worrycould possibly be misinterpreted by another asself-consciousness). This makes sense whenone thinks about certain interviewees possiblyfeeling more apprehensive – due to being naive- as well as having to cope with beinginterviewed by a stranger; these findingstherefore show that a proportion ofinterviewees may still end up being suggestibledue to an inherent “harm avoidant”temperament, than the experience of lifeadversity. That said though, what also came outwas a strong link between anticipatory worryand shyness, fearful avoidant attachment (sohigh attachment anxiety and avoidance), thereporting of negative life events, andsuggestibility as a whole of the GSS.

For the majority of interviewees then,interview suggestibility may be explained bythis: certain individuals are born with a harmavoidant temperament which may predisposethem towards: shyness with strangers and,later (developing slowly after the age of 5/6years old; Bruck & Melnyk, 2004) anticipatoryworry. Both of these factors affect theirsubsequent attachment pattern; that is, howthey behave and respond to others. Individualswho are shyer with strangers and experiencemore anticipatory worry tend towards anxiousand/or avoidant attachment, which thenencourages a more negative perception(captured in the reporting of more intensenegative life events). The interviewee, onentering the interview room, brings all of thesepsycho-social factors to the table culminatingin a more negative cognitive mindset at thestart of and during interview. Further to this,due to their attachment pattern, a variety ofbehaviours manifest during interview (Bowlby1969; 1988): (i) low self regard, (ii) eagerness toplease, (iii) conflict avoidance, (iv) neuroticism(so trait anxiety), and (v) dependence. Thisnegative mindset, in conjunction with thesebehaviours, interferes with effective criticalevaluation of the information in the interviewquestions versus the information in the GSS

narrative and enhances self doubt, increasinguncertainty and any expectations of success(Gudjonsson & Clarke, 1986) thus increasingsuggestibility levels. False confessions couldalso be encouraged. The latter suggestion issupported by some very recent research byGudjonsson, Sigurdsson and Sigfusdottir (inpress; submitted) showing a link between theexperience of (traumatic) adverse life eventsand reported false confessions.

What does this mean for theinterviewing of vulnerablepersons?Armed with this insight into how interviewsuggestibility emerges, knowledge of how itmay be minimised is subsequently gained. Ifsuggestibility during interview is to beminimised, the interviewer needs to focusessentially on reconditioning the intervieweeand boosting perception of their own ability.Research dating back to 1950 (Kelman, 1950)shows that success at a task prior to beingquestioned helps reduce suggestibility; thishappens because the interviewee learns thattheir actions/contributions can lead to whatthey perceive as a positive outcome. Theinterviewer needs to therefore focus onboosting the interviewee’s perception of theirown ability by being encouraging andproviding constructive (positive) feedback inresponse to answers. By doing this anotherimportant thing is achieved: improving self-belief and briefing interviewees, so that theyare aware of and prepared for what is going tohappen to them, will decrease any anticipatoryworry/nervousness and decrease their shyness(as interviewees will feel more relaxed, have abetter rapport with the interviewer, and feelmore in control), which in turn will prevent anydetrimental attachment behaviours (cited inthe above paragraph) from expressingthemselves, improve their perception of thesituation, and should ultimately reducesuggestibility. Since shyness with strangers andanticipated worry/nervousness seem to lie atthe root of interviewee suggestibility, anymeasures which target those factors may provebeneficial to protecting the reliability ofinformation.

iIIRG BULLETIN VOLUME 2 ISSUE 18

iIIRG BULLETIN VOLUME 2 ISSUE 1 9

It is consequently important that, within theUK, there are safeguards in place. Initially atinterview, one such safe guard is the presenceof an appropriate adult and a legalrepresentative. At court, if the Judge considersthe information in interview was unfairlyobtained, then it can be excluded underSection 76 and 78 PACE 1984. This of course isonly two avenues of protection. The third isobviously the training of the interviewers, andis the area which is particularly sparse atpresent (research wise). Even wheninterviewers ask open-ended or open-specificquestions this could still lead to misleadinganswers by the interviewee. Therefore theinterviewer needs to consider theirquestioning strategy and how they may reducethe affects of interviewee vulnerability. Theintroduction and use of 'ground rules' are thussignificant to protecting the reliability andcredibility of the information. My research todate has identified the possible cause ofsuggestibility and has shed light on how topotentially rectify the problem. The next stepin the chain is to actually investigate methodsof overcoming suggestible, compliant andacquiescent behaviours. Such research wouldalso be of great use to the practitioner.

ReferencesBinet, A. (1900). La Suggestibilite. Paris: Doin.Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1

Attachment. New York: Basic Books.Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base: clinical

applications of attachment theory. London:Routledge.

Bruck, M. & Melnyk, L. (2004). Individualdifferences in children’s suggestibility: Areview and synthesis. Applied CognitivePsychology, 18, 947-996.

Calkins, S. D. & N. A. Fox. (1992). “The relationsamong infant temperament, security ofattachment, and behavioral inhibition attwenty-four months.” Child development, 63,1456-1472.

Cloninger, C. R. (1998). The genetics andpsychobiology of the seven-factor model ofpersonality. In: K.R. Silk, Editor, Biology ofpersonality disorders, American PsychiatricPress, Washington DC, pp. 63–92.

Costa, P. T & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised

personality inventory and five-factor inventoryprofessional manual, PsychologicalAssessment Resources, Odessa, FL.

Drake, K. E., Bull, R., & Egan, V. (in preparation).A new model of interrogative suggestibility:explaining individual differences.

Drake, K. E., Bull, R., & Egan, V. (in submission).Interrogative suggestibility: The importanceof attachment, life adversity andpersonality.

Drake, K. E. & Bull, R. (in submission).Interrogative suggestibility: Linkingattachment style and life adversity toperformance on the GudjonssonSuggestibility Scale.

Drake, K. E. & Bull, R. (2008, in press). Lifeadversity and field-dependence: Individualdifferences in interrogative suggestibility.Psychology, Crime and Law.

Drake, K. E., Bull, R., & Boon, J. C. W. (2008).Interrogative suggestibility, self-esteem,and the influence of negative life events.Legal and Criminological Psychology, 13, 299-310. Accepted May, 2007.

Gudjonsson, G. H. (1984). A new scale ofinterrogative suggestibility. Personality andIndividual Differences, 5, 303–314.

Gudjonsson, G. H. (1987). A parallel form of theGudjonsson Suggestibility Scale. BritishJournal of Clinical Psychology, 26, 215-221.

Gudjonsson, G. H. (2003). The psychology ofinterrogations and confessions: A handbook.Chichester: Wiley.

Gudjonsson, G. H., & Clarke, N. K. (1986).Suggestibility in police interrogation: Asocial psychological model. Social Behaviour,1, 83–104.

Gudjonsson, G. H., Sigurdsson, J. F., &Sigfusdottir, I. D. (submitted). Falseconfessions among 15 and 16 year olds incompulsory education and the relationshipwith adverse life events. Legal andCriminological Psychology.

Gudjonsson, G. H., Sigurdsson, J. F., &Sigfusdottir, I. D. (in press). Interrogationsand false confessions among adolescents inseven countries in Europe. Whatbackground and psychological factors bestdiscriminate between false confessors andnon-false confessors? Psychology, Crime andLaw.

iIIRG BULLETIN VOLUME 2 ISSUE 110

Home Office (2007). Achieving Best Evidence.Home Office.

Jakobsson-Öhrn, H. & Nyberg, C. (2009).Searching for truth or confirmation? Paper tobe presented within a symposium entitled:“Theoretical developments and practicaldilemmas: New findings related to theinterviewing of vulnerable persons. iIIRGconference; University of Teeside; UK.

Kelman, H. (1950). Effects of success and failureon suggestibility in an auto-kineticsituation. Journal of Abnormal and SocialPsychology, 45, 267-283.

Lane, S. M. (2006). Dividing attention duringwitnessed events increases eyewitnesssuggestibility. Applied Cognitive Psychology,20, 199-212.

Mangelsdorf, S., Gunnar, M., Kestenbaum, R.,Lang, S., & Andreas, D. (1990). “Infantproneness- to-distress temperament,maternal personality, and mother-infantattachment: Associations and goodness offit.” Child Development, 61, 820-831.

Quas, J. A., Qin, J., Shaaf, J., & Goodman, G. S.(1997). Individual differences in children’sand adult’s suggestibility and false eventmemory. Learning and Individual Differences.Special Issue: II. Children’s False Memories, 9,359-390.

Stern, W. (1910). Abstracts of lectures on thepsychology of testimony and on the studyof individuality. American Journal ofPsychology, 21, 270–282.

Stern, W. (1939). The psychology of testimony.Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 34,3–20.

iIIRG BULLETIN VOLUME 2 ISSUE 1 11

Searching for truth or confirmation?Harriet Jakobsson Öhrn, Swedish National Police Academy, Sweden harriet.jakobsson-ohrn@phs.police.se

Christer Nyberg, Swedish National Police Academy, Sweden christer.nyberg@phs.police.se

‘the suspect’s social andpsychological vulnerabilityincreased the asymmetry in therelationship between theinterviewers and theinterviewee.’

OverviewAccording to Swedish legislation, the principleof objectivity prescribes that both thecircumstances speaking in favour of a suspectand circumstances speaking against a suspectmust be taken into consideration in aninvestigation. Furthermore, it dictates that theinvestigation should be conducted in a broadand unprejudiced way. Research has foundthat presumption of guilt in police interviewsactivates a process of behaviouralconfirmation, where the interviewer tries toverify her/his belief. Research has also foundthat such persuasive interviews can elicit falseconfessions from innocent persons.

From the qualitative analysis of interviews in ahomicide case, where the suspect is laterproved to be innocent, we will describe thepolice interviewer’s actions, examining thesuspect’s possibilities – or lack of possibilities –to tell his own (true) story. This study showsthat the interviewers try to influence thesuspect to confirm their version of whathappened, and that the suspect has a verylimited opportunity to give his version ofevents. This led the suspect to doubt hisinnocence risking a false confession.

The caseT and N were a young couple in their lateteens, living together in an apartment withtheir baby son M. They were unemployed anddependent on social benefits for their

livelihood. Both had a problematic familybackground, but they seemed to function welltogether in their family life. In his early teens Thad had some problems in school and he wasknown to the police, due to his involvement insome minor criminal incidents.

One morning T is woken up by screams from N.He runs to the kitchen and there he sees anunknown man with a bloodstained knife in hishand. In panic T leaves the apartment and runsto his father’s place, where he calls the police.Through the window he can see theperpetrator walk away. (Subsequent policeinvestigation reveals that N had been stabbedto death.) When T tells the police what hashappened, he is not believed. The police findhis story improbable and believe he is the onewho stabbed N. T is arrested the same day andis the prime suspect for six months. Duringthat time, he is detained in custody, where heremains for two months. He is interviewed asa suspect on fifteen occasions.

After six months another woman is stabbed. Asuspect is arrested and in the police interviewthis suspect soon admits that he also killed N. Tis then freed from all suspicion and is nowinterviewed as a witness. He can, withouthesitation, identify the man he saw in hisapartment the morning of the murder. T’soriginal story is fully confirmed in the followinginvestigation. This article deals with theinterviews with T as a suspect.

Legislation governing how toconduct an investigationAccording to Swedish legislation a policeinvestigation should be guided by threeprinciples: the principle of objectivity, theprinciple of consideration, and the principle ofpromptness. The principle of objectivityprescribes that both circumstances speaking infavour of a suspect and circumstancesspeaking against a suspect must be taken into

consideration in an investigation. The principleof consideration means among other thingsthat no person may unnecessarily be subjectedto suspicion of crime. The principle ofpromptness means that the investigationshould be conducted as quickly ascircumstances allow.

Furthermore Swedish legislation dictates thatthe investigation should be conducted in abroad and unprejudiced way. The interviewershould be open to alternative hypotheses andin a careful manner consider the suspect’sexplanations. According to the law someinterview methods are strictly forbidden. Apolice interviewer may not give falseinformation, promises or false pretences ofbenefits to the interviewee or use methods likethreats, exhaustion or other inappropriateactions in order to get a confession.

Asymmetry in policeinterviewsIn institutional settings a professional personmeets a non-professional. Research hasindicated that conversation under thesecircumstances differs from conversation ineveryday life in a number of ways (Linell &Jönsson, 1991, Jönsson, Linell, & Säljö, 1991,Drew & Heritage, 1992). The most outstandingfeature is its asymmetry, where theprofessional part due to her/his role andfamiliarity with the situation has the socialpower. The institutional power is crucial whenit comes to interviewing suspects. Theinterviewer has on one hand information thatgives her/him a more or less well groundedidea of what has happened. On the other handthe interviewer should free herself/himselffrom that idea and be open to alternativeexplanations. This is a dilemma and there is anobvious risk that the interviewer will givepriority to gathering information that points atthe suspect’s guilt rather than seekinginformation in an open-minded and objectiveway. From their research on police interviewswith suspects, Linell and Jönsson (1991) haveshown how the institutional perspectivedominates the interview.

From a study of police activity in somehomicide investigations, Innes (2002) hasfound that the police organise the available

information of the case into an account of whatthey believe “really happened.” In that processpieces of information are linked together andinterpretations of their meaning are made.Information not supporting the constructedcrime account is often excluded from the story.For areas where evidence is missing, inferencesare drawn to fill the gap. The police produce anorganised version of what happened. Thisversion includes the notion of who is theoffender and gives the investigators “a sensethat they ‘know’ how the crime happened andwho was responsible,” (Innes, 2002). Thedanger of such “knowledge” is pointed out byWagenaar, van Koppen and Crombag (1993).They make a distinction between offence-driven and suspect-driven search for evidence.In offence-driven search the informationseeking process takes its point of departure infacts related to the crime while suspect-drivensearch attempts to find evidence that links anidentified suspect to the crime. Accordingly,suspect-driven search means that investigatorshave made up their minds beforehand aboutthe suspect’s guilt, which they try to confirm inthe interviews. Such an information seekingprocess may lead to miscarriages of justice.

In their study Kassin, Goldstein and Savitsky(2003) found that presumption of guilt inpolice interviews activates a process ofbehavioural confirmation, where theinterviewer used more guilt-presumptive andconfession seeking techniques compared tointerviewers with a presumption of innocence.Ask (2006) has shown that prior expectationsmay influence interpretation and evaluation ofambiguous evidence in criminal cases. Heconceptualises these findings as expressions ofthe phenomenon confirmation bias (Nickerson,1998). Confirmation bias means that peopletend to seek information that verifies theirhypotheses and disregard informationspeaking against the hypotheses. Research hasalso found that persuasive interviews can elicitfalse confessions from innocent persons.Gudjonsson (2003) points out that falseconfessions may occur when the interviewerbelieves the suspect is guilty and thereforepermits herself/himself to coerce a confession.The risk of false confessions is also related toindividual factors, which makes the suspectvulnerable to interrogative suggestibility(Gudjonsson, 2003).

iIIRG BULLETIN VOLUME 2 ISSUE 112

iIIRG BULLETIN VOLUME 2 ISSUE 1 13

AimWhen a person is suspected of a crime, thepolice interviewer has an idea of what couldhave happened. According to earlier research itis likely that the interviewer at that time hasformed a prior opinion of the suspect’sinvolvement in the crime event. In cases wherethe suspect under investigation is later provedto be innocent, the version constructed by thepolice is shown to be false. The suspect has ofcourse known this all the time and has an ownversion of his activities. At the time of theinterview, there are accordingly in these casestwo versions of the crime event present in theinterview room – the police version and thesuspect’s version.

The aim of the study – and this article – is toexplore how the police interviewer handlesthese two versions. What actions does theinterviewer perform in order to make the twoversions visible in the interviews? Sinceresearch has found that the police perspectivetends to be dominating, the aim could also bedescribed as examining to what extent theinterviewer gives the suspect the opportunityto tell his own (true) story.

Method and materialFrom an ongoing study of a number ofhomicide investigations, conducted during theyears from 2002 to 2008, with suspects, whoare later proved to be innocent, this articlepresents analysis of interviews in one of thoseinvestigations. Data consists of policeinterviews from the investigation, documentedas written dialogue. Additional data is theresearchers’ interviews with the suspectcarried out two years after the closure of thecase. Interviews have also been made with onepolice officer familiar with the suspect, but notinvolved in the investigation.

In the analysis of the material an intentionalmodel of action is used. This model is based onvon Wright’s (1979) philosophical definition ofaction and has been further developed as aninstrument to analyse data in qualitativeresearch (Halldén, Scheja, & Jakobsson Öhrn,2001, Jakobsson Öhrn, 2005). In the intentionalmodel an action is regarded as meaningful and

understandable by assuming that the actor hasan intention for acting. To be able tounderstand the meaning of the observedbehaviour, the researcher has to drawconclusions about the actor’s intention to act.

The suspect’s version of whathappened as it appears in theinterviewsIn the beginning of the first interview thesuspect is asked to tell the police whathappened:I: Then we will start with, to ask T to tell us

what happened yesterday afternoon andevening. OK, T?

T: Yes. My dad came up to get my son M […][and] we were playing computer games […]from four o’clock to, well, half past eleven[…]. Then my dad called and asked if Mcould sleep at his place over night and wesaid OK. Then we went walking with thedog about twelve. Yes and then N watchedTV and I went on playing. About threeo’clock in the morning […] I went out withthe dog one last time and N went to bed. [Alittle later] […] I went to bed beside her […].Then I woke up ten minutes to ten […] andheard N screaming: ”no, no, stop it”. And Ithought it was the dog […] because he wasa bit wild. I opened the door […] and there aguy stands with a bloody knife in his handlooking at me. And (…) I panicked and randown to my father […] and called thepolice. […]

I: Did you see the perpetrator?

The answer to this first open question is thelongest of all answers T gives in the wholeinvestigation. For about two minutes he tellshis story, before he is interrupted by aquestion. After that T has no more opportunityto give a free account. At some later occasions,like in the following example from the fifthinterview, the interviewer invites T to give afree account: I: Yes, would you like to tell us what

happened when you came down to yourfather’s apartment in the morning?

T: Yes, yes, I shouted […]…

I: Mm, but if we start by the door […] was thedoor open?

T: I don’t remember, I don’t know.T tries to give his story, but is interrupted by aquestion after ten seconds.

The police version of whathappened as it appears in theinterviewsThe most obvious impression of the interviewsis that the interviewers are trying to verifytheir own hypothesis of what happened. Theyseem to be quite sure of T’s guilt and give himvery limited opportunity to tell his own story.In the interviews different strategies are usedin order to confirm the police version of whathappened:• A communication strategy, which prevents

the suspect from telling his story• Presentation of motive• Accusations and presentation of the crime

scene• Emotional pressure

Communication strategy

After the first and only true invitation to a freeaccount the interviewers turn to closedquestioning. T answers are short, often nomore than four words. He gets no chance toevolve his answers and if he sometimes tries,he is quickly interrupted by a new question,like in the example above. Besides questioningthe interviewers on several occasions claimthat they know what has happened. Oneexample from the third interview:I: We claim that you and N had a quarrel. […]I: We claim that you have a strong need to be

in control […]T: But it is wrong. […]I: Why is it wrong?T: Because I know that.I: Well, we have also found things out.

T tries to defend himself and tell theinterviewer that his statements are incorrect.The interviewer makes no effort to examine T’sobjections by follow-up questions. Instead heignores them and insinuates that he hasinformation that supports his own belief.

Presentation of motive

Since the interviewers believe that T hasstabbed N, they are searching for a motive. The motive they find plausible is that there hasbeen conflicts and disagreements between T and N. I: We claim that you and N had a quarrel.T: But, we didn’t […]I: You had a quarrel that night, you had some

kind of conflict …

The interviewers strengthen their idea of amotive by referring to witnesses. I the sixthinterview they claim:I: It is like that, people have heard you

quarrel during the night.T: Me and her?I: Yes.T: We didn’t quarrel.

In the eighth interview, the interviewers saythat they have received information from T’sbrother:I: Yes… he has heard you and N quarrel.T: We have not.I: Yes, but you have. So he says.T: But I say we have not.

There is no evidence in other parts of theinvestigation of any witnesses talking aboutquarrels. They only exist in the interviewer’squestions. Instead there is contradictoryinformation. One interview held by one of thefirst police officers at the scene of the crimecontains a statement from a neighbour: “Theguy says he was awake between seven o’clockin the evening and three o’clock in the morningand didn’t hear a sound.” In the interviews the interviewers present anumber of reasons for the conflicts. In thefourth interview they present a scenario inwhich N has thoughts of leaving T:I: You have not heard that she wanted to

change her situation and possibly move out… ?

T: No.I: You are sure of that?T: Yes. I: She has not said that?T: No.

iIIRG BULLETIN VOLUME 2 ISSUE 114

iIIRG BULLETIN VOLUME 2 ISSUE 1 15

In the sixth interview they claim that T wasjealous and furious that night: I: We claim that you have a large need of

control. That you are jealous and unsureabout your relationship.

T: But it is wrong. […]I: You get furious that evening …T: NoI: She drove you crazy?T: No.

In the eighth interview the interviewerspresent a scenario of their relationship: I: She irritates you, you are irritated at one

another. You irritate her. She is pissed off atyou. She has insulted you. She thinks youare shit. She doesn’t like you. She isstanding in the kitchen ….

T: We haven’t even quarrelled.I: She is fed up with you, you don’t do

anything at home. You don’t tidy up, youjust try to get out of your duties, you onlysleep during daytime.

T: Yes, sure…(sarcastic)

The interviewers’ argumentation is still morestrengthened in the ninth interview, wherethey present a heavy reason for the supposedconflicts:I: Are you unsure…have you ever doubted

that you are M’s father?T: We used to joke about that…but I know of

course I am the father. […]I: It was not serious?T: No.I: But if we claim that this could have

triggered off … what happened.….T: But, that is wrong.

The motive suggestions evolve through theinterviews. From the beginning it was astatement concerning quarrels anddisagreement, which later was blown up withalleged witness information and escalatingproposals of reason. Consequently T rejects theinterviewers’ descriptions and the interviewersignore his objections. There is no evidence inthe investigation that supports theinterviewers’ statements.

Accusations and presentation of thecrime scene

Besides presenting a supposed motive for killingN, the interviewers also directly accuse T ofbeing the perpetrator and try to describe hisactions at the scene of the crime. In the fourthinterview the interviewer starts with a question:I: We can start when you go from the

bedroom and open the door to the kitchen.How did you see N on the floor?

T: Well, I don’t know if I even saw anything,when I think about it.

I: Don’t you even know if you saw anything?T: Of her.I: Mm…T: I was stuck on the man with the knife and

than ran.

The first step in describing T as the perpetratoris to prove that he had seen N lying on thekitchen floor. T seems a bit unsure. Still hisanswer corresponds to his first free account,where he says he had his focus on the manwith the knife. There is no follow up to thisanswer. In the following interviews theinterviewers continue their efforts to provethat T had seen N – not only lying on the floor,but also how she looked when being stabbed.They are still not interested in the man T saw.In the sixth interview T tries to evolve thattheme, but as before the interviewers ignorehis information. T: But think for yourself, to open the door and

see someone standing there with a knife.I: (interrupts) But that was not what I asked.

I asked about those hands she held in frontof her. […]

T: But I don’t know if I saw her hands […]everything was chaotic. […]

I: You saw that. […]T: No, I don’t want to talk to you when you

keep on like that. […]T: […] think for yourself, when you open the

door and sort of see a man standing therewith a knife.

I: Mm, that’s what you say.T: Yes.I: I don’t believe there was a man standing

there with a knife.

The interviewer now states his opinion that itwas T who had the knife. He insinuates that hehas got evidence supporting his opinion.I: I think you had the knife.T: NoI: We have in fact some evidence.T: Yes, but I haven’t done it.

The interviewer gives further strength to hisopinion by adding:I: It is you who make the blood splash on the

wall.T: NoI: It is you who make her die.T: No.

In the eighth interview the interviewers talk asif T already has confessed. T: When will you understand that I haven’t

done it?I: You have distinctly described how you saw

her head, her arms and her body …T: But I haven’t…I: …and nothing more?T: I haven’t seen her. […]I: You have been standing leaning over her!T: Leaning over her?I: Yes you have said that too.T: That I have been standing leaning over her?I: You have been standing leaning over her,

yes … looking at her …T: I haven’t said that!I: You said that she was lying on the floor and

that you stood leaning over her. You seeher lying on the floor.

T: What? That I have been standing leaningover her?

I: You look into her eyes.T: What the hell, stop it…

[…]I: But you have seen…T: I haven’t seen her I tell you!I: But we claim that you did. You told us

before. T: Yes, you claim a lot of things.

T sticks to his earlier statements – that he isinnocent and that he has not seen N stabbedon the floor – and shows an upsetastonishment at what the interviewer tells him.Like before T’s objections are ignored. There isno evidence what so ever that supports theinterviewer’s statements.

Emotional pressure

In the sixth interview, when the accusationsdid not result in a confession, the interviewerstry an emotional strategy with a moreempathetic touch. I: I mean… it must be hard for you to burden

yourself with this.T: Yes, but I haven’t done it.I: It is very, very hard…T: Yes, but I haven’t done it.I: But, in this case you need help and all the

support you can get.T: Yes, but I haven’t done it.

This “empathetic” attitude returns in theeighth interview.I: There are things you cannot admit to

yourself. You have to tell the truth to beable to carry on with your life. You aregoing to live for a long time.

T: But, I haven’t done anything!I: How can you be able to survive when you

say that?T: Yes, I told you, I haven’t done anything!

In interviews characterised by accusations anda refusal to consider T’s own account, thisattempt to be understanding and caring seemsto have as its only aim to make T confess.When also this strategy fails the emotionalunderstanding turns to emotional accusation:I: This bloodstained knife, those bloodstains

on the wall and her lying in blood on thefloor …

T: I haven’t…I: It’s no beautiful sight.T: But I haven’t done it. […]I: You wish you hadn’t done it? T: I haven’t done it, stop it.

The interview continues with accusations and T starts crying.

iIIRG BULLETIN VOLUME 2 ISSUE 116

iIIRG BULLETIN VOLUME 2 ISSUE 1 17

The suspect looking back onhis experience of theinterviews Two years after the closure of the case T stillsuffers from the tragedy he has experienced;the traumatic loss of N and the suspicions andpressure he was exposed to during theinvestigation. In the police interviews T stuckto his story and seemed to resist the influencethe interviewers exerted. When he recalls histhoughts and feelings afterwards he says thathe perceived the interviews during the firsttwo weeks as rather calm. He was convincedthat the investigators in the end would believewhat he told them and that they would realisethat he was innocent.

After that period of time he lost hope. He alsolost control over his existence and stoppedcounting the days. He found the interviewspressing and threatening and came to doubthis own memory of the morning of the murder.He said that he asked his lawyer: “Is it possiblefor a person to do terrible things withoutknowing”. The lawyers answered that suchthings might happen. T had painful thoughtsabout this, which made him worried andconfused. A comparison with the timeschedule for the interviews shows that thesixth interview starts after two weeks. Fromthe quotations in the sections above it is clearthat this interview contains a lot of pressure onthe suspect.

DiscussionIn the case presented in this article the suspectwas detained in custody for about two months.During this period of time he had very fewcontacts with the outside world. He was notallowed to see other people apart from policeofficers, custody personnel and his lawyer. Hedid not have access to television ornewspapers and he had no contact with hisrelatives. He was grieving the loss of hisgirlfriend and his son had been taken into careby the social services. In addition to all this hewas suspected of killing his girlfriend. Thepolice seemed to be convinced of his guilt anddid not believe what he told them. Instead theytried to induce him to confess.

In a short time the suspect experienced aseries of traumatic events. The situationaltogether contained several risk factors thatcould trigger a false confession (seeGudjonsson, 2003). In spite of that he did notadmit anything he had not done. All the timehe denied his guilt and objected to theinterviewers’ statements. Still their behaviouraffected him and made him feel confused anddepressed and in his mind he had doubts abouthis innocence. The analysis of the interviewsshows that the police version of whathappened was dominating in the interviews (cf.Linell, & Jönsson, 1991). This version was madevisible and the suspect’s version was placed inthe background at an early stage. Theinterviewers seemed to be convinced of thesuspect’s guilt and unable to recognise analternative version, even though such a storywas presented to them. This could be seen asan example of lack of objectivity in theinvestigation process.

The result of this study corresponds to theresults of earlier research that show that prioropinions and guilt assumptions activate aconfirmation seeking behaviour (Ask, 2006,Innes, 2002, Kassin, Goldstein, & Savitsky,2003, Nickerson, 1998, Wagenaar, van Koppen,& Crombag, 1993). Throughout the interviewsthe interviewers’ intention can be described asa wish to confirm their story of whathappened. What did they do in order to fulfilthis intention? First, they tried to bring forthinformation that supported their own story.For example they directly accused the suspectof being the perpetrator. They also put thesuspect under emotional pressure to make himgive them the answers they wanted. Second,they made their own interpretations of whatthe suspect had seen and what his motive hadbeen. These interpretations were notsupported by any evidence and can beregarded as an effort to make sense of thestory. Innes (2002) states that investigatorstend to fill the gaps of missing informationwhen they construct an account of whathappened. Third, the interviewers activelyprevented the suspect’s version from beingvisible. They used a communication strategy,which included interruptions and closedquestions. They ignored the suspect’s attemptsto object and they argued against what they

believed was incorrect in the suspect’sstatements. The interviewers’ actions werecarried out with the intention of confirmingtheir beliefs. But why was this need forconfirmation so strong? Why were they so sureof the truth of their version?

Innes (2002) gives a cue, which can contributeto the understanding the interviewers’ actions.According to Innes about 70 per cent ofhomicide investigations are categorised byinvestigators as ‘self-solvers,’ while the othersare categorised as ‘whodunits’ (ibid. p. 671). Inthe ‘self-solvers’ a suspect is identified at anearly stage. The suspect often calls the policeand reports the crime. There is also substantialevidence pointing at the suspect’s guilt. In thecase described in this article a woman isstabbed in her own home, where she livestogether with her boyfriend and son. Theboyfriend, who is in the apartment, calls thepolice telling them he saw an unknown manwith a knife. From a statistical point of viewthis could appear to be highly improbable.There is also reason to believe that the manreporting the crime had low credibility in theeyes of the police. He lived in an unstablesocial situation and the police were acquaintedwith his prior crime history. It appeared thatthe suspect’s social and psychologicalvulnerability increased the asymmetry in therelationship between the interviewers and theinterviewee.

It is likely that the interviewers regarded thecase as self-solved and didn’t consider thepossibility that it could be a ‘whodunit’ case.Those cases are more complex and require amore extended search for evidence. Thedistinction between these two ways ofcategorising homicide investigations could berelated to the two different ways of seekingevidence identified by Wagenaar et al. (1993).In a case regarded as ‘self-solved,’ the searchfor information is likely to be suspect-driven,while a case regarded as a ‘whodunit’ caserather demands an offence-driven search forinformation. There is a great problem when aninvestigation – as in the case described in this

article – is handled as if it was solvedbeforehand with use of confirmation seekingactions directed to the suspect. There is a greatrisk of miscarriages of justice. In aninvestigation conducted according to theprinciple of the rule of law, investigators haveto be open-minded and prepared to recognisethe unexpected for the sake of justice andhumanity.

ReferencesAsk, K. (2006). Criminal Investigation:

motivation, emotion and cognition in theprocessing of evidence. PhD dissertation.Gothenburg: Göteborg University,Department of Psychology.

Drew, I. P., & Heritage J. (1992). Analysing talkat work: an introduction. In Drew I.P. &Heritage J. (Eds.), Talk at work. Interaction ininstitutional settings. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Gudjonsson, G. H. (2003). The Psychology ofInterrogation and Confessions. New York:John Wiley and Sons Ltd.

Halldén, O., Scheja, M., & Jakobsson Öhrn, H.(2001). Intentionell analys.Forskningsrapporter från Pedagogiskainstitutionen, Stockholms universitet, nr 65.

Innes, M. (2002). The ‘process structures’ ofpolice homicide investigations. BritishJournal of Criminology, 42, 669-688.

Jakobsson Öhrn, H. (2005). Tell me your truth. Apolice interviewer’s projects when interviewinga suspect person. PhD dissertation inSwedish with a summary in English.Stockholm: Stockholm University,Department of Education.

Jönsson, L., Linell, P., & Säljö, R. (1991).Formulating the past. Remembering in thepolice interrogation. MultidisciplinaryNewsletter for Activity Theory. 9/10, 1991.

Kassin, S. M., Goldstein, C. C., & Savitsky, K.(2003). Behavioral confirmation in theinterrogation room: On the danger ofpresuming guilt. Law and Human Behavior,27, 187-203.

iIIRG BULLETIN VOLUME 2 ISSUE 118

iIIRG BULLETIN VOLUME 2 ISSUE 1 19

Linell, P.& Jönsson, L. (1991). Suspect stories: onperspective-setting in an asymmetricalsituation. In I. Marková & K. Foppa (Eds.)Asymmetries in dialogue. HemmelHempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises.Review of General Psychology, 2, 175-220.

Wagenaar, W. A., van Koppen, P. J., & Crombag,H. F. M. (1993). Anchored narratives: Thepsychology of criminal evidence. New York: St. Martins Press.

von Wright, G. H. (1979). The Determinants ofAction. I Kohlenberger, H (Ed.) Reason,Action and Experience. Essays in Honor ofRaymond Klibansky, pp. 107-119. Hamburg:Felix Meiner Verlag.

‘Although there is strongempirical support for repeatedinterviews, the field has not yetincorporated this knowledgeinto practice.’

The majority of cases where children arealleged victims of sexual or physical abusehave no external evidence that will determineif the alleged abuse did or did not happen.Therefore, most legal systems in the worldcontend with children being the singlewitnesses to their alleged abuse. Since thelegal system needs to make crucial decisionsbased on the children’s testimony, it placesdemands on the children to report thetraumatic event(s) in a detailed, rich, complete,coherent, systematic, and accurate way.Among numerous studies that have pointed tothe ways in which investigative interviewerscan contend with the children’s developmentalbarriers (memory, attention, and verbal),repeated interviews receive a lot of focus.

Many researchers have tried to identify thecharacteristics of a good repeated interview,one that will enhance the children’s reportsand help interviewers obtain richerinformation without compromising theiraccuracy (see La Rooy, Lamb, & Pipe, 2009 forreview). On the one hand, empirical findingsclearly show that when repeated interviewscontain leading or suggestive questions, andwhen there is pressure on the children toprovide specific information, repeatedinterviews can be a strong factor incontaminating the children’s narratives. On theother hand, when the children are interviewedin a supportive environment using free recallquestions, the children’s narratives tend to berich and accurate with repeated interviews.

Researchers documented their findings andmade clear assumptions that when the

repeated interview is “good” meaningconducted in a supportive environment,contains open-ended questions, and a shorttime delay between the interviews, then it canhelp the children in the retrieval process. Thosestudies showed an interesting phenomenoncalled reminiscence, which means that therepeated interviews helped the children addnew information about the target events totheir reports without damaging their accuracy.Together with this finding, some studies foundhypermnesia in the children’s reports, meaningthat the second interview yielded moreinformation than the first one. This findinggives strong support for future researchers’assumptions that the children’s (and evenadults’) first reports are usually not completeand therefore suggest employing the use ofrepeated interviews widely in the field.

Although there is strong empirical support forrepeated interviews, the field has not yetincorporated this knowledge into practice. Theuse of repeated interviews in the field islimited, and the procedure is used only forspecific reasons, such as when new informationis revealed and there is further need to checkthis information with the child (Home Office,2007, sections 2.13, 2.117& 2.188; LawCommission, 1997, section 97, ScottishExecutive, 2003, section 30; Scottish Executive,2007, sections 7 & 155). Moreover, the legalsystem often treats cases of repeatedinterviews with suspicion regarding theaccuracy of the new information, theinformation that was missing, and mainlytowards contradictory information.Investigating why repeated interviews are notmore widely used, I concluded, together withProfessor Michael Lamb and Dr IritHershkowitz, that most of the studies thatshowed the positive effects of repeatedinterviews to the memory process werelaboratory and applied studies. Perhaps thisfact made it difficult for people in the field ofinvestigative interviewing to apply the findings

iIIRG BULLETIN VOLUME 2 ISSUE 120

The profile of repeated interviews in Israel: When practice and theory come together. Carmit Katz, University of Cambridge, UK Ck360@cam.ac.uk

iIIRG BULLETIN VOLUME 2 ISSUE 1 21

with children interviewed about alleged sexualor physical abuse.

One recent study conducted using realinterviews with children aimed to understandthe effects of repeated interviewing in theforensic context (Hershkowitz & Terner, 2007).In that study, 40 children who were allegedvictims of child sexual abuse were interviewedabout the alleged incident twice, with bothinterviews following the NICHD (NationalInstitute of Child Health and HumanDevelopment) Investigative Interview Protocolclosely (Lamb, Hershkowitz, Orbach, & Esplin,2008). Both of the interviews followed theentire substantive phase of the Protocol andincluded all types of questions (e.g.,invitations, directive, option-posing and, bymistake, suggestive questions). Every child wasgiven a 30-minute break between the twointerviews. The findings from this study clearlyshowed that the information that was obtainedin the second interview was almost 25% new,and that both of the interviews were relying onopen questions (average of 50%), whichincreases the likelihood that this informationwas accurate (Dent, 1982, 1986; Poole & Lamb,1998; Waterman et al., 2000). The findingsprovided strong evidence for the value ofrepeated interviews in the children’s retrievalprocess, emphasized that the children’s firstretrieval from memory is typically incomplete,and that repeated interviews are a good way toenhance children’s narratives.

Analyzing this study and the subsequentfeedback from the field (investigativeinterviewers and their managers in Israel)clearly showed a few problems when trying toconduct repeated interviews, as occurred inthis study, incorporated into practicalguidelines. According to the interviewers, thestrongest drawback was the length of theinterviews and the break between them. Theinterviewers who participated in this studysystematically said that the interviews werevery long, which made it difficult for them tofocus and be good interviewers. Theinterviewers also mentioned that the breakwas too long for them (30 minutes), and theirimpression was that the long interviews werehard for the children and that children feltuncomfortable during the break. Anothershortcoming of the study was that, because it

was a field study, there was no option to checkthe accuracy of the children’s reports.Furthermore, at times, the first interviewsincluded misleading information, which makesit hard to measure how it affected children’sreports, and the accuracy problem remainedunsolved.

Following the theoretical and practicalunderstanding gleaned from the mentionedstudy (Hershkowitz & Terner, 2007), wedesigned a more advanced procedure forexamining the use of repeated interviews in the field (Katz & Hershkowitz, in preparation). In this field study, 55 children who were allegedvictims of child sexual abuse were re-interviewedabout the alleged incident using repeated openquestions. The break between the interviewswas shorter than in the Hershkowitz andTerner study (7-10 minutes vs. 30 minutes), andthe only questions referred to the childrenbefore the second interview were open (vs.closed, leading, and suggestive questions inthe previous study). Focusing only on openquestions was planned to ensure that theinterviews would not be contaminated in anyway (not allowing suggestive questions by theinterviewers). Because it was a field study, itwas hard to measure the accuracy of thechildren’s reports. That is why a contradictionsanalysis was conducted in order to explore thisaspect of the children’s narratives.

Children (n=55) were referred by the police toinvestigative interviewers following acomplaint of a single incident of sexual abuseby an alleged perpetrator who was not a familymember. The sample composed of 12 boys and43 girls, from age 5 to 14 with a mean age of 10years. The alleged incidents were 15 cases ofexposure, 19 cases of touch on intimate bodyparts over the victim’s clothes, 13 cases oftouching on intimate body parts under thevictim’s clothes, and 8 cases of penetration.The time delay between the alleged incidentand the investigative interview range from 1day to 104 days (M= 26.69, SD= 23.26).

Children were interviewed twice by one of ninewell-trained investigative interviewers inIsrael; all interviewers shared the sameprofessional background (bachelor degree inSocial Work or Criminology and approximatelyseven years experience as an investigativeinterviewer with children). Interviewers were

given an individual and group training aboutthe study procedure with the main focus onmaking sure that the interviewers followed theexact instructions and only asked openquestions in the first interview.

All interviews closely followed the NICHDProtocol. The NICHD Protocol wasconceptualized and written by a group ofresearchers in the National Institute of Health(NIH; Sternberg, Lamb, Davies, & Westcott,2001; Sternberg, Lamb, Esplin, Orbach, &Hershkowitz, 2002). The Protocol’s maininstruction to investigator interviewers is torely mainly on open questions (e.g., “tell meeverything that happened to you”, “and thenwhat happened”), since those questions are theones that tend to produce accurateinformation from children of all ages (Dent,1982, 1986; Goodman, Quas, Batterman-Faunce, Riddlesberger, & Kuhn, 1996;Hershkowitz, Fisher, Lamb, & Horowitz, 2007;Poole & Lamb, 1998; Waterman et al., 2000 ). Ifthere is a need to help children produce moreinformation regarding the alleged incident,directive questions will follow the open ones(e.g., “when did it happen?”). Only when crucialinformation is needed are the investigativeinterviewers allowed to ask children option-posing questions (e.g., “did he touch you overor under the cloth?”). Suggestive questions(e.g., “he penetrated with his fingers right?) arecompletely forbidden.

The first interview in this study followed theProtocol phases, starting from the pre-substantive phase and then getting theallegation about the incident of sexual abuse.After an allegation was made, the interviewerasked the child open questions aimed to learnas much as possible about the incident. Whenthe interviewers perceived that there was nomore information that could be obtained fromopen questions, they stopped the interviewand asked the child to take a short break (7-10minutes). During the break, the interviewerand the child remained in the room, and no onetalked to the child about the incident. Theinterviewer offered the child a drink or anappropriate game to play (e.g., puzzles, bricks).After the break, the interviewer asked the childto sit in front of them again and provided aninvitation to disclose again everything that hadhappened during the alleged incident.

Following the first narrative, the interviewerasked the child open questions as if he washearing the incident for the first time. Whenthe child indicated that he had nothing more tosay in response to open questions, theinterviewer then asked directive questions and,when necessary, option-posing questions.

All interviews were carefully transcribed by awell-trained transcribing company workingwith the investigative interview unit in Israel,and the transcripts were sent to theresearchers only after all potentiallyidentifying details were removed. Allinterviews were coded based on the NICHDcodebook (Lamb et al., 1996), which aims toexamine the quality of the interviewers’utterances and the children’s reports.Interviewers’ utterances were categorized asinvitations, directive, option-posing andsuggestive questions.

The children’s narratives were analyzed interms of counting the new details that childrenprovided in the second interview in addition tothe details that they provided in the firstinterview, the repeated details of informationthat children were consistent with throughoutthe interviews, and finally, the omitted details,meaning the details that the children providedin the first interview but omitted in the secondinterview. Besides coding details as being new,repeated, or omitted, details were alsoclassified as being central or peripheral. Bycentral, we meant information related to thecore understanding of the event (e.g., centralactions of the alleged perpetrator), whileperipheral details were important but notcrucial to the understanding of the abusiveevent (e.g., the color of the car of the allegedperpetrator). Contradictory details were alsocoded according to Orbach and Lamb’s codingsystem (Orbach & Lamb, 2001).

Inter-coder agreement was checked by having15.2% of the transcripts independently re-coded by two experienced coders. Agreementwas higher than 90% for both the classificationof interviewer utterances and theidentification and classification of detailsreported by the children.

Because this was a field study, the ethicalapproval was granted by the followingindividuals/organizations: the manager of the

iIIRG BULLETIN VOLUME 2 ISSUE 122

iIIRG BULLETIN VOLUME 2 ISSUE 1 23

investigative interview unit in Israel, the headof the youth department of the Israeli police,the vice president of the Israeli juvenile court,and the chairman of the University of Haifa’sethics board.

The quality of the interviews was remarkablygood with interviewers referring over 87% ofopen questions (invitations, timesegmentations and cued invitations) tochildren in the first interview, and nosuggestive questions. In the second interview,the proportion of open questions was over50%, and again, no suggestive questions werereferred to the children.

In general, the total number of details in thesecond interviews was not higher than thetotal number of details in the first interviews.Nonetheless, we did find reminiscence, and thesecond interview yielded 58.50% newinformation, with 50.32% new informationobtained from open questions, and 36.86% ascentral new information.

The repeated interview was found to be usefulfor both boys and girls and for children from allage groups. Furthermore, though the repeatedinterview was useful after a short delay, it wasfound especially useful when the time delaybetween the alleged abuse and the interviewwas longer (i.e., over a month). This finding isextremely important in the legal context, sincethe time delays between abusive events andthe investigative interviews are often long(mainly due to the children’s fears of disclosing,see Pipe, Lamb, Orbach, & Cederborg, 2007).

The results from this study clearly show thateven with a single incident by a perpetratorwho is not a family member (cases that areconsidered less complicated in the legalsystem), the use of repeated interviews helpedthe children’s retrieval process. Following thesecond interviews, children obtained newforensically relevant details, details that helpedthe testimony become richer, more detailed,more and coherent.

It was also our interest to show what happenedto the details that the child mentioned in thefirst interview- did the children repeat them inthe second interviews, or they were omittedinstead?

With regard to the repeated, or consistent,

details (details that the child mentioned in thefirst interview and repeated in the second), wefound that in the second interview childrenrepeated 38% of the details that they producedin the first interview; 17% of the repeateddetails were obtained from open questions inthe second interview, and 14% of them werecentral details (only 3% were peripheral). Thepercent of consistent details that childrenproduced in the second interview in responseto open questions was not affected by thechildren’s age, gender, type of abuse, or thetime delay between the abusive event and theinterviews.

With regard to the omitted details (the detailsthat the child mentioned in the first interviewbut did not mention in the second one), wefound that in response to open questions,children omitted 61% of details that theyproduced in the first interview; 46% werecentral details and 15% were peripheral details.

It is also very important to discuss the resultsregarding the analyses of the contradictiondetails, or details that children mentioned inthe first interview and later on contradicted inthe second interview. No contradictionsbetween the first and second interviews werefound in the information that childrenprovided from open questions. This findingsuggests that there is a high probability thatthe information that children produced inresponse to open questions was accurate.Analyzing the contradictions has been foundbefore as an indicative tool for the credibilityof the testimony (Orbach & Lamb, 2001).

In summary, we can say that repeatedinterviewing, as used in this study, is aneffective tool in the legal system and a safe oneas well. While interviewing the children withina short time delay between the interviews,without allowing any contamination to theirmemory and referring open questions, childrencan provide rich, detailed, and coherentreports.

Currently, together with Dr Irit Hershkowitzand Professor Michael Lamb, I am investigatingthe effects of repeated interviews withchildren who are reluctant to disclose anallegation by an alleged perpetrator who is afamily member. In this field study, which iscurrently being conducted in Israel,

investigative interviewers return for a repeatedinterview with children who did not make anallegation in the first interview. We are tryingtwo different procedures: one which includesonly open questions in the first interviewsaimed to identify the allegations. If children donot disclose, the interviewers finish theinterviews and return to the children for asecond interview within 2-7 days. In the othercondition, the first interviews are completedwith interviewers using more closed questions(according to the NICHD Protocol) in order toidentify allegations. If the children fail to makean allegation, the interviewers return for arepeated interview after 2-7 days. In both ofthe procedures, the repeated interviewsinclude a rapport building phase and anidentifying the allegation stage according tothe NICHD Protocol. If the children do make anallegation in the second interviews, theinterviewers are instructed to continueaccording to the Protocol.

In another series of studies that I will conductwith Professor Michael Lamb and Dr LindsayMalloy, we will explore the effects of repeatedinterviews with children, adolescents, andadults who suffer from Autism SpectrumDisorders, Mental Retardation, or Downsyndrome.

ReferencesDent, H.R. (1982). The effects of interviewing

strategies on the results of interviews withchild witnesses. In A. Trankell (Ed.),Reconstructing the Past: The Role ofPsychologists in Criminal Trails (pp.279-297).Stockholm: Norstedt.

Goodman, G.S., Quas, J.A., Batterman- Faunce,J.M., Riddlesberger, M.M., & Kuhn, J. (1996).Predictors of accurate and inaccuratememories of traumatic events experiencedin childhood. In K. Pezdek & W.P. Banks(Eds.), The recovered memory/false memorydebate (pp. 3-28). California: Academic Press.

Hershkowitz, I., Fisher, S., Lamb, M.E., &Horowitz, D. (2007). Improving credibilityassessment in child sexual abuseallegations: The role of the NICHDinterview protocol. Child Abuse and Neglect,31 (2), 99-110.

Hershkowitz, I., & Terner, A. (2007). The effectsof repeated interviewing on children’sforensic statements of sexual abuse. AppliedCognitive Psychology, 21, 1131-1143.

Home Office. (2007). Achieving Best Evidencein Criminal Proceedings: Guidance onInterviewing Victims and Witnesses, andUsing Special Measures. London: Author.

Lamb, M.E., Hershkowitz, I., Orbach, Y., Esplin,P.W. (2008). Tell me what happened:Structured investigative interviews of childvictims and witness. West Sussex, England:John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Lamb, M.E., Hershkowitz, I., Sternberg, K.J.,Esplin, P.W., Hovav, M., Manor, T., &Yudilevitch, L. (1996). Effects ofinvestigative utterance types on Israelichildren’s responses. International Journal ofBehavioural Development, 19, 627-637.

La Rooy, D., Lamb, M. E., & Pipe, M-E. (2009).Repeated Interviewing: A critical evaluationof the risks and potential benefits. In K.Kuehnle & M. Connell (Eds.) The Evaluationof Child Sexual Abuse Allegations: AComprehensive Guide to Assessment andTestimony. (pp. 327-361). Wiley.

Law Commission. (1997). The evidence ofchildren and other vulnerable witnesses.Wellington: Author.

Orbach, Y., & Lamb, M.E. (2001). Therelationship between within-interviewcontradictions and eliciting interviewerutterances. Child Abuse and Neglect, 25 (3),323-333.

Pipe, M.E., Lamb, M.E., Orbach, Y., &Cederborg, A.C. (eds.). (2007). Child sexualabuse: disclosure, delay and denial. Mahwah,NJ: Erlbaum.

Poole, A.D., & Lamb, E.M. (1998). Investigativeinterviews of children: A guide for helpingprofessionals. Washington, DC: AmericanPsychological Association.

Scottish Executive. (2003). GuidanceInterviewing Child Witnesses and Victims inScotland. Edinbrugh: Author.

Scottish Executive. (2007). On the record:Evaluating the visual recording of jointinvestigative interviews with children.Edinbrugh: Author.

iIIRG BULLETIN VOLUME 2 ISSUE 124

iIIRG BULLETIN VOLUME 2 ISSUE 1 25

Sternberg, K.J., Lamb, M.E., Davies, G.M., &Westcott, H.L. (2001). The memorandum ofgood practice: Theory versus application.Child Abuse and Neglect, 25 (5), 669-681.

Sternberg, K.J., Lamb, M.E., Esplin, P.W.,Orbach, Y., & Hershkowitz, I. (2002). Using astructured protocol to improve the qualityof investigative interviews. In M.Eisen, G.S.Goodman, & J. Quas (EDS.), Memory andsuggestibility in the forensic interview (pp.409-436). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Waterman, A.H., Blades, M., & Spencer, C.(2000). Do children try to answernonsensical questions? British Journal ofDevelopmental Psychology, 18, 211-225.

‘When an intermediary is usedas part of the interviewingprocess it adds a new dynamicto the interview room’

The Registered Intermediary is a professionalwho has the appropriate experience andqualifications to assess the communicationneeds of the vulnerable witness or vulnerabledefendant. There are approximately 150Registered Intermediaries located in Englandand Wales whose professional backgroundsinclude speech and language therapists,psychologists, teachers, social workers andnurses. They will have a detailed knowledge ofthe specific difficulties that vulnerable peoplehave when trying to understand other peopleand the difficulties that vulnerable people mayhave in communicating accurately what theywant to say to figures in authority. TheRegistered Intermediary role is an impartialone and the intermediary acts for the courtand not the prosecution or defence.Intermediaries are selected through anapplication form and interview process andthen undertake a total of 5 days trainingorganised by the Office for Criminal JusticeReform and the City Law School, London,where they learn about court personnel, courtprocedures and they practice their impendingrole through assessed role plays.

The introduction of intermediaries to thecriminal justice system in England and Wales isa relatively new concept. The Youth Justice andCriminal Evidence Act (1999) established that awitness may be examined through anintermediary as one of the Special Measuresavailable to vulnerable witnesses (Office forCriminal Justice Reform, 2005). You may note

at this stage that the legislation does not referat all to police suspects or defendants.

The legislative framework defines vulnerablewitnesses as being:• All witnesses aged under 17 years• Any other witness whose quality of

evidence is likely to be diminished becausethey have a:– mental disability or learning disorder– physical disability or physical disorder.

The needs of the witness are assessed by theIntermediary and Special Measures are appliedfor to the court as and when recommended(Office for Criminal Justice Reform, 2005).Other Special Measures include using screensin the courtroom, using a live link, allowing thewitness to give evidence in private, requestingthat judges and legal staff remove wigs andgowns, allowing video-recorded evidence inchief and finally using communication aidssuch as a symbol book.

In practice police investigators are informed:“It is more common for intermediaries to assistduring the planning phase of an interview byproviding advice on how questions should beasked and then to intervene during theinterview where miscommunication is likely, byassisting the interviewer to rephrase thequestion….” (Ministry of Justice, 2007, p15).

The emerging benefits of the intermediaryscheme have been evaluated following the rollout of the scheme to six pathfinder areasbetween February 2004 and June 2005(Plotnikoff & Woolfson, 2007). Overall thescheme was evaluated as being beneficial tovulnerable witnesses and victims. Oneparticular aspect raised as a result of thisevaluation was that vulnerable witnessesbenefited at trial from facilitated

iIIRG BULLETIN VOLUME 2 ISSUE 126

Achieving Best Evidence: The role of the RegisteredIntermediary in assisting vulnerable witnesses,police suspects and defendants to communicatetheir account to the police and the court.Brendan O’Mahony, Independent Practice, UK info@cjspsychology.com

iIIRG BULLETIN VOLUME 2 ISSUE 1 27

communication, a process that ensured thatwitnesses understood the questions they werebeing asked (Plotnikoff & Woolfson, 2007).

Referral to an intermediaryIn practice the investigating or interviewingofficer needs to identify that the particularwitness is vulnerable using the criteria outlinedabove. Having identified that the witness isvulnerable the officer will then make a faxedreferral to the Intermediary Referral Boardwhich is a department at the Ministry ofJustice. The referral board will then try tomatch the witness’s needs with a suitableRegistered Intermediary and put theintermediary in touch with the police officer.For example, a police officer identifies that awitness appears to have difficulties inunderstanding the concept of time or whatappears to be straightforward questions. Theofficer contacts the Intermediary ReferralBoard who in turn examines their list ofsuitably experienced intermediaries in thatparticular location. Once an Intermediary hasbeen identified they will make contact with theofficer and try and arrange a suitable date andlocation for an assessment to take place. Thepolice officer should always attend theassessment with the intermediary as thisprotects the impartiality of the intermediaryshould the witness make a disclosure about thecase.

The officer may want to arrange an AchievingBest Evidence (ABE) interview as a matter ofurgency and it is possible to conduct theassessment in a morning and the ABEinterview on the same afternoon. However, thevulnerable person’s needs might warrant thatthe ABE is arranged on a separate dayparticularly if they have impaired cognitivefunctioning and tire easily. If the matterprogresses to court then ideally the sameintermediary will be used as they have alreadybuilt up some rapport with the witness. Theintermediary will write a full report of thewitness’s communication needs which will beused as supporting evidence if an applicationfor Special Measures for trial is made.

What about police suspectsand defendants?The Prison Reform Trust published a report(Jacobson, 2008, p36) which concluded thatthere is an argument for providing legislativesupport for vulnerable suspects such as thosewith a learning disability. This report alsosuggests specifically that vulnerable suspectsshould be entitled to the use of theintermediary as a Special Measure in order tofacilitate communication. There is apresumption here that the police are able toidentify all vulnerable suspects as they enterthe police station and further, that the Policeand Criminal Evidence Act (1984)accommodates the need to delay suspectinterviews in order to arrange for anintermediary to assess a suspect and to beavailable for the investigative interview. Thepracticalities may not be so easy.

I have attended court cases recently where thedefence counsel have argued that evidenceobtained in an investigative interview shouldbe ruled as inadmissible where the policecaution was not fully understood by avulnerable suspect. This is the case even if asolicitor was present in the police interview. Insome cases the caution will never beunderstood however hard the police and theintermediary try to explain its meaning. If thepolice interview could be delayed in order toobtain an assessment from an intermediarythen the investigating officers may have somesupport in trying to conduct the interview. Theintermediary must remain impartial to the caseand must never take on the role of investigatorand is there solely to facilitate communication.There is of course the question of who pays forall this and the answer quite frankly is thepolice, but perhaps the initial cost implicationsshould be viewed in conjunction with the costof having evidence excluded at a later date.

Even if an intermediary has not been used at apolice suspect interview then it is possible thedefence may ask a judge to considerauthorising one for a trial. Indeed this iscurrently happening in various courts inEngland and Wales. The RegisteredIntermediary is either tasked only withstanding with the defendant if the defendantgives evidence in court, or alternatively sitting

iIIRG BULLETIN VOLUME 2 ISSUE 128

in the dock with the defendant throughout thetrial and assisting the defendant to understandthe court proceedings. This may be quite crucialif the defendant is assessed as being fit toplead but is confused on a daily basis about theworking of the court and doesn’t understandthe terms jury, defendant, victim etc.

DiscussionWhen an intermediary is used as part of theinterviewing process it adds a new dynamic tothe interview room. The investigatinginterviewer will need to feel confident that thetrained and Registered Intermediary will nothave a negative impact on the investigation,but rather, will assist the investigator toachieve best evidence.

As already noted the use of the RegisteredIntermediary has been established as a SpecialMeasure for vulnerable witnesses through thelegislation. To date the use of the RegisteredIntermediary with a vulnerable suspect ordefendant is made at the discretion of thepolice or a judge. There is no mandatorylegislation protecting the vulnerabledefendant’s right to an intermediary to assistin communication. There is an inherent costwhich must be met by the police service, theLegal Services Commission or the Court, and iffunds are limited there may be occasions wherea vulnerable defendant’s needs are not met.

Some people may argue that it is the solicitor’srole or the appropriate adult’s role to act onbehalf of the suspect and to ensure that allcommunication is understood by the suspect.The key issue here is that neither the solicitornor the appropriate adult is necessarily trainedto assist the vulnerable suspect’scommunication needs, and neither person isimpartial to the case. I have recently observeda legal representative try to communicate witha police suspect who had already beenidentified as have having a learning difficulty.With the best will in the world the legalrepresentative was not skilled in this area.Likewise when I have written reports for theSpecial Measures application and both counselhave agreed to refrain from using multiplequestions in court, or to use simple vocabularyand simple sentence structure, in practice theyfind it incredibly difficult to question in this

manner. I am not suggesting that theydeliberately act in this way but rather it is askill that really needs to be developed overtime.

In the interests of justice, vulnerablewitnesses, suspects, and defendants needSpecial Measures in the form of the RegisteredIntermediary. The use of the intermediary withwitnesses is now becoming establishedpractice in England and Wales. However, thereare some emerging difficulties when theintermediary role is used with defendants. Forexample, if the intermediary’s role is of beingtotally impartial to the case where do theystand when they sit in on legal briefings whichare subject to legal privilege? The majority ofintermediaries are practising professionals intheir other careers. How can they continue tomanage that role and to attend lengthy crowncourt trials? Whilst the courts currently seemto be using their discretion to fund theintermediary for defendants what are thelonger term funding implications?

There seems to be a clear argument forallowing the intermediary to assist in courtwhen a defendant takes the witness stand.Indeed, it can be argued that in the interests ofjustice there is more likelihood that avulnerable defendant may wish to testify incourt if they feel that they can makethemselves understood and they should not beexcluded from this right due to cognitiveimpairment or mental health difficulties.However, it could be argued that a trainedadvocacy worker who deals daily withvulnerable people may be best placed to sitwith the defendant at the whole trial. This mayrelieve some of the pressure on the publicpurse as well as pressure on the intermediaryscheme which has been established solely toassist witnesses. Alternatively, the trained andimpartial intermediaries may need to considerundertaking the role as a sole profession andthe government may need to consider thefunding implications further. Additionalresearch is being undertaken to establish howthe intermediary scheme is working in practicewith police suspects and defendants.

The Intermediary Referral Board at theOffice for Criminal Justice Reform can becontacted on 0207 035 8461

iIIRG BULLETIN VOLUME 2 ISSUE 1 29

ReferencesJacobson, J. (2008). No One Knows: Police

responses to suspects with learningdisabilities and learning difficulties: areview of policy and practice. Prison ReformTrust

Ministry of Justice. (2007). Achieving BestEvidence in Criminal Proceedings: Guidanceon Interviewing Victims and Witnesses andUsing Special Measures. Criminal JusticeSystem / Crown Prosecution Service

Office for Criminal Justice Reform. (2005).Intermediary Procedural Guidance Manual.London: Criminal Justice System

Plotnikoff, J. & Woolfson, R. (2007). The “Go-Between”: evaluation of intermediarypathfinder projects. Research Summary 1.Ministry of Justice.

iIIRG BULLETIN VOLUME 2 ISSUE 130

Investigative interviewing and Islamic extremism:The case of public safety interviews.Karl Roberts, Australian Graduate School of Policing, Charles Sturt University, Australia Karoberts@csu.edu.au

‘The practical upshot of thislegislation is that where thereis a perceived threat to publicsafety and/or to the integrity ofan investigation, interviewswith terrorist suspects maytake place without notification,without legal representationand in non-designateddetention centres.’

The aim of this paper is to consider thepsychological implications of urgent interviewsunder the England and Wales Terrorism Act2000 (TACT) and Police and Criminal EvidenceAct (PACE) code H. It will briefly introduce thelaw as it relates to urgent interviews, considerthe context of urgent interviews with terroristsuspects, identify some of the relevantpsychological issues and providerecommendations from a psychologicalperspective as to how various risks to theinvestigative process may be avoided.

The Law: Police and CriminalEvidence Act (PACE) Code HPolice investigations in England and Wales aregoverned by a range of legislation includingPACE , the Regulation of Investigative Powersact (RIPA), and the European convention onHuman Rights (ECHR) amongst others.Particularly relevant to Police interviews withsuspects is PACE, this covers all aspects of thedetention, treatment and questioning by policeofficers of individuals. Section 41 of theTerrorism Act and code H of PACE deal withpolice interviews with individuals detainedunder the terrorism act.

In very general terms, the legislation providesall detained individuals with the right to havetheir arrest notified to another individual, theright to legal advice, and the right to beinterviewed at a location designated fordetention without unnecessary delay.Legislation exists however to suspend some ofthese rights under certain circumstances. Therelevant legislation is Annex B Code H of PACE- Delays to interview under TACT Schedule 8.This legislation allows that Police may delaynotification of arrest and/or access to legaladvice and to carry out an interview in a non-designated place if the person detained hasnot yet been charged with an offence and if anofficer of Superintendent rank or above hasreasonable grounds for believing the exerciseof the above suspect rights may result in one ormore of the following:• Interference or harm to Persons and/or

evidence• Serious loss or damage to property• Alerting others• Hinder recovery of property• Interference with the gathering of

information• Risk of legal advisor passing information

In these circumstances the police may carryout a so-called urgent interview. Theseinterviews must, however, cease once therelevant risk has been averted and/or thenecessary questions have been put in anattempt to avert the risk.

The practical upshot of this legislation is thatwhere there is a perceived threat to publicsafety and/or to the integrity of aninvestigation, interviews with terroristsuspects may take place without notification,without legal representation and in non-designated detention centres. The legislationrequires that a record be made of theinterview, where possible this should be in theform of a tape recording or contemporaneousnotes, however where this is not possible it isallowable that notes made during the interview

iIIRG BULLETIN VOLUME 2 ISSUE 1 31

may be written up by the interviewer as soonas practically possible following the interview.

It is important to note that, in thecircumstances when an urgent interview isallowable, without the benefit of legalrepresentation for the suspect, much of theonus to protect the rights of the suspect is inthe hands of the interviewer. For theinterviewer this may be a difficult situation,especially given the context in which theseinterviews take place. The next section willconsider the context in which urgentinterviews take place and will consider thepsychological impact of terrorism and thethreat of terrorism on individuals beforemoving on to consider how this might affectthe interview process.

The urgent interview contextTerrorism is designed to achieve some politicalchange by using fear as a weapon (e.g.Burleigh, 2008). Terrorist atrocities produce awide range of emotions in those who observethem including fear, grief, anger, frustration,sadness, a sense of powerlessness, a desire forrevenge and a strong desire to do something(e.g. Silke, 2003). As human beings, PoliceOfficers involved in counter terrorism work arenot immune from these emotions; indeed forPolice Officers, as a result of their investigativeduties these emotions might be exacerbated.For example, Police officers are typicallyexposed to details about a terrorist act waybeyond the experience of most members of thepublic (e.g. precise details about victiminjuries), Police officers may be a focus of greatpolitical and media pressure to obtain ‘results’in the aftermath of a terrorist act and there isfrequently fear that the terrorists are plottinganother atrocity. Finally, there can be, in somequarters, little sympathy for a ‘Terrorist,’suspect and a belief amongst some members ofsociety that terrorists by dint of their actionsforfeit their human rights (Burleigh, 2008). It isin this context that urgent interviews withterrorist suspects are carried out.

Urgent interview by definition are done whenthere is a need for information to be obtainedfrom an individual very quickly. This need forurgency, when considered in the Psychologicalcontext described previously, may lead to anumber of potential risks to the interview

process. Anger, fear, feelings of powerlessnessand a desire for revenge are powerful emotionsthat in the context of urgency may make theuse tactics not normally associated with policeinterviewing such as threats, overt aggressionand even, in extremis, torture seem moreacceptable and even desirable to some. Forexample, some commentators have argued forthe limited use of torture and other extremeapproaches to terrorist interviewing (e.g. Levin,1982). Levin’s argument is particularlyapplicable to urgent interviews. Levin cites aso-called ‘ticking bomb’ scenario in which theneed to save lives in the face of a possibleatrocity outweigh any of the human rights thatwould normally be accorded to an individual,thus arguing that investigators can and shoulduse any means at their disposal to elicitinformation (e.g. Levin, 1982).

Threats and overt aggression all work on thebasis that raising an individual’s discomfort islikely to make them more compliant as regardsproviding information, essentially the suspectis encouraged to trade information in returnfor an end to their discomfort (e.g. Rejali,2007). However, such tactics frequently fail toobtain reliable information from suspects (e.g.Gudjonsson, 2001) and often do much damageto community and international relations (e.g.Rejali, 2007). This is not withstanding the factthat some individuals who may have beenconsidered suspects and who may be subjectedto such treatment are innocent of anyinvolvement in terrorism (e.g. Stafford-Smith,2007; Sands, 2008).

From a Psychological perspective, so-called‘robust,’ interview techniques, by dint ofincreasing an individual’s fear and anxiety, runthe risk of increasing the vulnerability of theindividual so that much of the materialcollected may be unreliable and potentiallymisleading. Threats and aggression increaseanxiety, one of the effects of which is toincrease an individual’s uncertainty and doubtabout events they have experienced. In thisstate individuals are frequently very sensitiveto the reactions of the interviewer - they areoften looking for signals from the interviewerthat their responses are acceptable and thattheir discomfort is coming to an end - and soare prone to tailor their answers to questionsin order to obtain a favourable reaction from

the interviewer. Ultimately, the creation ofhigh levels of anxiety and fear in an individualmay serve to increase their suggestibilitymaking it more likely that they will begin toaccept information provided by the interviewerand to confabulate accounts of events basedupon information provided by the interviewerleading to the production of unreliableinformation and potentially false confessions(e.g. Gudjonsson, 2001). These Psychologicalresponses of the interviewee may becompounded as an urgent interview is likely totake place very soon after an arrest when thesuspect may be already be in a state of highanxiety brought on by their fear of beingarrested and the trauma of the arrest itself –arrests of terrorist suspects may involve largenumbers of police officers and even armedpolice due to the need to protect policeofficers from potential threats.

Another problem with the use of ‘robust’interview methods is that of the response ofthe community to the individual’s experience.Should an individual eventually be releasedfrom Police custody, they may take thesenegative experiences and emotionsexperienced back into the community fromwhich they came, perhaps describing theirexperiences to friends, family and othermembers of their community, even the press.This can lead to damage to the publicperception of Law enforcement and damage tocommunity relations which may ultimately becounter-productive to the Police attempts toobtain intelligence about terror groups fromthese very communities. It is also possible thata suspect’s negative experiences may be seizedupon by those who would make politicalcapital out of them and may be used as ameans of recruiting others to a terrorist cause(e.g. Sands, 2008).

Ultimately then, the emotive nature of thesituation in which urgent interviews are carriedout both for the interviewer and the suspectmay increase the risk of interviewers utilizingrobust interview approaches in their legitimatedesire to obtain information quickly. As statedthe use of such interview tactics is not withoutrisks to the reliability of the information thatcan be obtained, to the welfare of the suspectand ultimately to the perception of the Policeby the community. The next section will

consider potential solutions to the problemsraised above, ultimately can Psychologysuggests ways of carrying out urgent interviewthat balance the legitimate needs of Police toobtain information quickly with minimizing therisk of unreliable information?

Interview issuesUrgent interviews in the context of counterterrorism are arguably one of the most difficultsituations a Police interviewer may find him orher self in. Given the issues described above itis probably true to say that urgent interviewsrepresent a powerful test of an individualpolice officers professionalism and integrity. Ifurgent interviews are carried outinappropriately there are many risks to theintegrity of police investigations and to therights of suspects. Ultimately urgentinterviews inappropriately carried out couldgive rise to miscarriages of justice. In whatfollows various suggestions are madeconcerning how these interviews should becarried out.

Interview planningAs with any investigative interview, planningthe urgent interview is essential. Relevant toplanning the interview are issues such as whoshould carry out the interview e.g. gender, age,level of skill and experience, what topic areasneed to be covered and the general approachof interviewers towards the suspect.Underpinning all of this it is essential that theaims and objectives of the urgent interview areclearly identified and communicated to theinterviewers.

Due to the urgency of the interview situationthere is a risk that urgent interviews can becarried out with limited planning, and limitedconsideration of the aims and objectives of theinterview. When carrying out any interview,the interviewers need to be aware of what theyare trying to achieve in order to judge therelative success of the interview. In theabsence of these or if the aims and objectivesare unclear or obscure, the interviewers are ina situation of great uncertainty. In addition,limited planning leads to a possibility thatthose selected to carry out the interview maynot be well equipped to carry it out in terms oftheir skills and experience and in their

iIIRG BULLETIN VOLUME 2 ISSUE 132

iIIRG BULLETIN VOLUME 2 ISSUE 1 33

knowledge of the suspect and the situation.Ultimately the major risk here is that whenfaced with uncertainty and given the pressuresof the interview situation those interviewerswho may be ill-prepared and even ill equippedto carry out the interview may be more likelyto become frustrated in this situation andperhaps rely upon aggressive approaches ifthey perceive that the interview is notachieving any results.

It is important to stress that clearly stated aimsand objectives are the only way to reliablyassess the success of the interview byproviding a yardstick against which theproduct of the interview can be measured. Thisis not a trivial point as without a statement ofwhat the interview needs to achieve it is notclear when urgent interviews should cease orwhen an urgent interview ceases to be anurgent interview as defined by PACE andmoves into being a suspect interview. PACEclearly states that urgent interviews shouldcease when the relevant risk has been averted(see above) or where all relevant questionsdesigned to avert that risk have been put tothe suspect. Importantly PACE prohibitsinterviewing about matters unrelated toaverting the risk. Without clear aims andobjectives there is a possibility thatinterviewers, unsure of what they need toachieve, might continue to interview or carryout multiple interviews when the justificationfor them is unclear and/or interviewers maybegin to ask questions of marginal relevance toaverting the risk. For example questioningcould stray into discussion of the suspect’sinvolvement in an offence or issues concerninghis or her background and lifestyle, which aremore properly covered in a full suspectinterview, under caution and in the presence ofa suspect’s legal representative. Within theterms of the relevant PACE codes it wouldappear to be difficult to justify long periods ofurgent interviewing – can interviews belegitimately argued to be urgent if they haveproceeded for four or five hours or if therewere several urgent interviews carried out withthe same person? – Also when multipleinterviews or long periods of interviewing areused there is a risk of inappropriate andirrelevant questioning as defined by PACE.

Within planning the urgent interviews it is alsoimportant for the interviewers to be clear as towhat broad questions they wish to put to thesuspect so that time is not wasted during theinterview and a clear end point to theinterview can be discerned i.e. when thesuspect has or has not answered the relevantquestions. This means that planning needs toconsider which questions are relevant and toidentify topic and question areas that need tobe avoided to keep the interview within theterms of PACE.

Interview personnelSelection of personnel to carry out an urgentinterview is important. To begin with, it isargued that urgent interviews should becarried out whenever possible by policeofficers who are the most well trainedinterviewers and who have the mostexperienced in carrying out counter terrorisminterviews. Such individuals are most likely tobe well equipped to deal with the pressure ofthe situation. It is suggested that, wherepossible, the interviewers should be trained toadvanced suspect interviewers (tier 3) level asthis training generally provides interviewerswith advanced knowledge of interviewmethods, rapport building and knowledge ofrelevant psychological processes such asresponses of suspects to anxiety, suggestibilityand the impact of interviewer behaviour uponsuspects.

There is a related training issue relevant forthose who have to carry out interviews in acounter terrorism context. It is advised thatinterviewers would benefit from training inrecognizing and dealing with their ownresponses to trauma and anxiety as theseemotions are likely to be the motivators for themore ‘robust’ interview approaches describedabove and managing individual emotions maymitigate against their use.

Where possible it is suggested that in planningurgent interviews, investigators giveconsideration as to who is best suited to carryout the interview i.e. what interviewercharacteristics do they consider will be mostproductive with a particular suspect. Someindividuals might relate much better to a manor a woman or indeed to a younger or older

interviewer. The racial characteristics of theinterviewer may be relevant as may be theirregional accent, religion or physicalappearance. Where investigators feel that suchissues are relevant selecting an interviewerwith the preferred characteristics might bebeneficial in terms of building rapport andtrust with the suspect.

Suspect characteristicsIn planning an urgent interview, it is advisedthat interviewers should spend some timefamiliarizing themselves with everything thatis know about the suspect prior to theinterview, this includes issues such as theirbackground, interests and any particularvulnerabilities such as mental health status,fears, anxieties etc. This will allow interviewersto begin to predict likely behavioural responsesfrom the suspect during the interview and toconsider possible interview approachestowards them. Essentially the argument here isthat interviewers should tailor their approachto the specific characteristics of the suspect, tomaximize the possibility that they can buildrapport with them in order to maximize theamount of information obtained (e.g. Gelles etal, 2006; Roberts, 2008, 2009). It isacknowledged that this is more likely when anarrest is planned or when an interviewer isprivy to intelligence and other informationprior to an arrest. Clearly the amount ofinformation about different individuals willvary and there is likely to be some individualsfor whom limited information is available priorto an arrest.

The behaviour of the suspect during theinterview should also be observed andrecorded, as this is likely to inform interviewersas to the suspect’s attitude towards the police,attitude towards terrorism, their beliefs andfeelings and to their attitude to being asuspect. This can help interviewers to furthertailor their interview behaviour towards thesuspect and may help planning for anysubsequent interviews.

Interviewer behaviourA large body of literature within thebehavioural sciences points to the utility of socalled rapport based interview approaches

over those involving threats in obtainingreliable accounts from suspects during Policeinterviews (e.g. Ord, Shaw & Green, 2008;Milne & Bull, 2003). However, one obviousquestion is how can one develop rapport withan individual in the context of an urgentinterview? The answer to this question is noteasy or straightforward as this interviewcontext is probably one of the most demandingupon the professionalism of Policeinterviewers.

Some suggestions present themselves,certainly following what is likely to be atraumatic arrest it is argued that theinterviewer should not be perceived to havebeen part of the arrest team. The suggestionhere is that the individual responsible for theurgent interview should not carry out thearrest nor should they be involved in searchesof the suspect or their property, or otheractivities that appear part of the arrestprocess.

Threats or aggressive approaches towards thesuspect as described above are generallycounter-productive and do not enhance thelikelihood of obtaining reliable information sothese should be avoided. It is accepted thatsome suspects are likely to be hostile to thepolice, but adopting an aggressive approach tosuch individuals will only serve to increasetheir hostility.

An approach that aims to minimize theindividual’s distress and that provides assupportive an environment as is possible ismost likely to engender rapport with thesuspect. Another possible pay off for theinterviewer if they can affect a supportiveenvironment for the urgent interview is that inall likelihood the suspect will be subjected toan interview under PACE later on and steps todevelop rapport at the urgent interview stageare likely to make rapport easier to achieveduring the full suspect interviews.

When developing rapport interviewers shouldattempt to consider what are the legitimateneeds of the suspect during the urgentinterview. They may well be fearful anduncertain, some individuals may have limitedexperience of law enforcement and others maycome from other cultures in which Policing isnot routed in liberal democratic values, and so

iIIRG BULLETIN VOLUME 2 ISSUE 134

iIIRG BULLETIN VOLUME 2 ISSUE 1 35

these individuals may well genuinely fear fortheir lives or expect that they will be subject totorture. Attempts to reassure them during theurgent interview are likely to help engendertrust as these may allay some of these fears. Inthe case of Islamist extremists, taking somesteps to be respectful of their religious needs,for example reassuring them that in policecustody they will be accorded the rights topray may help. Asking suspects how they feeland if they need anything is useful as again thisshows some attention to them as individuals.

Importantly rapport building should not be thesole activity and it is important thatinterviewers ask legitimate questions duringthe urgent interview. Essentially thesequestions need to be focused upon theimmediate situation and the need to alleviaterisks as defined by PACE. It is advised thatsuspects be informed of the purpose of theinterview and that direct questions concerningwhat they may know should be asked. Directquestions will illustrate the urgency of thesituation, however suspects should be giventime to answer the questions as quickly firingquestions at the suspect and/or repeating thesame question will increase anxiety and may becounter productive.

Interviewers should maintain a calm demeanorwhen addressing the suspect, as displays ofanger and frustration are unlikely to result in afree flow of information. Instead calmreasoning is most likely to be production. If theinterviewer can build rapport with the suspectand can show him or herself to be a warmhuman being it may be possible to present thesuspect with a calm rationale as to why theyshould provide information, potentially ifrapport building is successful the suspect maywish to work with the interviewer to protectothers.

It is noteworthy that for many would-beterrorists, rather like sexual offenders, theyoften do not subject their attitudes andfantasies of terrorist violence, martyrdom andthe impact of the activities on others to anyreal reality testing and they frequently suspendcritical thinking in the context of the planningof a terrorist atrocity (e.g. Horgan, 2005;Rogers et al, 2007). Essentially thinkingpatterns that serve to minimize the suffering ofothers and justify the atrocity emerge from

these individuals. These thinking patternsremain unchallenged by their colleagues untilpolice apprehends these individuals when thewould-be terrorist is frequently asked toaccount for himself or herself. Whenapprehended by police, some individuals theyare now faced with an uncomfortable realitywhere the likely consequences of their actionsbecome available to them. Fear and possiblyguilt and remorse may be experienced by someof these individuals in the face of this realityand a rapport-based supportive approach frominterviewers may provide the conditions inwhich these individuals are most likely to shareinformation. Any other approach is likely toreduce the likelihood of this. In contrast, it isacknowledged that there are likely to beindividuals who are focused upon theirterrorist activities and who will, regardless ofwhat approach is taken with them during theinterview, not provide any information to thePolice. However a priori, interviewers will notnecessarily know who these individuals areand, through the use of a rapport basedapproach, where the suspect is given everyopportunity to speak; the urgent interview mayallow investigators the opportunity to identifysuch an individual.

ConclusionsThe relevant legislation, PACE code H, allowsfor urgent interviews of terrorist suspects butis specific as to the purpose of the urgentinterview, in particular that the interviewsshould cease when all questions relevant toending a specific risk have been put to asuspect. Urgent interviews do not accord thesuspect the same rights normally available tothem in terms of legal representation and sothe onus is on the Police interviewer to protectthe rights and wellbeing of the suspect.Urgent interviews, however, are not withoutrisks which are related to the context of theinterview – one of fear, uncertainty and evenanger following a terrorist atrocity, in whichinterviewers may find themselves under agreat deal of pressure from others to obtainresults. Threatening and otherwise oppressiveinterview tactics are a risk in these contextswith the problem that such approaches maylead to unreliable information, damage to thewell being of the suspect and damage to thereputation of the police. In this context

adequate planning of the urgent interview isvital and clear aims and objectives for theinterview need to be identified. Aconsideration of the characteristics of thesuspect, selection of persons to carry out theinterview, the approach they should taketowards the suspect – one that is focused uponrapport and supporting the legitimate needs ofthe suspect - and the topics and questions thatneed to be covered form an important part ofthis planning process. Ultimately, even in thehigh pressure context of urgent interviews theprinciples of good investigative interviewingapply and it is with reference to these thatinvestigators can hope to obtain the maximumamount of information from the interview andminimize the risks to the integrity of the Policeinvestigation.

ReferencesBurleigh, M (2008) Blood and Rage: A Cultural

history of Terrorism. Harper Collins Gelles, M., McFadden, R., Borum, R. & Vossekuil,

B. (2006) Interviewing Al-Qaeda-relatedsubjects: A law enforcement perspective in T.Williamson (Ed.) Investigative Interviewing:Developments in Research, Rights andRegulation. Willan Publishing.

Horgan, J. (2005). The Psychology of Terrorism.London: Routledge.

Levin, M. (1982) The Case for Torture.Newsweek, June 7th (13).

Milne, R., & Bull, R. (2003). Interviewing by thepolice. In D. Carson & R. Bull (Eds.),Handbook of psychology in legal contexts.Chichester: Wiley.

Ord, B., Shaw, G., & Green, T. (2008)Investigative Interviewing Explained 2ndEdition. Butterworths: Australia.

Rejali, D. (2007) Torture and DemocracyPrinceton.

Roberts, K.A. (2008b) Interviewing IslamicExtremists: the Assessment of Suspects and theDesign of Interview Strategies 3rdInternational Conference on InvestigativeInterviewing, Canada. June 2008.

Roberts, K.A. (2009) Ethical Police Interviewswith Islamist Terror Suspects: TheSignificance of Suspect Behavioural,Cultural and Identity Characteristics in D.Antonius, A. Brown, T. Waters, & M. Ramirez,

& S. J. Sinclair, (editors) InterdisciplinaryAnalyses of Terrorism and Aggression.Cambridge Scholars Publishing(forthcoming).

Rogers, M. B., Loewenthal, K. M., Lewis, C. A.,Amlot, R., Cinnirella, M. C., & Ansari, H.(2007). The Role of Religious Fundamentalismin Terrorist Violence: A Social-PsychologicalAnalysis. The International Review ofPsychiatry, 19(3).

Sands, P. (2008) Torture Team Allen Lane.Silke, A. (Ed.). (2003). Terrorists, Victims and

Society: Psychological Perspectives onTerrorism and Its Consequences. Chichester :Wiley.

Stafford-Smith, C. (2007). Bad Men:Guantánamo Bay and the Secret PrisonsPhoenix.

iIIRG BULLETIN VOLUME 2 ISSUE 136

iIIRG BULLETIN VOLUME 2 ISSUE 1 37

Investigative Interviewing vs Evidence-in-Chief.Gary Shaw, NPIA National Interview Adviser, UKGary.Shaw@npia.pnn.police.uk

‘Interviewers must understandthat their questioning style andoverall approach to thestructures and content ofinvestigative interviews needsto meet the evidential standardsthat are required if they are tobe considered suitable for useas evidence-in-chief.’

It has been well researched and documentedthat the cognitive interview approachsignificantly improves the quantity and qualityof information that is obtained from witnesseswho have experienced an event. Since 1993,operational police officers have been trained inthe cognitive principles and techniques toenable them to conduct effective investigativeinterviews during criminal investigations. Inthe early stages of the training the practicalexercises concentrated on co-operativetruthful eyewitnesses who were independentof the victim or suspect. This wasunderstandable as the new PEACE frameworkwas introduced to a sceptical workforce whoneeded convincing in this new approach,therefore the less complicated the better.

As time has marched on, operational andtraining staff have come to realise that thecognitive interview in its purest form does notalways fit the bill. Victims and witnesses arenot always willing to assist and often they arenot independent of the others involved in theevent and therefore have a degree ofinformation to provide which can assist in theinvestigation. However, the training has notsufficiently addressed the actual structure ofthe interview in sufficient detail to clarify thedifference between these two phases.Similarly, the research that has been conductedhas not looked at the police interview as awhole in that it is not simply about what the

interviewee wants to say it is also about otherrelevant investigative issues.

The training was amended to ensure that theconversation management approach was alsoan essential aspect of the witness interviewingapproach. An interviewer was encouraged toutilise whichever interview method wasappropriate in the individual circumstances.However, there has been little or noassessment of the interview itself, as they wereseldom audio/video recorded what actuallywas taking place was unknown. The scrutiny ofthe written statement was all that took placewith little or no acknowledgement of theprocess that existed beforehand. For example,if an interview was unstructured in thatperhaps it started asking a lot of questionsabout someone’s background instead ofconcentrating on the event or jumped fromtopic to topic this went, by and large,unnoticed. If an interviewer went over certaincritical points on several occasions in order toassist the interviewee in remembering this wasunseen. In the majority of cases the product ofthe interview was the written witnessstatement.

Although the audio/video taping of keywitnesses has existed for the last decade theproduct of the interview was still the writtenstatement, so if the interview itself was hard tofollow it made little difference, as long as therewere no inappropriate questioning techniquesfor the legal profession to criticise. In mostinstances the written statement would be anice neat chronological account of thebackground of the interviewee leading up tothe matter in issue. In disputed prosecutionsthe witness would be expected to attend courtto give a verbal account of their evidence. Oneof the cornerstones of the judicial trial processhas always been the opportunity for the jury toassess the quality of a witness’s evidence givenfrom the witness box.

This age old, tried and tested system is nowfacing a huge challenge as legislation has nowintroduced the potential for a witness’s

account, obtained during a visual recordedinterview, being viewed by the court asevidence- in- chief. The Achieving BestEvidence in Criminal Proceedings: Guidance onInterviewing Victims and Witnesses and usingSpecial Measures (2007 Revision) providesclear direction on the circumstances where theprocesses are applicable. The Guidance alsoprovides advice on how to structure theinterview process in order to maximise theopportunities in which to best gather theevidence. In addition to legislation nationalCPS guidelines allow for the option for thepolice to use transcripts of visual/audio recordsof significant witness interviews instead ofwitness statements. Although on the face of itthe best evidence must surely be an accuraterecord of the account given by the witness, theway in which this is gathered and presentedmust be in a way that satisfies all partiesinvolved in the judicial process.

It has become apparent that in certaincircumstances the way that this is beingundertaken is causing considerable problemsfor the prosecution team preparing the case.The main cause of the problem is thatinterviewers who are conducting investigativeinterviews, no longer turn these into writtenchorological statements, but the actualinterview itself becomes the evidentialproduct. The legal profession are in effectusing the “raw data” of the interview, with allits imperfections, something which they havenever turned their minds too before. If thesenew legislation and guidelines are to beeffective then it is vital that all of those taskedwith managing and conducting theinvestigation together with the members ofthe legal profession understand how eachphase impacts on the other. This is an areawhich is ripe for research if the aim ofachieving best evidence is to be achieved.

Traditionally, the information obtained fromwitness interviews would be put into achronological sequence of events in the formof a written statement. This made it easier forthe reader, however, it never showed how theaccount was given, how long it took, in whatorder and what questions were asked by theinterviewer to assist in the provision of theaccount. As the actual interview itself issometimes the only product that is now being

presented the legal profession are being facedwith lengthy accounts which do not alwaysmeet up to their expectations of a clearrecollection of events in a chronological way.The way in which the evidence is producedespecially in the form of several interviewtranscripts is raising cause for concern. As adirect consequence the witness interviewprocess is starting to attract considerablecriticism from not only those involved in thedefence of suspects but mainly from thoseinvolved in prosecuting and also judging thequality of the evidence put before them.

The question that has to be asked is whetherthis criticism justified. Is it a “shock to thesystem” of the new process and the lack ofunderstanding of what has been happening fordecades behind the scenes that hascontributed to this view being formed? Intruth, the answer probably lies somewhere inthe middle. Interviewers must understand thattheir questioning style and overall approach tothe structures and content of investigativeinterviews needs to meet the evidentialstandards that are required if they are to beconsidered suitable for use as evidence-in -chief.

That said, the legal profession must understandthat there is a major difference to conductingan investigative interview with a witness andthat of writing a witness statement. Thewitness statement was the product of aninterview and represented the considerableprocess that went before this in order toproduce it. What is happening now is that forthe first time, with adult witnesses, is that thelegal profession are being exposed to thewhole interview process. It would becompletely problematic to conduct aninvestigative interview and then conduct anevidence- in -chief interview later. Therefore,the process has to meet the needs of all partiesinvolved in the process. The question is howdoes the interviewer address these two, and attimes, conflicting demands in the midst of aninvestigation.

InvestigationWhen investigators are conducting keyinterviews, they may often not be fullyconversant as to what has taken place and theinitial interview is essential to obtain acomprehensive picture of the full

iIIRG BULLETIN VOLUME 2 ISSUE 138

iIIRG BULLETIN VOLUME 2 ISSUE 1 39

circumstances. The investigative interview maynot follow a chronological sequence of eventsas how witnesses remember and recountinformation may often be sporadic as details ofthe incident are recalled. There may well beother factors that are introduced by thewitness surrounding the incident which may ormay not be relevant. The witness may havedifficulties in providing an accurate andreliable account or be uncooperative or hostile.It is apparent that, at times, not enough timeand effort is being afforded withininvestigations to properly structure and planinterviews of essential witnesses, whether theyare vulnerable, intimidated or significant. Thatis not to say that witnesses are not being dealtwith professionally in being afforded what thatare entitled to and having any individual needsattended. However, not enough attention isbeing given to the aim and objectives of theinterview and how the information is to beobtained and then later presented.

The use of Interview Advisers in supportingboth the management team and the actualinterview team to develop appropriate andeffective interview plans is still the exceptionrather than the rule. Information obtainedfrom witnesses in the early stages can eithermake or break the investigation. This materialcan assist in proving the case, identifyingsignificant lines of enquiry and contribute tothe identification of the offender but theconverse can also be true. Interviewers mustrealise that they have a major part to play inconducting a structured investigative interviewwhich can meet the needs of both theinvestigation in the initial stages and standscrutiny later when decisions are madeconcerning its use as evidence in chief.

An essential element of ensuring that thesetwin objectives are achieved is the planningthat goes into structuring the interview.Considering clearly defined aims andobjectives are vital to maximise the chances ofachieving best evidence. Interviewers are beingcorrectly trained and encouraged to probeaccounts in order to obtain as much detail aspossible to assist in the investigation.However, interviewers, irrespective of theinterview model that they subsequently use toobtain and develop an account, must structurethe process so that not only does it meet the

needs of the victim allowing them to give anaccount, but also the needs of decision makersin the investigation and the subsequentprosecution team.

Information prior to theinterviewThere is a view that it is more productive thatthe interviewer is given limited informationprior to conducting an interview to ensure thatthey cannot contaminate the intervieweesaccount by introducing facts themselves.However, this does not mean that theinterviewer is not provided with anyinformation at all about the matter.

It would seem obvious that the witness wouldexpect that the interviewer is aware of at leastthe allegation that is being investigated andother relevant information. Interviewers mustbe aware of certain information prior to theinterview, however, this is not to say that theyneed to be aware of all aspects of aninvestigation and exactly what every otherwitness is saying about the event. The natureof the matter under investigation, where itoccurred, how the person they are to interviewhas been identified, what category the witnessis to be interviewed under, what has thewitness previously said, any relevantbackground information about the witness,what product is to be produced at theconclusion of the inter view, are examples ofwhat should be given to the interviewer. Thiswill help in the approach and in the structureof the interview. After the initial phase ofobtaining the account as described below, theinterviewer, if not already aware, must bebriefed fully about what aspects should becovered in the Investigative Areas phase (seebelow).

Rapport buildingEvery situation is different, are as individualsbut there is a framework that can assist theinterviewer in setting the scene as to what isrequired. Interviewers are allowed to speak tointerviewees before they conduct theinterview often as a matter of professionalcourtesy and this can greatly assist in rapportbuilding. The full explanation of the optionsthat are available to a witness by means of the

Achieving Best Evidence guidelines should beprovided. On several occasions the investigatormaking the initial contact may well conductthe later interview. There may have to be aninitial questioning phase to establish what thewitness has said in order to assist in thedetermination of what is to happen next. Thisclearly should not go into an in-depthquestioning of what has happened, but besufficient to establish the outline of what hastaken place. This will assist in deciding whatcategory the witness is to be interviewedunder as this in turn impacts on what productthe interview is to be presented in.

If the interview is to be conducted by a personother than the initial contact person then thisinformation should be provided to them. If theinterview is to be visually/audio recorded, anyrapport/discussion that took place previouslycan be outlined by the interviewer at theoutset. If rapport has been established thereseems little point in going into a “falserapport” stage merely to show to others thatthe interviewer is sticking to the model, assometimes happens. In those rare occasionswhen an interviewer meets a witness for thefirst time in the interview room they shouldmake a judgement based on what they havebeen briefed about as to whether a rapportphase is appropriate. For example the witnessmay well be eager to give an account as soonas possible and the rapport building attemptmay indeed be unproductive. Rapport shouldbe seen as the interviewer being professional,in dealing with the witness’s needs andconcerns, explaining the process of what is tohappen, continuing throughout the entireinterview and not be viewed in isolation.

There has to be a purpose behind it whichshould be to create the best possible workingenvironment to achieve an accurate andreliable account of what the witness has to say.

IncidentIn too many instances, after the initialintroductory phase, the interviewer at the startof the interview focuses on the history of theinterviewee or the general background to theincident and some seem reluctant to deal withthe main reason for the interview. In themajority of cases the interviewer should askthe witness to concentrate on the matter in

issue, the incident which is subject of theinvestigation. In the situation where a witnesshas experienced an event either by being avictim themselves, or as a witness, this is whatthe interviewer should ask the interviewee torecall. The interviewer should have a clear aimthat they after a full account from the witnessconcerning what happened. The interviewmodel that the interviewer decides to utilise tofocus and expand the account should be basedon all of the circumstances.

If an evidence- in- chief application is to bemade at a later stage it is this account that islikely to be played in court. Clearly, theremaybe areas within it which may have to beedited out, but as long as the interviewers styleof questioning or interaction is appropriate,the majority of what the witness statesconcerning the incident should be admissible.The interviewer must not err from the aim andstart asking questions and introducing areasthat detract from obtaining the incident detail.If the witness introduces areas that are notrelevant to the incident they can be exploredlater if considered necessary. It may be aconsiderable time later that the interviewrecord is viewed or a transcript is prepared,therefore, it is important to drive theinvestigation forward by providing keyinformation to other investigators. Whilst theinvestigation is still “live” an urgent “lines ofenquiry” summary can be provided to allowspecific actions to be allocated andinvestigated. Once the interview has beencompleted a chronological “investigative”summary can be prepared to assist othersinvolved in the investigation e.g., those incharge, suspect interview teams, and theenquiry teams to have a clear understanding ofwhat was said. Later a Record of the VisualInterview (ROVI) can be prepared for use as amore comprehensive guide through theinterview. The Achieving Best EvidenceGuidelines provide a detailed account of whatshould be included.

Investigative areasOnce a comprehensive account has beenachieved then topic areas which theinterviewer feels are relevant to assist in theinvestigation can be introduced. These mayinclude victimology, background, relationship

iIIRG BULLETIN VOLUME 2 ISSUE 140

iIIRG BULLETIN VOLUME 2 ISSUE 1 41

to others, knowledge of other individuals,discussions with others, and mobile phoneusage among other things. In manycircumstances this section of an interview maycontain certain areas which may beinadmissible at court or not even proverelevant later but in the initial stages of aninvestigation may assist in identifyingsignificant lines of enquiry. This may ultimatelyresult in the suspect being identified andtherefore is a crucial aspect of the witnessinterview. However, it should not be mixedtogether with the incident phase, because, ifthe interview is to be used as evidence-in-chiefand requires editing it may prove impossible todo so coherently, and therefore, the possibilityof playing the visual record is diminished. Theprocess as described above in producing theproduct of the incident phase aspect of theinterview can be adopted here too.

Significant evidentialomissions or significantevidential inconsistenciesIf after having completed the interview, ananalysis is made of what was said and itappears that there are significant differencesto what has been gleaned within theinvestigation, a decision has to be made as toif, when, and how, these are to be dealt with byway of a repeated interview. The points may beso significant that if they are not addressedthen the investigation cannot proceed, or theymay need to be addressed so that the enquirycan progress in an alternative direction. Theremay be a number of reasons why these mayhave occurred and careful consideration mustbe given as to how they should be approached.

PresentationAs decision makers have been operating withwritten witness statements when deciding onappropriate courses of action there is littlewonder that when they are presented withlengthy transcripts or ROVI’s which aresometimes difficult to follow that they find thisa daunting task. Interviewers must structuretheir approach within the interview so that thepresentation of the content can be understoodas easily as possible. The use of an accuratechronological “Investigative” summary to go

with the ROVI or transcript will help others tohave a clear picture of what exactly theevidence is that the witness can give. This willassist the SIO/IO in the investigation, thesuspect interviewers when making decisionsaround interview plans and pre interviewbriefings with legal representatives. It will alsoassist in early discussions with the CPS as tothe most appropriate course of action and anylater “special measures” applications. It shouldalso assist in ensuring that there are no laterrequests from other members of the legalprofession to transfer transcripts into writtenstatements.

SummaryIn the transparent arena in which the policeservice now operates and the way in whichevidence is obtained being open to the highestpossible scrutiny it is essential that key witnessevidence is recorded accurately. It is essentialthat if the introduction of the use of visuallyrecorded evidence-in –chief is to be successfulthen the structure of interviews must meet theexpectations of the legal profession. Similarly ifthe use of transcripts to replace witnessstatements is to be effective then the structureand presentation of the product must becapable of being easily understood. Howeverthe legal profession must come to terms withthe fact that the days of chronological witnessaccounts are a thing of the past as they cometo understand how the investigative interviewprocess is undertaken. The service is and willcontinue to invest financially in acquiringsuitable visual recording equipment and thetraining of investigative interviewers to ensurethe best possible service is delivered.Therefore, it is crucial that this investment isnot adversely affected by poorly planned orineffectively conducted interviewing.Conversely the legal profession mustunderstand that there will be a considerabledifference to using the actual interview as theevidential product instead of the chronologicalwitness statement.

Research into the many facets included withinthis process of obtaining accounts and laterpresenting them can only assist in theunderstanding of everyone connected to theinvestigative interview process.

iIIRG BULLETIN VOLUME 2 ISSUE 142

‘The general impression ofPEACE was overwhelminglypositive, with the systematicand thorough nature of theapproach being seen as a keyselling point.’

In the November 2008 issue of BlueLine – aNational Police Magazine in Canada – wewrote about an investigative interviewingtraining initiative that resulted from ongoingcollaborations between the RoyalNewfoundland Constabulary and the BoundedRationality and Law Lab at Memorial Universityof Newfoundland. In that article, we critiquedthe Reid model of investigative interviewing (aubiquitous interrogation method in Canada),outlined the PEACE model of interviewing anddiscussed the benefits of this method, andproposed that Canadian police agencies take aserious look at implementing the PEACE modelof interviewing; especially since there is verylittle training on investigative interviewing ofwitnesses and victims in Canada.

In that same month, the first author andSergeant Patrick Roche (RNC) travelled to SouthWales Police Agency to observe PEACE trainingbeing conducted by Detective Sergeant MartynHilbourne (also an iIIRG member) and DetectiveConstable Andy Hopkins. This was an invaluablelearning experience and both Martyn and Andywere extremely generous in providing trainingmaterials (e.g., documents and videos) anddiscussing all practical and policy issuesconcerning the implementation of PEACE inCanada. Valuable advice regarding the initialchallenges to implementing PEACE and trainingdocuments were also graciously provided byRoss Grantham (another iIIRG member) andNina Westera from New Zealand Police Agency(with the assistance of Mary Schollum). Other

members of the iIIRG group, Rebecca Milne andGary Shaw, also provided sound advice on thesteps required to initiate our undertaking. Theseinternational collaborations will continue to havea positive impact on investigative interviewingtraining in Canada in the foreseeable future.

Between January 5th and 9th, 2009, the PEACE'train the trainers' course commenced for sixmembers of the RNC (see photo). As far as weare aware, these are the first six police officersto receive training in North America on PEACE.The 40 hour course was delivered to 5constables and 1 sergeant. All but one officerwho was selected to receive the training hadover 20 years of policing experience. Theresearch lab proved to be a good location for thetraining because it allowed non-interviewingtrainers to view and critique interviews in situand for the interviewing officers to receivefeedback immediately. Typically, the morningsinvolved theory (e.g., information on memory,confessions, cognitive interviewing) and theafternoons involved applying the informationlearned in the morning sessions.

The PEACE model was well received by thetrainers. The general impression of PEACE wasoverwhelmingly positive, with the systematicand thorough nature of the approach beingseen as a key selling point. Other well receivedcomponents were the planning andpreparation of interview, inquisitorial nature ofthe interview process, the collection ofdetailed and accurate information, rapportbuilding, note taking, the cognitive interview,conversation management, and learning todistinguish between appropriate andinappropriate types questions. In addition,there was a 24% increase in the amount ofknowledge gained by the officers (based on preand post course knowledge checks). The nextphase of the initiative is to expand the trainingto another group of RNC members over thenext 12 months and evaluate the effectivenessof the training.

PEACE comes to Canada.Brent Snook, Memorial University of Newfoundland, Canadabsnook@play.psych.mun.ca

John C. House, Inspector, Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, Canadajhouse@mun.ca

iIIRG BULLETIN VOLUME 2 ISSUE 1 43

‘With the new Police PEACEmodel of videotapedinterviewing rolling out to allPolice districts, there wasinitial concern that the forensicinterviewing of children wouldno longer be perceived as aspecialist task’

Legislative backgroundIn 1989 New Zealand introduced legislation toallow evidence-in-chief by way of videotape forsexual abuse complainants who were agedyounger than seventeen at the time of trial.Although live cross-examination was still arequirement at trial, application could be madefor closed circuit television (CCTV) to be used.Common law precedence meant thatvideotaped evidence and CCTV were alsoallowed for children alleging physical abuse,and for children who had witnessed seriouscrimes such as homicide and domesticviolence.

Responsibility for providing a child forensicinterviewing service was given jointly to thePolice and the statutory social services agency,Children, Young Persons and their FamiliesService (now Child, Youth and Family). Earlyforensic interviewing practice was guided bythe Evidence (Videotaping of ChildComplainants) Regulations 1990 and jointPolice/Child Youth and Family OperatingGuidelines. A review of these operationalguidelines commenced in 2004 and an updatedpractice document was disseminated in 2007(NZ Police and Child, Youth and Family, 2007).

Positive legislative change occurred by way ofthe Evidence Act 2006 and the EvidenceRegulations 2007. The modes of evidenceoptions were no longer limited to children, andapplications can now be made to have the

evidence-in-chief of any vulnerablecomplainant or witness heard by way of pre-recorded videotape, regardless of the age ofthe witness or the nature of the alleged crime.The New Zealand Police have implemented anadapted PEACE (UK) interviewing model andvideotaped interviews with adult complainantsand witnesses are now occurring (seeGrantham, 2007). Data on how many adultvideotapes are being admitted into criminalcourts is not yet available, given the recency ofthe legislative changes.

Child forensic video unitsThe first Video Units were established in 1989,with a small group of Police and Child Youthand Family (CYF) personnel being selected fora national joint training

programme on forensic interviewing. Thereare currently 23 Video Units operating, moststaffed by full time Forensic Interviewers andsome by Forensic Interviewers who also haveresponsibility for other work within theiragency.

The video units are often co-located withinPolice or CYF offices, but can be staffed byForensic Interviewers from either agency.Some units are located in stand-alone locationsand one multi-agency centre (Puawaitahi) hasbeen established in Auckland.

The geographical positioning of the unitsensures that every Police and CYF office has aforensic interviewing service available to referchildren to. However the design of that servicemay vary depending on how the interviewingservice is perceived and managed locally, andthe degree to which interviewer specialisationis encouraged. Areas that operate units staffedby fulltime Forensic Interviewers tend to havemore credibility with their stakeholders, andreferrals to these units tend to be of a highervolume. This in turn leads to increasedcompetency, standardised interviewingpractice, more robust peer supervisionmechanisms, and ultimately better access tojustice for children.

Child forensic interviewing in New Zealand.Karen Wilson, Child, Youth and Family, New Zealandkaren.wilson001@cyf.govt.nz

iIIRG BULLETIN VOLUME 2 ISSUE 144

National training for childforensic interviewingTraining is limited to selected staff of thePolice and CYF, and forensic interviews withchildren are not undertaken by any otherindividuals or agencies. Nationally theForensic Interviewer practitioner groupnumbers less than forty at any one time,making training (and ongoing training) morecost effective, specialisation easier to achieveand practice standardisation more attainable.

Forensic Interviewing training takes place onlyonce a year and is held at the Royal NewZealand Police College. Ten social workersfrom CYF and ten officers from the Police areselected following a national applicationprocess. Most trainees are women and mosthave a good level of experience within theiragencies before applying. Attendance andsuccessful completion of the course ismandatory before any live interviews can beconducted in the field.

The annual course is a two week residentialprogramme that includes lectures on sexualabuse dynamics, child development (language,memory, recall and suggestibility),international best practice for forensicinterviewing, New Zealand legislation andRegulations, sexual offender profiles, andstress management. The interview format isbroken into small components and taughtthrough role-play training tapes, livedemonstration and role play practice.Experienced Forensic Interviewers then assesstrainees while they conduct a live interview onvideotape with an adult actor playing the roleof a child alleging abuse.

The course is intended to be introductory, andin some ways it would be more appropriate toconceptualise it as a selection process ratherthan a licence to interview. For example sometrainees are assessed as not being suited to thework and are never used in a ForensicInterviewer role. Others are assessed asneeding a period of monitoring live interviewsand further role play practice beforeprogressing to “simple” live interviews undersupervision. The most competent trainees arealso advised to monitor several live interviewsbefore conducting a live interview themselves,

although sometimes local resource needsoverride this recommendation. This carriessome risk, particularly in a geographical areathat has limited interviewer specialisation andtherefore less robust peer review processes.

Post-training practice reviewIn areas where a strong specialised Video Unitexists new interviewers receive regularfeedback and critique from experiencedForensic Interviewers. This occurs through livemonitoring of the new interviewer, peer tapecritique after interviews, and recommendedperiodic external supervision with apsychologist. The Police have a mandatedpolicy that their Forensic Interviewers attendpsychological supervision at least every sixmonths, and while this is not mandated for CYFForensic Interviewers it does occur in manyVideo Units.

Forensic Interviewers have been proactive inestablishing a practitioner driveninfrastructure to ensure that a system ofpractice monitoring is in place. Most parts ofthe country now hold localised peer tapesupervision days, and larger regional peer tapesupervision meetings, two or three times ayear. This allows interviewers to receiveongoing critique, support and advice from theirpeers.

Practitioners have also established a NationalPeer Review Conference which is held on anannual basis and hosted by different VideoUnits. At this two to three day meeting allForensic Interviewers from New Zealand (bothPolice and CYF) come together to hear relevantspeakers, discuss research developments andpractice issues, and receive peer tapesupervision in small supervisory groups. ThisPeer Review structure is designed to ensurethere is some monitoring and standardisationof practice for all forensic interviews that areconducted in the country. It is hoped thatthese post-course review processes canminimise practice slippage and identify thepeer support needs of practitioners working inisolation from other Forensic Interviewers.

In addition to all the above, a more effectivestructure for quality auditing could be achievedby designating an experienced ForensicInterviewer in each of the four regions to

iIIRG BULLETIN VOLUME 2 ISSUE 1 45

monitor practice quality and standardisation.They could be mandated to review a randomsample of videotapes for each interviewer intheir region, making direct recommendationsto Managers about competency levels andsupervision needs, and providing infrastructureliaison between the Video Units, the nationaltraining programme and the Police and CYFnational offices. These four quality auditorscould report back to the full interviewer groupat each national peer review meeting, andcould meet regularly with the ForensicInterviewing national trainer to highlightpractice strengths and deficits. This moreformalised structure would ideally lead to anationally recognised training accreditationframework for Forensic Interviewers, and aclearer career path that recognises thespecialist nature of the role.

Entry criteria for a forensicinterviewChildren who have made clear allegations thatabuse has occurred (or that they havewitnessed third party abuse or a serious crime)are referred by Police or CYF to a ChildForensic Video Unit. The general age range isthree to sixteen, although historically some ofthe older children have opted to make awritten statement to the Police rather than avideotape. Although there is some regionalvariation, most Video Units also conductvideotaped forensic interviews for childrenwho have made no allegations but areconsidered to be at high risk. The overall entrycriteria can therefore be summarised as:• the child has made clear (or unclear)

allegations• no allegation made but medical findings

that substantiate abuse• no allegation made but offender admission• no allegation made but extreme and

persistent sexualised behaviours• no allegation made but contact with a

known offender• no allegation made but abuse witnessed by

a third party

All interviews are videotaped and follow a setintroduction format that covers the Regulationrequirements for admissibility into the courtsetting. Once the invitational question is

asked (ie. What have you come to talk abouttoday?) the interview proceeds down anevidential pathway if a child makes anallegation, and an exploratory pathway(initially utilising transitional questioning) ifthe child makes no allegations or is reluctant torepeat a prior allegation. If an allegation ismade at any point during an exploratoryinterview the questioning format reverts to anevidential one. Once completed all videotapes,whether or not they contain an allegation, aredeemed to be forensic interviews and aresubjected to the same legislated restrictions interms of copying, viewing, secure storage andchain of evidence management.

The format of the forensicinterviewPrior to a forensic interview the ForensicInterviewer conducts an interview with thechild’s non-offending parent(s) or caregiver(s).The purpose is to provide information aboutthe process, gain informed written consent,clarify background information relevant to theinterview and to consider alternativehypotheses. Notes are kept to summarise thecontent of the adult interview, and these aresometimes admitted into court.

The child to be interviewed has a brief childfamiliarisation process prior to the videotapedinterview commencing. This includes showingthem the room and camera equipment,introducing the person who will be themonitor, and answering any questions theymight have. A set format is followed and theInterviewer does not raise the reason for theinterview with the child, or refer to any priorallegations that they may have made.

One interviewer is used for each interview andthey are the only person in the interview roomwith the child. A monitor (either anothertrained Forensic Interviewer or the PoliceOfficer in charge of the case) monitor theinterview from a separate room via a closedcircuit television link (without using earpieces). They take summary (but not verbatim)notes of the interview and provide furtherquestions to the Interviewer at the monitor’sbreak, which occurs towards the end of theinterview.

iIIRG BULLETIN VOLUME 2 ISSUE 146

The New Zealand forensic interview model isadapted from evidence based internationalmodels such as the American NationalInstitute of Child Health and HumanDevelopment (NICHD) model (Orbach,Hershkowitz & Lamb et alia, 2000), and the UKpractice protocol for child forensic interviews,Achieving Best Evidence or ABE (Home Office,2002, previously the Memorandum of GoodPractice, 1992). Narrative elaboration onneutral events at rapport is used to familiarisechildren with the free narrative techniquesused at the substantive phase (Sternberg, K.,Lamb, M. et alia, 1997), and ground-rules arealways covered and practised. A form ofcompetency test (truth, lies and promises) iscovered with all children and young peoplebeing interviewed prior to moving to thesubstantive phase of the interview. Table 1outlines the current format followed in anevidential interview with a child who makes anallegation at interview.

Table 1: Summary of ForensicInterview Format

Exploratory interviews diverge at the point achild says they do not know why they arethere. In these cases Interviewers do notintroduce prior knowledge, but invite free

narrative on a range of topics that mightprovide relevant or clarifying informationabout the referral concerns.

The New Zealand format is reviewed annuallyprior to the national training course, and allinterviewers in the country are sent anupdated version of the training manual eachyear. Changes made may seem small, but canbe of significant importance depending on newresearch developments or court precedentsthat have occurred.

The majority of interviews take between thirtyminutes and an hour and activities within theinterview are limited to play-dough andcolouring in for a younger child, and a kooshball (fidget ball) for older children. Interviewaids are sometimes used within the interviewand may include scene plans, body outlinediagrams (without genitals), and clothed non-anatomical rag dolls to show positioning.These tools are only introduced if the children’sverbal accounts are unclear or confusing, andattempts to clarify their meaning verbally havebeen unsuccessful. Any diagrams or writtenmaterials are treated as potential exhibits forcourt and are labelled accordingly and heldsecurely.

Once the videotaped interview has beencompleted a debriefing should occur with thechild, and a separate feedback session shouldtake place with the adults accompanying thechild. Most Forensic Interviewers provide awritten summary report to the Police and thesocial worker including recommendations forfollow up interventions, such as medicalexaminations and counselling.

National Data on ForensicInterviewsApproximately 2,000 videotaped forensicinterviews with children are conducted eachyear in New Zealand. For the past ten yearsevery Video Unit has recorded

statistical data after each interview, includingthe age, gender and ethnicity of the child, thereason for the referral, the relationship to thealleged offender and the type of offencesalleged. This practitioner driven initiative hasresulted in whole-of-country data capturesince 1998, with the national statistics sheets

Introduction• Introductions and explanation of role• Rapport/narrative elaboration training on neutral

events• Developmental check/concepts (for 5 year olds

and under)• Explanation and practice of ground-rules• Competency test (truth, lies and promises)

Evidential Detail• Invite child to say why they are there• Free narrative account• Establish range and frequency of alleged

offending• Detailed free narrative account of each alleged

offence• More focused questions as required• Recent complaint evidence (first person told)• Monitor’s break

Closure• Clarification and further questions• Invitation for child to question• Revert to neutral topic

iIIRG BULLETIN VOLUME 2 ISSUE 1 47

being collated annually at the Manuwai VideoUnit, Hamilton. Reports and articles arewritten analysing trends, with the informationbeing disseminated to stakeholders inpublished and unpublished reports (for a morein depth analysis of this data see Basher, 1999;Basher 2004; Wilson, 2007).

Although data analysis is limited by Excelcapabilities, and by the fact that theallegations made may be substantiated orunsubstantiated, the information gathered isgenerally consistent from year to year andinforms knowledge and practice. A three yearsample (2000-2002) was analysed with aparticular focus on the interviews conductedfor sexual abuse concerns. In that three yearperiod 5652 interviews were conducted with5384 children, with 96% having a singleinterview. Overall 65% of those interviewedwere girls and 35% were boys. Nine per centwere aged under five, 56% were between fiveand ten years, 25% between eleven andthirteen, and 10% were older than thirteen.

Seventy-five per cent of the children werereferred for sexual abuse concerns, with girlsmaking up 71% of this group and boys 29%.Sixty-eight percent had been referred aftermaking a prior allegation to someone, and 32%for no prior allegation but high risk concerns.Of the children who had made a priorallegation, 88% repeated this at interview, with12% exhibiting reluctance to report, or in somecases providing an alternative hypothesis forthe initial reported concern. Of note was thehigh allegation rate at interview (33%) forchildren referred for contact with knownsexual offenders (where no prior allegation hadbeen made). Although the allegations werenot always about the actual person of concernit does suggest there is efficacy in continuingto refer this group for forensic interviews.

Despite the same entry criteria to a forensicinterview process, boys referred for sexualabuse concerns (prior disclosure and high riskcombined) were less likely than girls to makean allegation at interview (57% as compared to79%). Overall the allegation rate increasedwith age, with the under 5’s having the lowestrate (40%) and the 14-16 year olds the highest(88%). Seventy nine percent of those agedover eight made an allegation as compared to47% of those under eight, which is indicative of

referrals for the older, more verbal age groupbeing made after a prior allegation, rather thanfor general risk concerns.

The alleged perpetrators of sexual abuse were96% male and 4% female. Adolescent boys (12-16) were named in 17% of the allegations.Ninety-three percent of the alleged offenderswere known to the child (53% intra-familial and40% extra-familial) and 7% were strangers.Sexual violation (vaginal, anal or oralpenetration) accounted for 35% of theallegations made.

For the past year two Video Units have pilotedseparate data collection on delay between thefirst occurrence of alleged abuse anddisclosure, with qualitative information beingrecorded on the reason the child gave atinterview for the delay. Although pilot data isyet to be fully analysed, all ForensicInterviewers in the country have now beenrecording this information on the statisticssheet since July, 2008. The information will becollated and reviewed in July, 2009.

Research has been conducted in the past onNew Zealand children’s experience of thecriminal justice system including their forensicinterview (Davies, 1999). This research createdmomentum to establish New Zealand’s firstmulti-agency centre (Puawaitahi), and resultedin the implementation of a court educationprogramme for all child witnesses prior to trial.It also highlighted the lack of national datacapture on the modes of evidence permittedfor child witnesses, and the outcomes at trial.A new research project is now underway(funded by the NZ Law Foundation, theMinistry of Social Development, the Ministryof Justice and the Police) to see what barriersstill remain for child witnesses, and how theirinteraction with the criminal system can befurther improved.

Moving forwardConducting forensic interviews with childrenon videotape is a highly transparent andaccountable task. Forensic Interviewers needto have confidence that their interviewingformat is based on best practice models forchildren, and is informed by internationalresearch on language, memory, recall, andsuggestibility. It is a potentially litigious area

iIIRG BULLETIN VOLUME 2 ISSUE 148

of practice and a high level of competency isneeded to ensure that children are interviewedappropriately, and that their videotapedinterviews are legally admissible. Moreimportantly the forensic interview has a childprotection function and assists investigatorsand social workers to target resourcesappropriately to ensure children’s safety ismaximised.

It is now twenty years since New Zealandintroduced legislation allowing children’sevidence-in-chief to be given by way of pre-recorded videotape. Those twenty years havealso produced a huge body of internationalliterature and research on the best formats touse when interviewing children about allegedabuse. To keep the New Zealand forensicinterviewing service current and credible it hasbeen imperative that practice guidelines havekept up to date with these best practicerecommendations. The small specialisednature of the Forensic Interviewer field in NewZealand has enabled national peer reviewprocesses to be established and maintained,and these continue to be an effectivemechanism for facilitating practicestandardisation and the dissemination ofrelevant information. A national interviewergroup email list allows quick dispersal ofrelevant information outside of these peerreview meetings.

However, there are future challenges for thefield. While Police and CYF managers generallyrecognise the complex nature of childinterviewing, there are still some areas that forvarious reasons have not established a strongVideo Unit structure or designated full-timeForensic Interviewers. The infrastructure thatdoes exist is largely practitioner driven and isreliant on pro-active individuals to maintainthe review structures and momentum.Internationally practice slippage after initialforensic interviewing training is a recognisedproblem (Sternberg. Lamb, Davies & Westcott,2001; Lamb et al, 2002) and a more top-downinfrastructure in New Zealand would reducethis risk and ensure that succession planning isin place. Initiatives such as introducing a two

tier training system (e.g., an initial selectioncourse followed by a more in depth trainingcourse), and a national accreditation process,would be more achievable if driven from thehigher levels of the two parent organisations.

With the new Police PEACE model ofvideotaped interviewing rolling out to allPolice districts, there was initial concern thatthe forensic interviewing of children would nolonger be perceived as a specialist task. Itseemed that potentially police officers, nottrained in forensic interviewing, could conductvideotaped interviews with child and teenagecomplainants, failing to recognise the need fora more specialist evidence-based interviewformat that is distinct from a cognitiveinterview with an adult. However, in recentdiscussions the Police have undertaken toensure that any confusion is minimised, andthat all children (sixteen and under) arereferred through the Forensic Interviewpathway when a serious crime has been allegedor witnessed. Older vulnerable witnesses, forexample adults with special needs, may also bediverted to the forensic interviewing processon a case by case basis.

One suggested way forward has been toumbrella forensic interviewing under theleadership of the Police PEACE infrastructure,while clearly delineating it from theinvestigative interviewing models used foradults and suspects, and ensuring that itremains a specialist area of practice. If thisoccurs both Police and CYF would need towork together at the national level to ensureongoing consultation and joint decisionmaking continues. The benefits could be thestandardisation of accreditation processesacross all the investigative interviewingspecialisations, and the formalisation of qualityaudit systems following training. The biggestrisk over time would be that responsibility forforensic interviewing would default to Policepersonnel, and that the current joint agencyapproach would be lost. This would be adisappointing outcome after twenty years ofjoint service delivery that has focused on bothcriminal justice and child protection.

iIIRG BULLETIN VOLUME 2 ISSUE 1 49

ReferencesBasher, G. (1999). Children who talk on tape:

The facts behind the pictures. Social WorkNow, 12, 4-12

Basher, G. (2004). Videotaped interviewing inNew Zealand: a three year analysis. SocialWork Now, 27, 11-18.

Davies, E. (1999). Sexual abuse investigation andcriminal court processes: Doing justice to thechild? Unpublished doctoral dissertation:University of Auckland.

Grantham, R. (2008). Investigativeinterviewing in New Zealand. iIIRG Bulletin,1, No. 1, 10-12.

Home Office, (1992). Memorandum of goodpractice: on video recorded interviews withchild witnesses for criminal proceedings.London, HMSO.

Home Office, (2002). Achieving best evidence incriminal proceedings: guidance for vulnerableor intimidated witnesses, including children.United Kingdom Protocol Document.

Lamb, M., Sternberg, K., Orbach, Y., Esplin, P. &Mitchell, S. (2002). Is ongoing feedbacknecessary to maintain the quality ofinvestigative interviews with allegedlyabused children? Applied DevelopmentalScience, 6, 35-41.

New Zealand Children, Young Persons andTheir Families Service and the New ZealandPolice. (1996). Evidential and diagnosticinterviewing on video under the EvidenceAmendment Act 1989: Joint CYPFS and Policeoperating guidelines. Wellington:Department of Social Welfare.

New Zealand Police & Child Youth and Family.(2007). Forensic interviewing with at-riskchildren and young people on videotape; JointChild, Youth and Family and Police Policy andOperating Guidelines. Wellington.

Orbach,Y., Hershkowitz, I, Lamb, M., Sternberg,K., Esplin, P. & Horowitz, D. (2000).Assessing the value of structured protocolsfor forensic interviews of alleged childabuse victims. Child, Abuse & Neglect, 24,733-752.

Sternberg, K., Lamb, M., Davies, G. & Westcott,H. (2001). The Memorandum of GoodPractice: theory versus application. Child,Abuse & Neglect, 25, 669-681.

Sternberg, K., Lamb, M., Hershkowitz, I.,Yudilevitch, L., Orbach, Y., Esplin, P. &Hovav, M. (1997). Effects of introductorystyle on children’s abilities to describeexperiences of sexual abuse. Child, Abuseand Neglect, 21, 1133-1146.

Wilson, K.J. (2007) Forensic Interviewing inNew Zealand. In M. Pipe, M. Lamb, Y.Orbach & AC. Cederborg, (Eds.). Child sexualabuse: disclosure, delay and denial (pp. 265-281). Mahwah, New Jersey: LawrenceErlbaum Associates.

Wilson, K.J. (2008). The New Zealand forensic(evidential) interviewing structure for childrenmaking allegations of abuse. National trainingmanual for New Zealand Police and ChildYouth and Family. Unpublished manuscript.

!"#$%"&'(%&)(%"#*+,&-+#./+*$+,*&0*$(#&1#+2"%*+$34&0*$(#&5%+6#.7"4&&8+%9+#.:69&8;&<=5&>?@?&@>;&A?B?&'(%"#*+,7+#./+*$+,*C6*$(#D6,D/E&FFFD'(%"#*+,7+#./+*$+,*D#"$&

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

G:(%$&!(/%*"*&&H)$255(1(+)$1+$1"#$',#5(1$@#2,()/$'+0,-#-$!"#$F#)1,#$7+,$*+,#)-('$.()/0(-1('-$+77#,-$52:$'+0,-#-$3,()'(3266:$5#-(/)#5$7+,$3+6('#$2)5$6#/26$3,+7#--(+)26-<$$I#$+77#,$1"#-#$'+0,-#-$7,+4$1(4#$1+$1(4#$21$G-1+)$D)(;#,-(1:8$@01$9(66$26-+$@:$2,,2)/#4#)18$+77#,$'+0,-#-$()$3+6('#$7+,'#-$2)5$,#/(+)26$1,2()()/$#-12@6(-"A4#)1-<$$=0,$-0(1#$+7$-"+,1$'+0,-#-$'0,,#)16:$()'605#-J$

!" H)1#,;(#9()/$9(1"$2)$()1#,3,#1#,$!" *+,#)-('$1#E1$2)26:-(-$!" F+0,1,++4$6()/0(-1('-$

I#$2,#$26-+$"233:$1+$5#-(/)$'+0,-#-$1+$4##1$5(77#,#)1$,#A>0(,#4#)1-$+)$,#>0#-1<$

HG,&)(%"#*+,&-+#./+*$+,*&6#I&($:"%&,%"I+$&J"6%+#.&,(/%*"*D&

Indico Systems is changing the way the criminal justice sector approaches the secure recording, transcribing andmanagement of video and audiointerviews and related evidence.

Don’t get left behind.

Indico in the interview roomPACE-compliant, high quality and secure interview recordings on CD or DVD

audio-only or video/audio options available at the touch of a button

user interface is a 15’’ touch panel

CD and DVD recordings easily transcribed from a standard PC

interview summarisers receive high quality digital output

Indico Serverthe ultimate in secure data retrieval and managementInstalled on a Windows server platform, Indico Server takes the secure retrieval,storage and management of video and/or audio evidence to a new level.Criminal justice personnel can access interviews within seconds for transcription,or monitor the interview across the network.

To find out how Indico Systems can easily demonstratea suitable solution for your force contact:

Simon JonesSales DirectorIndico Systems UKsimon.jones@indicosys.com

www.indicosys.com0044 (0)7850 541001

SECURE RECORDING SOLUTIONS

IndicoPortable

International Developments in Investigative Interviewing Edited by Becky Milne, Steve Savage and Tom Willamson (University of Portsmouth) This book examines international developments in investi-gative interviewing. It analyses the cases and other factors leading to the paradigm shift in a number of countries. This book will be essential reading for practitioners design-ing and delivering investigative interviewing training pro-grammes as well as academics and students studying inter-national criminal justice.

£38.50/ 9781843922766/ Hardback 272pp / April 2009

KEY BOOKS

WILLAN PUBLISHING

www.willanpublishing.com

To order any of our books please visit our website, alternatively please contact us: Willan Publishing, Culmcott House, Mill Street, Uffculme, Devon EX15 3AT, UK. Tel: 01884 849085 Fax: 01884 840251 E-mail: sales@willanpublishing.co.uk

WINNERWINNER Academic and Professional Publisher of the Year 2008

Handbook of Policing (2e)

Edited by Tim Newburn (LSE)

'A major contribution to the study of policing in the UK ... authoritative, interesting and extremely wide ranging.' Sir Ian Blair (Commissioner, Metropolitan Police)

£34.99 / ISBN 9781843923237 / Paperback

£87.50/ 9781843925002/ Hardback 864pp / August 2008

Handbook of Criminal Investigation

Edited by Tim Newburn (LSE), Tom Willamson (formerly University of Portsmouth) and Alan Wright (Keele University)

Handbook of Criminal Investigation pro-vides a rigorous and critical approach to not only the process of criminal investiga-tion but also the context in which this

takes place, the theory underlying it, and the variety of factors which influence approaches to it.

£34.99 / ISBN 9781843921875 / Paperback £87.50/ 9781843921882/ Hardback

728pp / May 2007

Dictionary of Forensic Psychology Edited by Graham J. Towl (NOMS), David P. Farrington (University of Cambridge), David A. Crighton (NOMS) and Gareth Hughes (Institute of Criminology)

This dictionary contains entries from leading academic and practising forensic psycholo-gists on key terms and concepts with the

forensic psychology field and is designed to meet the needs of both students and practitioners.

£22.99 / ISBN 9781843922957 / Paperback £62.00/ 9781843922964/ Hardback

256pp / June 2008

Dictionary of Policing

Edited by Tim Newburn (LSE)and Peter Neyroud (NPIA)

'This is the first time that the body of knowledge about Policing has been brought together in a single volume dictionary accessible to practitioner and member of public alike. It is a really wel-come development.’ - Paul Stephenson

QPM (Deputy Commissioner, Metropolitan Police Service)

£243.99 / ISBN 978184392872 / Paperback £62.00/ 9781843922889/ Hardback

384pp / April 2008

Police Interviewing Styles and tactics

Stephen Moston (James Cook Univ.)

This book aims to describe and critically evaluate a wide range of police interviewing styles and tactics that might be used during the questioning of suspects in criminal in-vestigations. It evaluates a variety of differ-ent approaches in terms of their efficacy and acceptability, taking account of insights

of practitioners as well as the findings of academic research.

£25.00 / ISBN 9781843925224 / Paperback £55.00/ 9781843925217/ Hardback

224pp / July 2009

Investigative Interviewing Rights, research, regulation

Edited by Tom Williamson (formerly University of Portsmouth) The objective of this book is to review the position of investigative interviewing in a variety of different countries, with differ-ent types of criminal justice systems. The book and consists of chapters written by

leading authorities in the field, both academics and prac-titioners.

£39.50/ 9781843921240/ Hardback 392pp / November 2005

W P

New Title

New Edition

New Title

Criminal Investigation An introduction to principles and practice Peter Stelfox (Head of Investigative Practice, NPIA)

This book provides an authoritative and highly readable introduction to criminal investigation, focusing on how police practi-tioners carry out investigations. It will be essential reading for both policing practitio-ners and students taking courses where a

knowledge of criminal investigation is required.

£18.50 / ISBN 9781843923374 / Paperback £50.00/ 9781843923381/ Hardback

256pp / April 2009

Intelligence-Led Policing

Jerry Ratcliffe (Temple University, Philadelphia)

'Dr Ratcliffe has that rare ability to combine theory and practice using language that practitioners will find both useful and appli-cable in an operational environment. This is a book for everyone with a stake in under-standing crime and the value of intelligence-led approaches as an effective response.'

- R. Mark Evans (Director, Analytical Services, Police Service of Northern Ireland)

£22.99/ 9781843923398/ Paperback £58.00/ 9781843923404/ Hardback

288pp / February 2008

New Title

Wondering how to implement digital interview recording and what all of the fuss is about?

In our experience, implementing a digital process is done for all sorts of reasons including better sound, reduced costs, better management information and new capabilities. It isn’t all straightforward though. Networked systems involve many stakeholders and a lot of complications.

If you are considering a project, why not talk to us and benefi t from our experience in implementing real systems that work in the real world.

0191 418 1199 sales@neal.co.uk www.neal.co.uk

Digital Interview Recording

A complete range of PACE compliant digital recording, workfl ow and playback options from the market leader.

Storage server

Workfl ow Management

Digital Audio available for review

Transcription in Word

Cassette Hybrid

Cassette

CD

Digital(Media Free)

DVD

Cassette Digitiser

Psychology

www.wiley.com/go/psychology

Forensic Psychology

Assessment and Treatment of Sex OffendersA HandbookEdited by ANTHONY R. BEECH, LEAM A. CRAIG and KEVIN D. BROWNE University of Birmingham, UK, Forensic Psychology Practice Ltd, UK and University of Nottingham, UK

Rehabilitation treatment programmes for sexual offenders can have a high success rate, if the initial assessment is carried out effectively and the correct interventions applied. In this comprehensive book, the editors bring together an international list of leading researchers and practitioners to review the evidence-base for assessment, evaluate treatment and offer practical guidance to those working within the fi eld.

616 pages9780470018996 | Hardback | £95.00 | 1129.00 | $190.009780470019009 | Paperback | £34.99 | 147.90 | $87.95April 2009

Coming in Autumn 09

Assessment and Treatment of Sexual Offenders with Intellectual DisabilitiesA HandbookLEAM A. CRAIG, KEVIN D. BROWNE and WILLIAM R.LINDSAYWiley Series in Forensic Clinical Psychology320 pages9780470058381 | Hardback £75.00 | 199.90 | $150.009780470058398 | Paperback £29.99 | 139.90 | $60.00Autumn 2009

Handbook of Psychology of Investigative InterviewingCurrent Developments and Future DirectionsEdited by RAY BULL, TIM VALENTINE and TOM WILLIAMSONUniversity of Leicester, UK and Goldsmiths College, University of London, UK

This is an authoritative handbook which explores current developments in the rapidly developing fi eld of investigative interviewing - that is, questioning conducted as part of criminal investigations. The old interrogation model has come under scrutiny following miscarriages of justice, creating a need for new understanding of the complex psychological processes involved. This Handbook takes a holistic and international approach with sections on eyewitness identifi cation and evaluating truthfulness, and coverage of developments in several countries.

448 pages9780470512678 | Hardback | £90.00 | 1119.00 | $148.509780470512685 | Paperback | £34.99 | 147.90 | $57.95September 2009

Rehabilitating and Resettling Offenders in the CommunityANTHONY GOODMANMiddlesex University, UK

This is a critical introduction to the history, theory, politics and contemporary issues surrounding offender rehabilitation both in prison and in the community. Reducing re-offending is a key objective for cross-governmental working, in the UK nearly 60% of those released from prison re-offend within 2 years. Goodman explores through-care and after-care of offenders by the prison and probation services, and discusses contemporary issues around rehabilitation.

192 pages9780470990995 | Hardback | £65.00 | 187.90 | $107.509780470991701 | Paperback | £24.99 | 132.90 | $41.50September 2009

The Faces of TerrorismCross-disciplinary ExplorationsEdited by DAVID CANTERUniversity of Liverpool, UK

This edited volume attempts to get closer to the perspectives of perpetrators of terrorist acts. It explores how terrorists view the world, reviews the way in which terrorist acts are conceptualized by the public and by national leaders, and suggests

strategies for reducing and preventing terrorism.

Although the main focus is on Islamic terrorism, the links between organized crime and radical violence are reviewed, and other acts such as kidnap for ransom are also examined.

256 pages9780470753804 | Hardback | £75.00 | 199.90 | $123.959780470753811 | Paperback | £30.99 | 142.90 | $51.50August 2009

The Treatment of Sex Offenders with Developmental DisabilitiesA Practice WorkbookWILLIAM R. LINDSAY University of Abertay Dundee, UK

This book is based on the treatment manual developed by William R. Lindsay for working with offenders with developmental disabilities in community settings and modifi ed for use with offenders in maximum-security settings.

The book is organised into modules, which include:

• Practical advice on how to develop group dynamics and encourage participant ownership

• Topics such as disclosure, dealing with cognitive distortions, the cycle of offending, victim awareness, pathways to offending and non-offending and relapse prevention

• Coverage of new initiatives in offender rehabilitation such as self-regulation and GLM, as well as CBT

368 pages9780470741603 | Hardback | £55.00 | 172.90 | $99.959780470062029 | Paperback | £32.99 | 144.90 | $54.95May 2009

AoAELUPN

Rsexual offenders can have

HICDETUC

Td l i

TCEU

Tpexthby

strategies for reducing an

TSDAWU

Tdeveloped by William R

CONTENTSPage

Note from the Editor 1

Note from the Chair 2

Note from the Membership Co-ordinator 4

Articles1 The psychology of interview suggestibility: Individual differences 5

and practical implications. Kim Drake

2 Searching for truth or confirmation? 11Harriet Jakobsson Öhrn & Christer Nyberg

3 The profile of repeated interviews in Israel: When practice and 20theory come together. Carmit Katz

4 Achieving Best Evidence: The role of the Registered Intermediary 26in assisting vulnerable witnesses, police suspects and defendants to communicate their account to the police and the court. Brendan O’Mahony

5 Investigative interviewing and Islamic extremism: 30The case of public safety interviews. Karl Roberts

6 Investigative Interviewing vs Evidence-in-Chief. Gary Shaw 37

7 PEACE comes to Canada. Brent Snook & John C. House 42

8 Child forensic interviewing in New Zealand. Karen Wilson 43

The iIIRG shares a collaborative (working) relationship with the Association of Chief Police Officers InterviewingGroup, both of which are committed to improvinginvestigative interviewing and in ensuring that suchimprovements are underpinned by a robust evidence base.