link to page 2 link to page 3 link to page 5 link to page 7 link to page 11 link to page 7 link to page 23 link to page 36 link to page 40 link to page 45 link to page 48 link to page 57 link to page 62 link to page 64 link to page 68 link to page 72 link to page 75
Investigative interviewing doctrine
This chapter contains these topics:
Summary
Definitions
Part 1 - Introduction to investigative interviewing
Part 2 - The professional approach to investigative interviewing
Ten principles of Investigative interviewing
Part 2 - Psychology of investigative interviewing
The memory process
Listening Questioning
Part 3 - The Peace Interviewing Framework
Planning and preparation
Engage and explain
Account
Account: using free recall model
Account: using conversation management model
Closure
Evaluation
Page 1 of 76
Investigative interviewing doctrine,
Continued...
Summary
Introduction
The Investigative interviewing doctrine (doctrine) provides core guidance on
investigative interviewing and the techniques designed to encourage victims, witnesses
and suspects to give complete, accurate and reliable accounts.
History of interviewing
Traditionally, most investigators have learnt to interview victims, witnesses and suspects
through a mixture of intuition. This mixture includes peer example and practical
experience. The dangers of this are self-evident. Investigators can pick up bad habits or
miss valuable information.
Research has found that just as no-one is born with the innate ability to handle firearms
properly, no-one has an innate ability to conduct effective interviews. Interviewing skills
should be developed through ongoing training, practice, feedback and assessment.
Purpose
The purpose of this doctrine is to support all investigators in acquiring the knowledge,
understanding and skills to carry out effective interviews with victims, witnesses and
suspects.
Related information
More information on investigative interviewing can be found in:
• Services/CIB/Service Units/
Investigative Interviewing
• Investigative Interviewing
Witness guide.
• Investigative Interviewing
Suspect guide.
Acknowledgement
Much of the material used in this doctrine has been adapted from 'Practical Guide to
Investigative Interviewing', Central Police Training & Development Authority (Centrex),
June 2004. The Investigative Interviewing Unit gratefully acknowledges the generosity of
Centrex in allowing the New Zealand Police to use this and all their other 'PEACE' related
material.
Other material comes from:
• Milne, R. & Bull, R. (1999). ‘Investigative Interviewing: Psychology and Practice.’
Wiley: West Sussex.
• Ord, B., Shaw, G., & Green, T. (2004). ‘Investigative Interviewing Explained.’
LexisNexis Butterworths: New South Wales.
• Schollum, M. (Sept 2005). ‘Investigative Interviewing: the literature’. New Zealand
Police: Wellington.
If you have any feedback please forward any comments to
[email address].
Page 2 of 76
Investigative interviewing doctrine,
Continued...
Definitions
To assist officers, a definition of terms used in this doctrine is shown below.
Challenge
Seeking an explanation from the interviewee for
inconsistencies with evidence from other sources or their own
account.
Complainant
A person who brings an offence to police attention thereby
instigating a police response.
Confession
An admission or part admission, or any inculpatory
statement, whether communicated verbally, in writing, or any
other form.
Conversation
A structured interview model normally used with a suspect or
Management model uncooperative witness.
Cross examination
Firm questioning to check or extend answers already given.
(See Investigative interviewing
suspect guide).
Difficult interviewee A person who is compliant but troublesome to interview.
Electronic recording Recording of an interview by means of DVD or video or other
electronic method.
Exculpatory
An exculpatory statement is a statement intended to clear a
statement
person from blame.
Free Recall model
A basic interview model which can be used for interviewing
compliant interviewees in the majority of situations.
Inculpatory
A statement that implicates a person in an offence i.e.
statement
admissions and confessions.
Interviewee
The person who is being interviewed: includes victim, witness
or suspect.
Investigative
The questioning of victims, witnesses and suspects to obtain
interviewing
accurate and reliable information in order to discover the facts
about matters under investigation.
Investigatively
Of value to the investigation because it helps to establish the
important
nature and ingredients of the offence, possible defences, the
identity of the offender or further lines of enquiry.
PEACE framework
An interviewing framework that provides a structure to
planning and conducting effective investigative interviews.
Special
When an interviewee whose age, disorder, disability or other
consideration
characteristic might mean:
• they have special communication needs
• the amount of information they can give is lower
• they are vulnerable in some manner.
Specialist
A person by reason of his or her training (level 3) and/or
interviewer
experience has the necessary skills to communicate with
victims, witnesses or suspects who require special
consideration.
Suspect
In relation to an offence, means any person whom is believed
has or may have committed that offence.
TEDS
A mnemonic that is helpful when constructing open questions.
It stands for: Tell, Explain, Describe, Show.
Unco-operative
A person who refuses to assist you or is not co-operative with
interviewee
the investigation.
Victim
A person injured, or suffering loss or harm as a result of an
offence.
Page 3 of 76
Investigative interviewing doctrine,
Continued...
Witness
A person who has information about an alleged offence or
offender, even if they were not physically present at the
event. Everyone who provides evidence is a 'witness' so the
term includes victims, complainants and suspects.
Page 4 of 76
link to page 5 link to page 5
Investigative interviewing doctrine,
Continued...
Part 1 - Introduction to investigative interviewing
What is investigative interviewing?
Investigative interviewing is the questioning of
victims, witnesses, and
suspects
(interviewee) to obtain complete, accurate and reliable information to discover the truth
about the matter under investigation.
The aim of all investigative interviewers (interviewers) is to develop interpersonal and
tactical skills. These skills will assist you to ask the right questions so that the most
complete and accurate response is given. You must act in a manner which encourages
the interviewee to tell you the truth.
The importance of investigative interviewing
The core role of the New Zealand Police is prevention, detection and reduction of crime.
Investigation is at the heart of carrying out this role. It is a process that the public and
the criminal justice system entrusts to the Police and assumes will be conducted
effectively and with integrity.
All employees with constabulary powers are investigators whether they are a constable,
detective, sergeant, senior sergeant or inspector and whether they are investigating a
vehicle collision, theft or homicide.
The investigative process usually includes several methods of obtaining investigative
information including interviewing, crime scene examination, using forensic science,
collecting real and documentary exhibits, etc.
It has been estimated that up to 90% of an investigator's activity involves gathering,
sorting, compiling, and evaluating information. Thus the ability to do this well is key to a
successful investigation.
'A major factor that determines whether or not a crime is solved is the completeness and
accuracy of the witness account.'
Milne & Bull, 1999, p 1.
The importance of interviews with witnesses
Professionals increasingly acknowledge that the investigative interviewing of witnesses
has equal importance to the interviewing of suspects. NZ research found that
interviewers are generally more proficient at suspect interviewing than at interviewing
victims and witnesses. This reflects a higher value placed on suspect interviewing.
If the initial interview with a relevant witness is not conducted effectively then the entire
investigation can fail. It is from that initial interview that:
• defines the nature of the offence itself
• outlines the possible suspects
• creates the methods for investigation, etc.
Information provided by witnesses can also enable you to validate or challenge a
suspect’s version of events.
This doctrine covers the core skills required to interview victims and witnesses. Victims
are a type of witness and will not be referred to separately in this doctrine.
The importance of interviews with suspects
A suspect is a witness too. They may be able to provide valuable information that assists
in establishing the truth of the matter under investigation, whether they are guilty or
innocent.
Page 5 of 76
Investigative interviewing doctrine,
Continued...
Effectively interviewing suspects can lead to admitting the offending. Admissions are
considered a particularly persuasive form of evidence. A suspect's admission may
support a subsequent prosecution and conviction but it should not be solely relied on to
guarantee it.
If a suspect admits, the interviewer should not take the accuracy of what is said for
granted. Evidence must be sought within the interview to support the admissions and
rebut any later challenges.
This doctrine covers the core skills required to interview suspects.
Benefits of investigative interviewing
The benefits of high quality investigative interviewing impact upon the New Zealand
criminal justice system and Police at every level.
'Solid interviewing skills stand as the cornerstone in law enforcement's arsenal of crime-
fighting weapons.' (Einspahr, 2000, p20).
Benefits to the Police
The benefit to Police to undertake investigative interviewing ensures:
• more complete, accurate and reliable information
• less duplication of effort (e.g. re-interviewing)
• greater consistency in performance
• better deployment of employees
• better decision-making (e.g. about the investigation and potential prosecutions)
• enhanced credibility
• improved relationships with victims, witnesses and offenders
• improved public trust and confidence
• greater generation of intelligence
• improved morale and professionalism.
Benefits to the criminal justice system
The benefit to the criminal justice system is:
• fewer not guilty pleas
• increased conviction rates
• savings in court time (e.g.: pre-trial applications, voir dires, cross-examinations,
appeals)
• fewer delays in court proceedings.
Benefits to justice
The benefit to Justice is in identifying the:
• innocent and preventing wrongful convictions
• guilty as early as possible and holding them accountable.
Page 6 of 76
link to page 7 link to page 8 link to page 8 link to page 8 link to page 8
Investigative interviewing doctrine,
Continued...
Part 2 - The professional approach to investigative
interviewing
National framework of investigative interviewing
The New Zealand Police has a four level national framework for investigative
interviewing. This framework includes a:
• hierarchical modular training system to achieve professionalism and integrity, and
• supervisory component for those responsible for supervising investigative
interviewers.
The framework is summarised as follows:
Level Description
1 Foundation
It provides foundation interviewing skills for all recruits and constables
including free recall and conversation management.
2 Advanced
It is for all investigators and involves consolidating and advancing on the skills
learnt in Level 1.
3 Specialist
It is for a variety of specialist interviewers for both suspects and witnesses. It
includes enhanced cognitive interviewing (word document), interviewing for
major crimes and with interviewees requiring special consideration.
4 Advisory
It is for interview advisors to provide advice, management and co-ordination
of interviewing in major operations.
The approach
Interviewers are more likely to be successful if they adopt a professional approach. They
should keep an open mind and treat the interviewee with fairness, respect and dignity.
This type of approach is also expected by judges, juries and the public.
The professional approach to investigative interviewing requires the interviewer to:
• be
ethical
• have
ownership
• be
methodical
• establish a
professional relationship
• apply
professional and personal style
Ethical interviewing
Interviews must not be oppressive, physical or psychological abuse is unacceptable
(even in the search for truth), interviews must be fair.
Investigators are expected to conduct ethical interviews. They must demonstrate a
willingness to accept that an interviewee has the right to:
• be treated with dignity
• make free choices whether or not to
- engage in the exchange, or
- respond to the content and the conduct of the exchange.
This makes the two parties equals as opposed to the officer being in the dominant
position and conveys respect.
Juries watching interviews make decisions based on any resulting admissions. They
expect you to behave in an ethical and fair manner.
Page 7 of 76
Investigative interviewing doctrine,
Continued...
Ownership
Being a professional involves taking ownership of your work. The same principle applies
when you are the officer in charge of an investigation. You must take ownership of the
investigation and be able to justify your actions.
This principle applies to any investigative interview that you conduct. It is your
responsibility to ensure equality and completeness of all aspects to an interview.
The result is a reflection of your own standards. Supervisors, trainers and experts are
available if you require advice. However, whether before a judge or jury the onus will be
on you to explain your actions.
Methodical
Being methodical helps the interviewee to provide more complete information. It helps
both the interviewer and the interviewee. The following are all parts of this process:
• planning and preparation
• following your interview plan
• logical sequencing
• allowing time for questions to be answered
• summarising (when appropriate)
• linking and probing.
Using these techniques will enhance the amount of information that can be obtained
from the interview. Methodical professionals perform better, have greater job satisfaction
and a greater likelihood of getting the co-operation of those they interview.
A study of police interviews of suspects showed that methodical interviewers
demonstrated improvement in:
• introducing the interview
• obtaining the interviewee’s account
• using questioning techniques
• communication skills
• structuring the interview
• using effective listening skills
• covering all the points needed to help prove an offence
• obtaining more relevant information.
These findings are transferable to witness interviewing.
Some useful techniques will be introduced in this doctrine to help you interview
methodically.
Establish a professional relationship
Establishing a professional relationship with interviewees encourages them to participate
in the interview. Trust is also important because interviewees may fear the
consequences of providing information.
Interviewers should seek to establish a relationship based on trust to give the
interviewee the confidence needed to provide full and honest information. The
interviewee has to be reassured that they will be listened to and receive fair treatment.
Personal style
A personal and professional style is more effective than a formal one.
Page 8 of 76
Investigative interviewing doctrine,
Continued...
A good approach is an assured personal style, which encourages an environment where
matters can be raised openly and without embarrassment. This does not come naturally
to many interviewers but can be developed through training and practice.
Example:
A Scandinavian psychologist taught some interviewers in an identical way, apart from
adopting either a formal or a personal approach. The results clearly showed that
the
information from interviewees was more forthcoming, accurate and relevant
when they interviewed using a personal compared to a formal style. The
suspects were more helpful to an interviewer who showed a friendly, encouraging
interest in them. Interviewees were also less suggestible and became sticklers for the
truth and defended their own views.
Interviewing style matters because it directly affects the interviewee’s motivation to be
accurate and relevant in their replies to questions. Personal style is sometimes referred
to as the task of establishing
‘rapport’ which means being genuinely open, interested
and approachable. This approach will normally be appreciated and reciprocated. You
should show empathy and avoid being formal, distant and uninterested in the
interviewee’s feelings or welfare. Using this sort of approach does not mean you condone
what someone has done, it demonstrates an open mind, respect and professionalism.
Interviewing versus interrogation
The term 'investigative interviewing' is used instead of 'interrogation' for questioning
suspects.
Interviewing is a much broader concept than interrogation, originally meaning an
occasion when two people can examine each other’s views (
hence ‘inter-view’). The
term ‘interviewing’ has largely taken over from ‘interrogation’ to describe the task of
obtaining information from witnesses or suspects. The term ‘interrogation’ has negative
connotations arising from its association with oppressive tactics.
Interviewing is a more suitable term in the context of investigations. The interview may
also be:
• used for the purposes of providing information, such as court procedures
• an opportunity to encourage a two way process so that the interviewee can be a
useful informer
• considered as a conversation with a purpose.
The problem with seeking a confession
Traditionally, seeking a confession has been seen as the main purpose of suspect
interviews. This presumes guilt by the interviewer preventing them from conducting the
interview with an open mind. This presumption creates obstacles to the interviewer in
establishing the truth of the matter under investigation by:
• diminishing the ability to form a relationship of trust with the interviewee
• promoting confirmatory bias i.e. interpreting information so it confirms preconceived
ideas (refer to the section on ‘Memory’)
• increasing the risk of false confessions.
In addition, before commencing the interview, suspects have usually made up their mind
whether or not to confess and research suggests there is very little the interviewer can
do to change their mind. This in no way means that the interview is pointless, but rather,
that the interviewer should:
• not feel defeated if a suspect does not confess
• focus on establishing the best evidence rather than obtaining a confession.
Page 9 of 76
Investigative interviewing doctrine,
Continued...
As an investigative interviewer it is important to recognise that your behaviour and
attitudes can cause a suspect to decide
not to confess.
Remember the purpose of
interviewing a suspect is to establish the facts.
Page 10 of 76
link to page 11
Investigative interviewing doctrine,
Continued...
Ten principles of Investigative interviewing
Introduction
Ten principles have been established to provide an authoritative guide to ethical
investigative interviewing. As an investigator you should approach every interview with
these principles in mind and use them to actively examine your own attitudes and
behaviour. Doing this will not only aid you in achieving the good results from your
interviews, but also minimise the risk of adverse scrutiny.
Police officers should approach all interviews with the following ten principles in mind:
Principle 1: Interviewing is at the heart of investigation
• Interviewing witnesses and suspects is essential to establish facts.
• A conversation seeking information is an interview. It does not matter if you are
getting information from a burglary complainant, issuing an infringement notice, or
speaking to a murder suspect.
• All police officers are investigative interviewers. You need the knowledge and
technical skills to do the job competently.
• You do not merely take a statement from someone, you interview them.
Principle 2: The aim of an interview is to discover the truth
• Your aim is to discover the truth about the matters under investigation.
• The truth may be elusive, so you may need to be persistent.
• The interviewer must try to get a complete and reliable account. This may not be
obtained easily. For various reasons, witnesses and suspects may be reluctant to talk,
economical in what they say or downright dishonest.
Principle 3: Information must be complete, accurate and reliable
• All information obtained during an interview should be complete. Omissions can
compromise the investigation.
• The information should also be accurate. It should therefore be a precise reflection of
what was said.
• The information obtained during an interview needs to be reliable. It will often be
used to further the investigation, open up other lines of enquiry and act as a basis for
questioning others.
• Completeness, accuracy and reliability will help information withstand subsequent
scrutiny.
• Using an interviewing framework such as PEACE and various interview models such as
‘free recall’, ‘conversation management’ and 'enhanced cognitive interviewing', will
help you to gather complete, accurate and reliable information.
Principle 4: Keep an open mind
• Assume nothing and prejudge nothing.
• You must be prepared to believe what people might say but you must equally be on
guard against deception. Whilst witnesses are generally trustworthy, they can invent
stories to protect a friend or relative, or to distract you from their own involvement.
An interviewee may equally be genuinely mistaken and believe something is true
when it is not. In addition, you must be aware that suspects may make false
admissions.
• Use your intelligence, planning and common sense. Consider what the interviewee
says in the light of what you already know and against what you might be able to
prove later.
Page 11 of 76
Investigative interviewing doctrine,
Continued...
Principle 5: Act fairly
• Take the characteristics of the person being interviewed into account - factors such as
age, sex, health and lifestyle.
• With a person who has had no previous experience of police, questions may have to
be carefully introduced and phrased. However, people who have more experience of
the police may need to be dealt with more firmly.
• Your own interests, views, and background should not influence your attitudes or
behaviour for or against any individual. Witnesses, victims and suspects should be
given a fair hearing whatever your personal feelings about them.
• The circumstances of each case should determine the amount of time the interviewer
allows for an interview - whether it is with those who allege they have been
victimised, or who claim to have relevant information, or who deny committing an
offence.
• Your reaction to particular people inevitably influences your judgment about what
they say. With training and practice you can learn to speak to people and respond
neutrally.
Principle 6: Questioning can be persistent
• You are not bound to accept a first answer - you might receive false information or
lies.
• The interviewer seeks the truth and is entitled to be skeptical if skepticism is justified.
• Where there is good reason for suspicion, it is right to persist on those grounds alone.
• With a suspect an interviewer must check out or challenge inconsistencies to ensure
an account is complete, accurate and reliable. Equally, you may be persistent because
you feel there is more information that could be provided.
• In a suspect interview your primary aim should not be to obtain a confession. That
can lead to oppression which ultimately affects the accuracy and credibility of the
information.
• An admission from a suspect may go some way to supporting a subsequent
prosecution and conviction but should not be solely relied on to guarantee it. You
should probe for detail within the interview that will help validate or challenge any
admissions that are made.
Principle 7: Some witnesses require special consideration
• It is your job to identify what witnesses require special consideration. Factors to
consider include:
- the witness's age
- any physical, intellectual, psychological or psychiatric impairment
- trauma suffered or fear of intimidation
- their linguistic or cultural background or religious beliefs
- the seriousness of the offence and the investigative importance of the witness
- the relationship any other person in the investigation
- likely absence from New Zealand
- any other reasons a witness may be deemed to be in need of special consideration.
• The kind of action you need to take after identifying a person as requiring special
consideration depends on the circumstances. However, always bear in mind the
possibility that the person might be interviewed more fully later. So you need to think
about what you first say to the person and how you are going to say it.
• You will need to ask those questions necessary to glean an understanding of what
happened and to decide on your initial action. That initial action is likely to focus on
any need for medical attention, the preservation of the scene and physical evidence,
identifying other witnesses and the apprehension of suspected offenders. But be
careful not to taint a person’s later account by pressing too hard at the beginning.
• Your aim is to maximise the quality of the evidence of the person requiring special
consideration.
Page 12 of 76
Investigative interviewing doctrine,
Continued...
Principle 8: Suspects must be interviewed in accordance with the law
• Investigative interviewers must comply with the following:
- Evidence Act 2006
- Practice Note on Police Questioning
- New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990
- Crimes Act 1961
- Children, Young Persons & their Families Act 1989
- Police Act 1957
• An investigative interviewer must understand and apply all legal requirements for
interviewing.
Principle 9: Care must be taken to identify suspects that require special
consideration
• Vulnerable suspects require special consideration. Factors to consider when identifying
if a suspect requires special consideration include:
- age
- their physical, mental, or psychological condition
- any mental, intellectual, or physical disability
• It is your job to identify who may be vulnerable, but the category includes:
- suspects under 17
- people with learning or communication difficulties
- those with alcohol or drug addictions, and
- people with mental or physical disorders or disabilities.
• Difficulty in giving a reliable and accurate account means vulnerable people require
special consideration when being interviewed.
Principle 10: Be sensitive to cultural background and religious beliefs
• All officers should have a basic awareness and understanding of cultural and religious
differences.
• Be aware that people from other cultures may construct their answers differently from
those with a New Zealand background.
• Recognition of and sensitivity to cultural or religious beliefs will assure you of a better
opportunity to obtain complete, accurate and reliable information.
Page 13 of 76
link to page 14 link to page 15
Investigative interviewing doctrine,
Continued...
Part 2 - Psychology of investigative interviewing
Basic communication
As an investigator, your job is both a fact-finder and provider of information. You should
not be cold and mechanical about it but personalise your interactions with members of
the community. For example, when taking a report of a burglary from a victim you need
to find out the facts of the case from them, but at the same time be careful that you do
so with empathy and concern for their welfare.
An effective interviewer is compassionate, courteous and patient. This is fundamental to
the way that we communicate with and interview people.
The communication transaction
Communication is a type of transaction that involves the sending and receiving of
signals. You may have seen posters outside your police station headed ‘Wanted’ or ‘Can
you help?’ but if they are not read by the public, then communication is not taking place.
Most transactions last for only a short time. It is therefore important that you use that
time to make the transaction meaningful.
In a simple transaction: one person (the SENDER) puts over a message to another
person (the RECEIVER) who in turn becomes the SENDER of a return message to the
original person, who is now the RECEIVER.
If the communication does not work, this can be due to a fault in any part of that circuit.
It may be that the SENDER is not really sending or that the RECEIVER isn’t receiving.
The communication may also be affected by ‘noise’.
Noise
Communication can also be affected by noise. Noise can take the form of:
• physical noise (aircraft, traffic, air conditioning etc)
• psychological noise (own frame of reference, prejudices, stereotypes, closed
mindedness)
• semantic noise (where the words of the message are simply not understood).
The way you look, the clothes you wear, the way you walk, stand or sit all send out
messages. They are all part of communication.
In order to learn more about communication, we can break it up into two parts:
verbal
and non-verbal communication (NVC).
Verbal communication
Verbal communication refers to words only and is believed to account for only 10% of
communication. Words often communicate what the sender wishes to say, but not
always. There are three aspects to words:
• content
• meaning
• feelings.
The words themselves are used by people to convey meaning. If a witness says ‘I saw
the two cars collide’ the meaning is fairly clear.
Words which do not match the meaning intended
There are circumstances when people communicate words which are in conflict with what
they really mean or feel. ‘I’m all right’ or ‘Leave me alone’ are just two common phrases
which it may not be wise to take at face value. ‘That’s charming', 'that is’ and ‘Yeah
right’ are also examples of phrases people might use when they actually mean the
Page 14 of 76
Investigative interviewing doctrine,
Continued...
opposite. A witness might say that they saw two cars crash, which could mean that they
saw one car hit a stationary car, that both cars were moving in the same direction, or in
opposite directions.
Words which have a different meaning for you than for the person saying them
This is often associated with dialect or cultural habits. For example, if a witness said ‘It
was around dinner time yesterday that I saw the two cars crash’, they could mean either
the meal at midday or in the evening. If an interviewee describes the IPOD as ‘hot’ it
could mean it is stolen, or that it is a desirable item.
The lesson to be learned here is that for effective communication to take place you must
always check that the signal you are receiving is the same as the one which is being
sent.
Verbal communication is nearly always supported or expanded in some way by
nonverbal communication (NVC).
Non-verbal communication (NVC)
Research has found that facial expression, voice tone, silence, body positioning, eye
movements, pauses in speech, and other aspects of NVC all send messages. These may
confirm, obscure, or contradict what is being said. As an investigative interviewer the
ability to observe and interpret NVC will assist you with the communication process.
Intonation
Intonation is the modulation of the voice. ‘It ain’t what you say, it’s the way that you say
it’ is a phrase that describes intonation. Intonation often indicates the speaker’s mood,
tensions, and feelings. For example, if you ask a victim how they are feeling and they
reply ‘I’m alright’ in a resigned, depressed way, it will indicate to you that they are not
actually ‘alright’. Emphasis is a part of intonation and gives you special clues as to
meaning.
Intonation can also indicate to you if the speaker is drunk or under the influence of
drugs. But do not jump to conclusions as some people have a natural drawl or slur in
their voice.
Word spacers
Another way of saying word spacers is the term ‘paralanguage’. This includes ‘ums’,
‘ers’, grunts, sighs, sobs and other noises which get mixed in with sentences while
someone is trying to say something to you (or, trying not to say something to you).
Together with pauses, these spacers provide clues as to the speed a person’s mind is
going at that time. When you talk to an interviewee for the first time you will not know
their natural rate of ‘ums’ and ‘ers’. In this situation it is important to contrast how the
frequency of word spacers they use changes during the course of the interview. If
someone starts ‘um-ing’ and ‘er-ing’ at a greater rate all of a sudden it is likely that this
person is uncertain of themselves or what they are telling you and the word spacers are
filling in the gaps of their speech while they think of what to say next, creating a higher
cognitive load. It does not mean they are lying, but it is a clue that something has
changed from their normal speaking pattern.
If someone is giving you information, and pauses for a moment, do not leap in and put
another question. Let the pause build up. Very often with these unfilled pauses, the
speaker will provide extra information which you would otherwise not have obtained. It
does not come naturally, and therefore requires conscious effort to be effective.
Page 15 of 76
Investigative interviewing doctrine,
Continued...
Positions and gestures
The way a person sits or stands, their gestures and other movements can communicate
a large amount of information. Included in this category is eye contact, shaking or
nodding your head, and facial expressions. Not looking someone in the eyes is an
interesting example because avoiding eye contact is often assumed to suggest evasion
or concealment. Yet in some cultures avoiding eye contact is a sign of respect for
authority or modesty.
People under pressure tend to become defensive. They are not likely to smile and sit in a
relaxed manner. Sometimes, the content of the message, its meaning and feelings may
be instant and all too clear, such as an aggressive gesture. Be aware that certain
positions or gestures do not have universal meanings. Take note of them but be open-
minded as to their meaning.
Proxemics
The distance between us and other people will often have an influence upon the signal
we send or receive. The study of distance is sometimes called ‘proxemics’. We have what
are effectively invisible barriers around each of us.
The
intimate zone is our closest barrier. This is a space around you of up to 45cm
which is reserved for your intimate friends. Anyone else who gets into this zone is a
trespasser and will make you feel uncomfortable at best, and angry at worst.
The
personal zone runs from 45cm to about 1.2m. As its name implies it is reserved for
those who have a close personal relationship.
The
social consultative zone extends from 1.2m out to about 3 to 4m. People you are
dealing with professionally would normally be in this zone.
Remember that there may be cultural variations. Some cultures have different proxemic
zones.
Problems can arise when force of circumstances brings people closer together than they
would usually get. Distorted or unwelcome signals may be sent or received. Next time
you are sitting on a bus, watch how people take their seats. Strangers tend to leave a
seat between each other. Casual friends may sit opposite and good friends will happily
sit beside each other. When the situation becomes crowded and people are pressed
together, people may work hard at avoiding looking at their neighbour. For example, in a
crowded lift they may look up or down or study the floor indicator but they will not look
at each other.
When dealing with people from minority groups, officers need to be aware of cultural
variations. The significance of gestures may be radically different. For example, pointing
at a person in a Somali home would be extremely insulting and could aggravate an
existing situation. Also something as simple as male officers shaking hands with Hindu
females may cause distress to the female.
In an interview situation, sit an appropriate distance from the other person. Your exact
position will depend on the nature of the interview and characteristics of the interviewee.
Some guidelines are as follows:
Ten to two position: turn your body somewhat towards the interviewee. This is usually
the best position to adopt. Use this position with a co-operative or unco-operative
interviewee to promote a relaxed atmosphere. It allows you to look straight ahead when
thinking, without the strain of direct eye contact.
Page 16 of 76
Investigative interviewing doctrine,
Continued...
Ninety degrees: sit with the interviewee next to you at right angles. Use this position if
you want a semi-relaxed atmosphere. The angle will provide comfortable cover for both
you and the interviewee if required.
Face to face: sit directly opposite the interviewee. Avoid using this position as it is
confrontational and may increase aggression.
Dress and ornaments
One way in which people send messages is in the way they dress and the ornaments
they wear. First impressions do count. Make a note of what you wear as a civilian.
Include your jewellery, watch etc. Now make a note of all the possible messages which
your clothes, jewellery or even watch, might be sending, even if you did not consciously
intend them to. Finally, think of some messages that might be sent by a police uniform.
Consider how these messages might affect your efforts at communication.
We need to communicate with people as individuals. Inevitably, prejudgements or
stereotypes will come into play. The main learning point here is that people do
consciously or unconsciously send messages by the way they dress.
Deception
Be careful when trying to interpret the difference between truthfulness and
deceptiveness through NVC. Research has made it clear that:
• there is no single behaviour that accurately reflects whether people are being truthful
or deceptive, and that
• people often hold stereotypical views about non-verbal behaviour which are incorrect.
Therefore, conclusions based solely on someone’s behaviour in the interview room
cannot be relied upon. Research has shown that even with training, the odds for
detecting lying is only slightly better than chance. In fact, those that are trained tend to
have an increased confidence in detecting deceit which results in a bias towards judging
the person to be dishonest. This means that they are more likely to incorrectly believe
that a person is lying when they are not.
There is no evidence to support the reliable prediction of deceit through observing NVC.
A skilful interviewer may notice changes in the behaviour of the interviewee over the
course of the interview. For example, if the interviewee may appear to become stressed.
This is often interpreted as deceit. While it may be due to an attempt to deceive, it could
equally be caused by a number of other factors such as:
• recalling an upsetting experience
• anger about false allegations, or
• an innocent person being concerned over the evidence against them.
If you observe a change in behaviour on the part of the interviewee do not assume that
it is a result of deceit. Consider other possible causes and if relevant ask more questions.
Helping the communication process work smoothly
Being interviewed by an investigator is an unusual situation for most people and may
make them anxious. Most people communicate quite well under normal circumstances
but few of them can naturally receive messages calmly and accurately while under
stress. They add interpretations, forget bits, muddle up events and so on. When you are
dealing with a member of the public (and especially when you are trying to deal with
more than one at a time), your communication process must be made to work as well as
possible.
Page 17 of 76
link to page 18 link to page 18 link to page 18
Investigative interviewing doctrine,
Continued...
This can be achieved not so much by becoming a good talker. Although that helps but by
becoming a better listener through:
• reading the hidden messages (the meaning and feelings) as well as the direct ones
• tuning into people’s feelings as well as getting facts from them
• noting the intonation, word spacing, gesture messages, distance and visual messages
as well as listening to the words.
• asking open questions to explore the NVC.
Eye contact
An important part of the non-verbal element of communication is eye contact,
sometimes known as ‘gaze’. Always remain mindful of cultural differences. For example,
when being spoken to by someone in authority Samoan consider it impolite to look them
in the eyes. Similarly, Chinese do not like prolonged eye contact.
Eye contact seems to play three main roles in the communication process.
Eye contact enables non-verbal reactions to be seen
By now, you will have realised that we communicate not just with words but with our
whole bodies. Getting the full message from somebody means paying attention not just
to the words but also to
NVC. Eye contact helps this, if we are not looking at the person
trying to communicate it is possible that much of the message will be lost.
Think what it is like speaking with someone on the telephone. The possibility of
misunderstanding is increased because you cannot see what the other person is
signalling with their body. This is worth remembering when you are taking telephone
messages in the course of your duty. It is possible that someone’s life will depend on you
getting the message right.
When eye-contact should not be promoted
Using eye-contact uses part of the brain that is also used to generate internal images. It
is easier to visualise memories when you have your eyes shut than when looking at
something. Eye-contact should not therefore be encouraged when you are trying to get a
witness to recall detailed information. In these circumstances you might suggest they
close their eyes or look at a spot on the wall, floor or elsewhere whilst remembering. You
can help this by looking away yourself, e.g. by taking notes but maintaining a periphery
view of the witness.
Eye-contact sends signals
Mutual eye contact (gaze) can often be the start of a transaction. We even use the
expression ‘to catch somebody’s eye’ to mean this. Conversely people will often
deliberately avoid eye contact to prevent a transaction taking place. The investigative
interviewer should be cautious about eye contact when dealing with people of different
societies as in some cultures direct
eye contact is avoided as a sign of respect.
As investigators, the importance of eye contact with those with whom we want a
transaction is important. Members of the public may well find that the sight of your
uniform will be a barrier to communication. To a suspect, it may represent a threat. So
to start a communication circuit may require special effort on your part. Creating eye
contact in a non-threatening manner will be an important part of this.
Eye contact helps to synchronise the utterances of the speaker and listener
We have already seen that communication is at least a two way process, and this will
inevitably involve taking turn
s. Eye contact helps you know when the other person is
finishing what they are saying. You will also need to take turns to put into practice some
of the listening strategies which are noted above.
Page 18 of 76
Investigative interviewing doctrine,
Continued...
Effective communication
The constable on patrol undoubtedly has an important role in enhancing relations with
the public. How you conduct yourself, and how you communicate and interact, has a
direct bearing on how the public view the police service as a whole.
Police training focuses from an early stage on the ability to relate to people in a variety
of situations. The object of such training is to develop your interpersonal skills and help
you to use them to best effect.
Expectations
In any encounter with another person:
• be careful not to apply stereotypes or your own values to the situation
• be alert to what the person actually says and does, rather than assuming that you
know what is happening
• be aware that members of the public have expectations of you as an investigator.
The language we use
Our use of language can be a barrier to effective communication if we do not think about
what we say and the way that we say it. You will no doubt have found yourself in
situations where you stop listening to a speaker who is tedious, uses unfamiliar words or
addresses only some people in the audience. Observing the guidelines listed below will
help you to achieve clear, concise and effective communications.
• Use language which is appropriate for the people you are addressing, without talking
down to them. Members of the public may be made ‘police officer anxious’ by contact
with the police and will easily become confused by explanations which use unfamiliar
or ‘legal’ terms.
• Avoid technical words, jargon and acronyms. In common with most other
occupations, the police service has its own vocabulary. While its members may
understand what something means, other people can feel excluded or at a
disadvantage.
• Do not try to impress your listeners by using complicated language; you will simply
lose their attention. Many people use unnecessary ‘padding’ when speaking (or
writing) which gives them more thinking time and may be intended to give their
message more importance. In fact the message gets lost in ‘waffle’. For example,
instead of ‘at this moment in time’, say ‘now’; and instead of ‘speaking for myself
personally’ say ‘I think’.
• If you have an important message to deliver, whenever possible plan what you are
going to say and rehearse it, so that you express it clearly and confidently.
• If you are concerned about addressing people incorrectly, listen to the way they
describe themselves or ask how they like to be known.
Language and values
Much has been said recently about ‘political correctness’ in language and how some
words have been ‘banned’. It is unfortunate that a serious consideration of how the
language we use reflects our values and prejudices has been trivialised by some. Some
words do exclude or belittle certain groups, reinforce stereotypes or carry negative
overtones. No one is suggesting that simply by avoiding such words we can demonstrate
our commitment to fairness. It is, however, one way in which we can challenge our
habits and begin to change our attitudes.
Examples:
Listed below are a few examples which illustrate how apparently simple words may carry
more significant messages.
• ‘Landlord’ or ‘landlady’ or ‘master’ and ‘mistress’: think of the image conjured up by
the male version compared with the female version. The male titles suggest power,
Page 19 of 76
Investigative interviewing doctrine,
Continued...
authority and responsibility, whereas the female versions may appear to be less
important and often have humorous or sexual connotations.
• ‘Fireman’ or ‘policeman’: these are words which exclude women by suggesting that
only men fulfil these roles. Using the separate terms ‘policeman’ and ‘policewoman’
does not necessarily help, since, as we have seen above, the female version of a word
may suggest something less important than the male version. An alternative word
which does not refer to gender is usually more appropriate, such as ‘fire-fighter’ or
‘police officer’. On the rare occasion when you do need to refer to an officer by sex,
use ‘female police officer’ or 'male police officer'.
These examples are given to highlight the arguments that are put forward for care in the
use of language. However, there is a danger in becoming so worried about using the
‘right’ word that we forget what we are really trying to achieve. We can usually tell when
someone is using the right words, but they still hold an underlying negative attitude
through the intonation.
It will help you to be a more effective investigator to think about the messages you
receive from commonly used words and about the reasons why some people are
resistant to the ideas outlined above.
Three stages of an encounter
Most routine encounters go through 3 stages: entry, process and exit.
The entry
How you enter an encounter is important because the approach you select will help
determine how the encounter proceeds. Two main factors will influence the success of
your entry: the quality of the information you bring to and how you open the encounter.
It is an unfortunate fact of police life that on many occasions you will be called upon to
enter an encounter with little information to help you deal effectively with it. As a
consequence, you may base your response on previous experiences, and unwittingly
display a lack of sensitivity to the individuals concerned and the particular circumstances
of that incident.
To avoid this, equip yourself with as much information as possible about the impending
encounter, whilst maintaining an open mind.
If this is not possible, e.g. if you are sent to an encounter with only an address and no
further information, you will need to call on various skills, such as asking open questions
to gather sufficient information upon which to proceed. A straightforward opening
remark such as ‘Hello, what’s the problem?’ may be sufficient.
Arriving at the scene of an encounter will become a routine task for you, but for most
people the arrival of an investigator is an exceptional and possibly intimidating
experience. First impressions count, so it is vital that your arrival is positive and
professional.
Adopt the approach and degree of formality most suitable to that situation. On arrival
introduce yourself, explain what you are doing and what you need from the person. If
you show respect for members of the public, you are far more likely gain respect and to
receive co-operation from them. On some occasions you will have to use your authority,
e.g. when arresting a suspect, but even then courtesy and consideration must be shown.
Page 20 of 76
Investigative interviewing doctrine,
Continued...
The process
At this stage you are involved in the encounter, ready to deal with whatever the person
has to tell you or ask of you. You may also have to deal with a wide range of emotions.
This task is not easy and is often complicated by external pressures.
You will be only too aware that it is important to proceed with the investigation. Trying
to resolve the incident and to detain any offender are both vital functions. However,
witnesses usually place equal importance on the way you deal with them. Although you
may have little time available, empathy and understanding are needed. Offer referral to
other sources of support if appropriate.
Avoid appearing distant in your manner or totally focused on the facts rather than the
people involved. Although on occasions that style might be appropriate, try to be flexible
and respond in the most suitable way. Above all be sincere in your support at this
difficult time.
Coping with others’ feelings is an inevitable part of interacting with people. It requires
you to demonstrate respect and sensitivity. Practice and reflecting upon your
experiences will enable you to develop these skills.
The following paragraphs point out areas where your approach will make a significant
difference to your relations with the public.
Privacy
It can be a source of embarrassment for a member of the public to be seen talking to an
investigator. It may lead to curiosity, speculation and suspicion. It can also block a
person’s memory.
It is easy to fall into the trap of requesting personal details or information from someone
while other people are within earshot. The resulting embarrassment can mean that the
information you receive may be limited or misleading. Such encounters can be far more
productive if you take steps to eliminate or reduce embarrassment. If the situation
allows, conduct the encounter out of public view, try to avoid being overheard and use
an approach which does not attract attention.
Audiences
Conducting an encounter in the presence of an audience may present more than just
privacy problems. A crowd of spectators can cause concern, especially when the
presence of the police creates a less than friendly atmosphere. A crowd may gather from
curiosity but as the encounter progresses people may take sides. As a result you may
find you have a public order problem to deal with.
To avoid such situations, try to go somewhere private. If you don't have this option, and
spectators have gathered you will have to decide whether to disperse them or ignore
them. It depends whether you believe the spectators are likely to interfere or aggravate
the situation.
Not all audiences react violently against the police, but you must be aware of the
possibility and learn by experience about the circumstances in which an unfavourable
audience reaction is likely to occur. Always remember that an important aspect in
controlling a crowd’s behaviour is to make sure that you control your own.
Apologies
In common with most people, investigators dislike being considered wrong, or being
accused of unjust behaviour. Therefore some investigators find it difficult, if not
impossible, to apologise.
Page 21 of 76
Investigative interviewing doctrine,
Continued...
As a police officer many people will expect you to have all the answers and you may
succumb to the danger of believing them. You are only human and will be susceptible to
making mistakes, either by providing incorrect information, or even arresting the wrong
person. An apology in such circumstances is not an admission of failure and will more
often than not earn you respect. If you have made a genuine mistake, offer a genuine
apology. The police service will reap the benefit if we are all more willing to accept
responsibility and learn from our mistakes.
Recording information
As an investigator your job requires full and accurate records to be kept. Be aware that
the need to fill in forms and obtain information for records can have an effect on the
success of an encounter.
For example, if you open your notebook at the outset, the person may feel inhibited. On
the other hand, if you do not record sufficient information the person may feel that you
are not taking the matter seriously and you may omit details which are essential as
evidence.
You will have to strike a balance depending on the person you are dealing with and the
circumstances of the incident. This may not be an easy task, but experience will help you
to develop your skills.
There is nothing wrong with asking someone to repeat information you missed or forgot
to record.
Remember legal requirements and the Practice Note require a full record of interviews
with suspects. This includes discussions prior to any formal interview.
Formality
One of the questions many officers have difficulty in answering is, ‘How formal should I
be when dealing with the public?’ The answer cannot be precise because of differences in
personality and widely varying circumstances.
Obviously some situations will demand a formal approach so that authority and control
can be exercised. In the majority of circumstances an informal and friendly approach will
ensure that the encounter runs smoothly.
Aggression
You will be in a position to influence the progress of most encounters by your approach.
Occasionally, this will be made difficult by the other person’s attitude. Inevitably you will
come across people who are aggressive and obstructive.
Nobody really knows why some people are more aggressive than others. Some scientists
believe that human beings are by nature aggressive but usually their upbringing and
education teach them to control their instinct. However, some people never seem to
learn control, or they easily lose it in some circumstances.
In addition, being part of a group can alter people’s behaviour. Individuals who are
placid on their own may behave aggressively when they are in a group or are under the
influence of alcohol or drugs. This is particularly true if the group as a whole is being
threatened or if individuals feel pressured to conform to the behaviour of the others.
Sometimes you can handle violence only with controlled force and use of the techniques
you learn in self-defence. More often you will be able to influence others by your own
behaviour.
Page 22 of 76
Investigative interviewing doctrine,
Continued...
Remain calm and controlled: do not respond to taunts and insults. Do not become
aggressive yourself as it could make this situation worse. If force is used against you,
respond only with such force as is necessary as defined by section 48 of the Crimes Act
1961.
The use of unreasonable or disproportionate force will result in a violation of section 62
Crimes Act 1961 and/or the exclusion of evidence under section 28, 29 or 30 of the
Evidence Act 2006.
The exit
Encounters can end in various ways. Whatever conclusion you intend, you must
remember that the exit is just as important to the encounter as the entry. Leaving an
encounter without concluding it may undermine the whole process.
Broadly speaking there are four options for further police action:
•
formal or informal enforcement: charging a person with an offence, referral for a
family group conference or verbal warning are the options used for those who have
committed an offence. Offenders are also members of the public who deserve to be
dealt with politely. Discretion may be appropriate; often a firm word will suffice. If
you do decide that enforcement is the appropriate method of dealing with the person,
fully explain the procedures that will follow.
•
resolution of the problem: it may be that by speaking to those involved, you
resolve the matter to their satisfaction without recourse to the law or other agencies.
•
assistance with solving a problem: this is generally by giving advice so that the
person can take action within the law to solve the problem.
•
referral to other agencies: if you are faced with a problem that cannot be resolved
immediately, ensure that you take steps to resolve it later. If necessary, explain why
the police cannot help and refer the person to another agency. Whatever action you
decide to take, always explain it fully to the person concerned.
Dealing with people is a complicated and unpredictable venture. There are many
unpredictable elements in every encounter. Previous experience of the police and the
state of mind of the individual are examples of the sort of things that influence
encounters and their outcomes.
While some situations are easy to deal with, others may present problems. You must
learn to identify quickly what kind of event you are facing and the best way to deal with
it. This goes further than asking yourself what aspect of the law is involved and requires
that you identify other resources and strategies available to you, such as your
interpersonal skills and the use of discretion.
Try to ensure that each stage of an encounter is completed and that you show
consideration and courtesy throughout. By communicating clearly and listening
attentively, you can increase your effectiveness, and thus find your work more
rewarding.
If possible the encounter should avoid offence, be polite, encourage future contact and
end on a positive note. Remember that we can learn from every encounter and apply our
new awareness to improve our relationship with the public we serve.
Page 23 of 76
Investigative interviewing doctrine,
Continued...
The memory process
Introduction
The memory process is generally agreed to be fallible. We do not memorise everything
we see as if we have a video camera operating in our brain. Given this fallibility, as an
investigative interviewer it is vital that you understand how memory works and the ways
in which errors and omissions arise.
This understanding allows you to judge more accurately how much interviewees can be
expected to recall about an event and how much weight can be placed on the
information they produce. It will also help you understand just how easy it is for you as
the interviewer to contaminate an interviewee’s memory.
The fragility of memory is recognised by the courts and judges give standard warnings to
juries about the reliability of eyewitness and identification evidence.
The following material has been largely taken from ‘Investigative Interviewing:
Psychology and Practice’ by Rebecca Milne and Ray Bull (1999).
What is memory?
‘Memory is a vast body of knowledge that we have about the world...'
Milne & Bull (1999, p11)
The human brain has the ability to retain a vast quantity of information and experience
over a lifetime. But memory is not like a video recorder that records everything it sees,
or a computer that can retrieve everything stored on it. Instead:
"Human memory is cluttered. Memories don't get lost so much as they become distorted
or hard to find. We may like to say that we've lost something - but often, an hour later,
it pops uninvited into our consciousness, where it has been lurking all along. The serious
difference between computer and human memory is that we don't pop out a pristine
copy of the original event, the way a computer does. Instead, we reconstruct things as
best we can from all the clutter. We guess. Often that isn't good enough, especially for a
fair judicial process. Or just one's self respect; it's embarrassing to be badly wrong and
we'll deny an error even to ourselves" (Loftus & Calvin, 2001).
Memory is constructed rather than recorded. It consists of information that is entered
into the brain using a combination of electrical and chemical processes. There are three
different memory stores that information passes through in sequence. They include:
sensory memory, short-term and long-term memory (as represented by Figure 1). These
sensory stores differ in terms of capacity, duration and function.
Information transfers from one stage to the next depending on how meaningful it is
considered.
Page 24 of 76
Investigative interviewing doctrine,
Continued...
Figure 1: Stages of memory
The processes involved in storing memory differ depending on the stage of storage:
• sensory memory is separate for each sense (e.g. sight, sound, smell) and holds
information for three seconds or less
• working or short-term memory uses electrical impulses to store information and can
hold the information for up to about 30 seconds with rehearsal
• long-term memory is used for anything stored longer than 30 seconds and involves a
structural change to the brain which can take hours to occur.
'Memories are not recorded but are actively constructed by the brain.'
Memory is organised to assist us to remember
The way memory is organised can have a powerful influence on what is remembered.
When you experience a situation, you reconstruct the details in your memory. If the
experience is repeated the memory is reinforced and new information may also be
added. Regularly rehearsing or repeating the experience influences your memory to the
point that you respond without thinking about it and it becomes routine. This may occur
even if you have subsequently undergone a contradictory experience. The following
example may demonstrate this.
A police station went through modifications and moved the meal room from the first floor
to the second floor. Staff for weeks after the alterations still went to the old location
arriving to discover they had ‘forgotten’ about the move. It is perhaps not so much as
they had forgotten about the move but that they relied on routine.
Retrieving memory can be compared to trying to find information stored in a filing
cabinet. Failing to find the information does not necessarily mean that the information is
not there. You may have opened the wrong drawer or filed the information in the wrong
place.
Memory recall at the most detailed level requires focused attention and intense
concentration.
In a first attempt to remember an incident or specifics, we are likely to recall broad
outlines, but little detail. The more time spent on attempting to recall, the more detail
may be remembered. Your interviewee must feel that they have sufficient time to recall.
Forgetting
Your own experience will probably tell you that memory fades over time and people are
usually able to give the most complete account of an experience soon after it happened.
Page 25 of 76
Investigative interviewing doctrine,
Continued...
Forgetting begins immediately after the event. In general, the highest portion of memory
loss occurs during the first two hours. The rate of forgetting usually reduces after this
time.
Usually, a witness should be interviewed as close to the event as possible. However,
delaying the interview for a short time may be more productive in certain circumstances,
for example, if the interviewee is intoxicated, tired or distressed.
In serious cases you should contact the witness the next day to see if they have
remembered anything else or at least leave them with your details so that they can
contact you should they recall further information, which they probably will.
Memory processes
Memory processes can be described as a sequence that has three separate phases.
Stage Description
Encoding
Information is entered into memory.
Storage
Once information is encoded into memory it is stored.
Retrieval
When recalling an event the memory must be retrieved from storage.
Failure of any one or a combination of these phases can lead to failure in memory.
It is important to note that forgetting is often a problem of retrieval rather than storage.
The information may be there but the person might be trying to open the wrong drawer.
A good example of this is the ‘tip of the tongue’ phenomenon. By using the right
investigative interviewing techniques and encouraging the interviewee to concentrate we
can assist the interviewee in retrieving information that has been stored in memory.
Interviewing someone using the correct (i.e. memory enhancing) techniques is the key
to better recall.
The chart overleaf demonstrates the effect the interview process can have on memory.
Factors affecting the encoding of complex events
Interaction between the witness and the event
The quality of encoding is largely reliant on the degree of interaction between the
witness and the event. The level of interaction can be determined by a number of
variables such as: the physical distance from the person to the event, amount of time
under observation and so on. Interestingly studies have shown witnesses are more
accurate at encoding information in daytime and at the beginning of twilight. Studies
have also shown that witnesses who were involved in the incident had better recall than
bystanders.
Attention
Possibly the most common reason for not being able to recall something is that we never
‘encoded’ it into our memory in the first place. This often happens because limitations on
our attention span mean that we can only attend to some aspects of everything we see
or experience. It follows that some things will simply not be selected for encoding and
will, therefore, not be available to be recalled. For example, if asked you would not be
able to remember the hundreds of cars you have seen on a long drive. This is not
because you cannot remember but simply because you did not focus on those cars in the
first place.
It is impossible to attend to everything that we can sense, all at the same time. E.g. can
you think about what you are reading, what you can hear, what you can see in your
Page 26 of 76
link to page 27
Investigative interviewing doctrine,
Continued...
periphery vision, the sensation of what you are touching (not just through your fingers
but also the rest of your body) what you can smell and what you can taste, consistently
and all at the same time? Even though each of these senses can provide information at
any one time, relatively little of this potential information is processed by us.
This selective attention process depends on a person’s knowledge, expectations,
attitudes, past experiences, interests, training and what that particular person judges to
be important at that point in time. If the information has not been attended to in the
first place, the information will never be able to be recalled. It was never stored in the
memory in the first instance. And if it was never stored, the quality of interviewing will
not affect whether the interviewee can recall this information. In other words, you must
accept that even someone who was right on the spot when something happened may
have little or no recollection of it.
Memory is selective and subject to various influences.
Research suggests that a person's recall performance can be affected by various factors.
The diagram below shows the many stages that form the route from the event to the
recorded report (statement). Information can become distorted, missed or
misunderstood at any stage.
1
Alcohol and drugs
Of particular interest,
problems with recall can occur with both high and low
levels of alcohol consumption. When dealing with an interviewee under the influence
of alcohol or drugs use your judgement to determine if they should be interviewed
1 Kohnken, G (1995).
Interviewing Adults in Handbook of psychology in legal contexts. J.
Wiley. Chapter 3.4,
page 217.
Page 27 of 76
Investigative interviewing doctrine,
Continued...
instantly or whether it would be advantageous to delay the interview until the effects are
worn off. You should also be cautious about the reliability of a witness who has taken
controlled drugs causing hallucinations or paranoia.
Stress
Stress may reduce the
quantity of what witnesses recall but it
does not reduce the
quality. In addition, you should be aware that real life traumatic events tend to force
witnesses to narrow their attention to core aspects of an incident which may be stored
and remembered for longer periods.
A study by Yuille and Cutshall (1986) showed that witnesses to a homicide who indicated
high stress levels had a mean recall accuracy of 93% when interviewed by police two
days after the event. Research has shown similar results with witnesses to an armed
bank robbery. Quality remains high. However, studies have also shown that in these
types of cases a lot of what is recalled is action orientated as opposed to person
orientated.
Stress and trauma can often cause the temporary blocking of memory. For investigative
purposes, witnesses who have undergone a stressful experience will often need to be
interviewed as soon after the event as possible, but, as an investigative interviewer, you
should be aware that the detail of the information that they are able to recall may be
‘blocked’ by the state of trauma they are in.
Example:
Imagine how the owner of a service station would feel after being the victim of an armed
hold-up. You arrive on the scene just after the robbers have made off on foot and ask
him/her to describe them as accurately and completely as possible. What image is the
mind likely to be filled with at this time? Does this suggest anything to you about the
time that you are likely to conduct the most complete and accurate interview with this
witness?
Although criminal offending is something you, as an investigator, deal with every day
this may be the most traumatic incident the witness has ever experienced. As the stress
level subsides, the range of detail that the witness is able to recall generally increases.
When interviewing a stressed witness be aware that their attention may well still be
focused on the cause of the stress, and other information about what went on before and
after the event may still be buried deep in their memory. Be patient, as a general rule
you should interview them after the ‘stress block’ has had time to subside. Therefore,
consider delaying the interview.
Presence of weapon
The presence of a weapon can affect memory. Witnesses can often describe the weapon
but have little recall of peripheral matters. This phenomenon has been described as
‘channelised attention’ and is an indispensable adaptive function. The witness focuses on
the factors that present the greatest threat. This means an accurate description of the
weapon may be given but that other information vital to the investigation, such as
details about the offender or what was said, may become difficult to recall.
Event violence
The level of violence may also influence the encoding and storage of information.
Witnesses of violent events, compared to non-violent, tend to remember more peripheral
details but have poorer recall of investigatively important information such as the
appearance of the offender.
Page 28 of 76
Investigative interviewing doctrine,
Continued...
Factors affecting retrieval of complex events
The retrieval process involves reconstructing the stored memory. To prevent cognitive
overload a number of tools are used by the brain to simplify this process.
Memory works more like a pocket notebook than a recording. References are jotted
down to help you to write up a full report later. To fill in the gaps people use knowledge
they have about the world in general (semantic memory). This includes their prejudices,
opinions, social and cultural background, and even post event experiences or
conversations. This means that while the memory reconstruction may be honest, it may
not be absolutely accurate.
Memory reconstruction is not total; we fill in the gaps using our own prejudices,
opinions, scripts, social and cultural background, expectations, our training,
and experiences or conversations after the event.
A number of different factors influence how the gaps are filled in. These are addressed
below.
Inferences
An interviewee may draw inferences from any number of things including:
• their past experience
• their perception of what the police want to know
• how we ask questions of them.
The last two of these points are of particular importance to the investigative interviewer.
An interviewee may never have spoken to the police before and their knowledge may be
limited to television and movies. It is natural for the person to want to please the
interviewer. In doing so, recall may be distorted in an attempt to meet with the
expectations that they perceive you hold. You can counter this distortion by clearly
explaining what you expect from them. For more details refer to the section on ‘Engage
and Explain’.
An interviewee can also draw inferences from the way questions are worded. For
example, research has shown that variations of up to 25 cm in a person’s height have
been reported depending on whether the interviewer asked how ‘tall’ someone was
compared to how ‘short’. A more appropriate way of asking this question is ‘What was
their height?’
Loftus and Palmer (1974) conducted a famous study in which two groups of participants
were shown a slide sequence of a traffic accident involving two cars. They were then
asked a series of questions one of which referred to the speed of the vehicle. Within this
question a different verb was used for each group to describe the collision. One group
was asked, ‘About how fast were the cars going when they smashed into each other?’
The other group was asked ‘About how fast were the cars going when they hit each
other?’ A week later both groups were questioned again and asked if there was any
broken glass in the slides they had seen. Although there was in fact no broken glass at
all, 32% of the group that had been questioned with the word ‘smashed’ responded that
there was broken glass compared to only 16% of the group that used the word 'hit'.
The investigative interviewer can use appropriate questioning techniques to prevent
inferences being drawn by the interviewee (refer to the section on ‘Communication’).
Stereotypes
Stereotypes that people hold can be used to fill in gaps in encoded information. Studies
have found that witnesses often use their stereotypes of commonly held beliefs about
population norms regarding hair colour, eye colour and complexion. In one study 93%
Page 29 of 76
Investigative interviewing doctrine,
Continued...
correctly recalled a subject's hair colour as blond but nearly half wrongly reported that
the subject had blue eyes.
Memory is affected by our perceptions and attitudes. An example of this would be
someone who believes that most ‘muggers’ are Maori or Pacific Islanders. Let's say this
person witnesses a handbag snatch and sees the back of a hooded person running off.
When questioned by the police they may confidently state their
genuine belief that
they saw a Maori or Pacific Island youth commit the offence. It is only by careful
questioning and listening that you may establish that they could not have known what
ethnicity the person was (or perhaps even gender). In this situation, the memory of the
witness was affected by stereotypes. Take nothing at face value. Probe the information
for as much detail as possible.
You need to be aware that the level of a witness's confidence does not
guarantee the accuracy of what the witness says.
Partisanship
Partisanship (i.e. siding with one particular group) has been found to affect the accuracy
of a reported event. Consider supporters from two different rugby teams viewing a
crucial penalty. Both will believe the other side was at fault. Another example is a fight
between two rival gangs. A witness who belongs to one gang is likely to believe the
other gang was responsible for the worst violence in contrast to a witness who belongs
to the other gang who is likely to believe the opposite. You need to take partisanship on
the part of witnesses into account when interviewing and evaluating their accounts.
Again, probing should produce more information.
Scripts
Scripts (or schema) are a short cut that the memory uses to assist the processing of
large amounts of information. They are preformatted expectations that relate to many of
our actions and the recall of our actions. Instead of encoding every piece of new
information relating to a particular event we rely on the script that is already held in our
memory so that only distinctive information is encoded. This script is our own version of
what typically happens in this type of scenario.
In a study by Bower, Black and Turner (1979) participants read a short story about
going to a restaurant. When asked to recall the story participants were likely fill in the
gaps by adding information about eating and paying for the meal when this was never
mentioned in the original scenario.
We have scripts both for events that we have personal experience of and for events that
we have not experienced. People who have never encountered a crime still possess
detailed scripts for criminal offences which are often based on information gained from
television, media or books.
Emotional factors
If someone experiences an emotional event they will often ‘re-run’ it in their mind. This
can improve recall of that memory. When the emotions are negative, such as anxiety,
they can produce the opposite effect and may interfere with memory recall.
Numerous studies have shown that under certain circumstances people can be
influenced into recalling false memories.
For example, a study suggesting memories can be implanted involved showing
participants photographs and telling them they were from their childhood, when in fact
they were not. When later questioned about events in their childhood the participants
Page 30 of 76
Investigative interviewing doctrine,
Continued...
falsely remembered information that related back to the photographs they had
previously been shown.
In a study by Loftus and Coan (1993) a 14 year old boy was asked to recall over five
days details about four events that occurred in his childhood. Three were true and one
was false (this involved a scenario of being lost in a shopping mall). The boy was
interviewed about the events in the presence of his sister who was a confederate of the
investigators. She provided verbal corroboration of the events occurring. Over time the
boy began to report more details about the false event and even rated it as more likely
to be true than two of the events that really happened. Other research has shown that it
is not just children's memories that can be affected in this way, adults too can have false
memories implanted through suggestion.
It is imperative that you do not suggest any information to any interviewee during the
course of an interview.
Questioning is critical in aiding memory recall. However the wrong type of questions may
in fact cause interviewees to recall memories inaccurately, provide false memories or not
recall at all.
Context effects
Physically returning to the place (i.e. external context) where the memory was encoded
can aid the recall of information. For example, going back to Police College can result in
a flood of memories from when you were a recruit.
In a study by Godden and Baddeley (1975) divers learnt a list of words either on land or
20 feet under water. Later they were separated into two different groups, so some that
had learnt the words on land were asked to recall the words on land and some in the
water and vice versa for those who learnt the words in the water. It was found that
those that learnt the words on the land recalled more of the words when on land and the
same occurred for those whose learning occurred in the water. Recall was 50% higher
when learning and recall occurred in the same context.
Internal context has also been shown to enhance recall. For example, if someone is
feeling happy they are more likely to remember happy events. When interviewing it can
assist recall to get the interviewee to ‘set the scene’ by mentally reinstating both where
they were and how they felt at the time (for more details refer to the section on the
‘Free Recall Model’). Use your discretion with mental reinstatement involving a traumatic
event, as this could distress the interviewee and reduce their ability to recall the event.
Interruptions
Memory recall can be affected by interruption. Have you ever had experience of being
interrupted while in full flow and then of not being able to remember what you were
talking about? Consider the following situation. Imagine that you are chatting with a
colleague in a patrol car and are interrupted by a radio message. When you return to the
conversation you cannot remember what you were talking about or the stage you had
reached in the conversation. Interrupting your flow can cause you to forget what you
were about to say.
If you want witnesses to remember,
do not interrupt them when they are talking.
When they pause because they are trying to remember, do not interrupt or try to help
them by guessing what they might be trying to say. Give them time. They will not be
consciously aware of what, to you, might be an ‘awkward’ silence. Let them guide the
pace and direction of the interview.
Page 31 of 76
Investigative interviewing doctrine,
Continued...
Continued interruptions will cause the witness to cut their answers short, effectively
training the witness to answer with short responses. Equally open questions without
interruptions will encourage the witness to develop their answers, take time to recall
information and provide more evidence.
Contamination and cross-contamination
Contamination
The interviewee’s memory of an event may be the most important piece of evidence you
have. Like forensic trace evidence, it must be preserved to prevent contamination and
deterioration. It is your job, as an investigative interviewer, to do everything you can to
minimise the risk of contamination. During interview you should attempt to capture
complete, accurate and reliable information. Creating an accurate record of the interview
will help counter the effects of memory deterioration that will inevitably occur before
court proceedings.
Cross-contamination
Likewise, memory can be cross-contaminated. Cross-contamination occurs when
evidence from one source is transferred to another source. By inappropriate questioning
and bringing prior knowledge of the matter under investigation into the interview, an
interviewer can elicit from a witness information the interviewer wants to hear but is not
within the witness’s memory and which may be inaccurate.
Example of cross-contamination of an interviewee’s memory
The interviewer knows that a suspect who was believed to be driving a blue vehicle has
been arrested.
Interviewer: ‘What colour was the vehicle?’
Interviewee: ‘I don’t know.’
Interviewer: ‘Could the vehicle you have seen been blue?’
Interviewer: ‘Yes. Actually I think it was blue.’
In this scenario the interviewer, through the use of inappropriate questioning, has led
the interviewee to provide information that may not be truthful but is what the
interviewer wants to hear to support the current evidence.
Cross-contamination from other witnesses is also an area of risk for the investigative
interviewer. When there is more than one witness to an event, ideally they should be
separated and interviewed before having the chance to talk to others. This is not always
possible. Therefore it is your responsibility to ask them not to discuss the incident
amongst each other so their individual memories of the event are not contaminated.
Any contamination of the interviewee’s memory will adversely affect your ability to
establish the truth about the matter under investigation.
Suggestibility
Interviewers must guard against suggesting the answer they want.
Suggestibility is when the response of an interviewee is influenced by what they believe
the interviewer will want or expect them to say. The ease with which witnesses in
particular will pick up messages from the interviewer has been demonstrated many
times.
Page 32 of 76
Investigative interviewing doctrine,
Continued...
For example, confessions in the past have been obtained from suspects after lengthy
interrogations because interviewing officers consistently refused to believe the suspect’s
denials. Judges have disallowed the confession where the behaviour of the interviewer
could have persuaded the suspect to confess to crimes they did not commit.
How to avoid biasing an interviewee’s evidence has become an important issue,
especially in relation to the testimony of children in cases of alleged abuse.
Investigators, as well as other professionals involved in this field, need to be aware of
this.
People vary in the degree to which they are ‘suggestible’. It is accepted that those who
are known to be vulnerable, for example children and people with learning disabilities,
are more susceptible to suggestion and require special protection. Research suggests
that a higher proportion of those who pass through police custody need to be treated as
vulnerable persons than has hitherto been imagined.
Investigative interviewing should safeguard against untrue admissions of guilt.
Interviewer limitations
You need to be aware that in your role as the interviewer, you too may contaminate the
interview. This can occur:
• when you are encoding, storing and retrieving all that is told to you by the
interviewee
• through your own verbal and non-verbal communication.
The contamination can be intentional (e.g. an attempt to get the 'best' result) or
unintentional. Factors to be aware of are outlined below.
Attention
The information you encode is determined by the degree to which you pay attention and
actively listen to the interviewee’s account. Selective attention usually determines what
information the interviewer attends to and is often dependant on the details that you
perceive as being important. Instead, you must attend to all the information an
interviewee provides. This is difficult and requires total concentration so that you give
yourself every opportunity to encode everything the person says, not just that which you
may think is important. This is why writing brief notes throughout the interview is vital.
They act as prompts, as cues for probing further, and help you structure an accurate and
comprehensive written statement or summary.
Interviewer perceptions may contaminate the interviewer’s memory, influence
the interviewee’s account and place the investigation in jeopardy.
Scripts
Interviewers also use scripts to assist the processing of the large amount of information
received during an interview. These scripts are our own version of what typically
happens in the sort of crime being investigated, the category or type of witness and the
process of interviewing. It may be based on your previous experience with other
investigations of a similar nature or from a briefing about the incident. To guide the
processing of information, you may unwittingly over-emphasise the information that you
receive that supports your script, while distorting or ignoring information that is
inconsistent.
Other memory filters
A number of additional filters can influence the memory of an investigative interviewer
including:
Page 33 of 76
Investigative interviewing doctrine,
Continued...
•
Knowledge of investigation and perceptions. You may be affected by your
previous knowledge of the investigation and your perceptions of the world (which are
influenced by your personal background including education, religion, culture,
stereotypes, colleagues’ views, upbringing, experiences, and the like).
•
Pre-determined hypotheses. From your knowledge of this investigation and
previous investigations, you may develop your own hypothesis about what happened
and be particularly attentive to information that fits.
•
Ingredients to prove. As the interviewer you will be conscious of the ingredients
required to prove an offence or to counter the defences to an offence.
All these factors can influence memory in what is called ‘confirmatory bias’.
Confirmatory bias
Confirmatory bias is when information is interpreted so that it confirms what you already
know, or think you know. Accordingly a complete account may not be elicited from the
interviewee as the interviewer believes he or she has all the information that can be
provided. In these circumstances, the interviewer may over-control the interview and
use inappropriate questions. The resulting account will be a reflection of the interviewer's
preconceived ideas rather than an accurate and complete account of what the
interviewee knows. In this situation not only do interviewers only hear what they want to
hear but interviewees may change what they say in an attempt to please the
interviewer.
When an interviewee reports evidence that contradicts what the interviewer already
knows or thinks they know, the interviewer can do one of three things:
• include it in full
• distort it to fit the facts
• omit the information altogether.
The last two options are unacceptable, interviewers must make every attempt to include
and explore all contradictory evidence in both the interview and any subsequent written
statement.
Question strategy
The type of questioning you use can influence the information that the interviewee
discloses. You may subconsciously ask questions in a manner that encourages the
interviewee to provide answers that support your confirmatory bias. Using open
questions minimises the risk of this type of contamination (refer to the section on
‘Questioning’).
Interviewing requires intense concentration
Trying to remember an incident completely can be hard work. If someone gives you
information that supports what you think has happened it is tempting to be satisfied and
stop probing further. It is so much easier to use your previous knowledge, stereotypes,
prejudices, beliefs, assumptions or expectations of what happened to save the effort of
going further. Certainly this may be what often happens,
but this process leads to
inaccurate information and evidential problems further down the judicial process.
Accurate memory recall relies upon witnesses making the effort to recall as much as
they can without not short-cutting the process. Unfortunately, many people do short-cut
the process and one of the skills of a good interviewer is to prevent that process.
Page 34 of 76
Investigative interviewing doctrine,
Continued...
Standardisation
Unless the interview has been recorded electronically, once you have encoded and stored
the information you will have to recall and transpose it into a written statement.
Ordinary forgetfulness will affect this process. When transposing the information in an
attempt to produce a ‘good’ statement the interviewer will often reword what the
interviewee says to ‘standardise’ the account. This may result in a statement that is
different from what was actually said. Standardisation will involve:
• making the information sound more plausible
• leaving out contradictions
• recording the information in a manner so it confirms what is already thought to have
happened
• recording the information in chronological order
• filtering the information to cover specific ingredients of the offence and defences.
Although statements should be standardised so they are chronological and cover offence
ingredients and possible defences, the interviewee’s account should never be reworded
nor have relevant and admissible details removed. Remember, given the limitations of
memory, it is natural for an interviewee to be genuinely mistaken or confused about
what they have witnessed. It is your role to help the person remember everything they
possibly can so as to establish the truth not to distort information so it supports a
preconceived theory.
In one study by McLean (1992) 16 written statements were taken by
experienced investigators. The process was also tape recorded at the same
time. It was found that statements had important omissions with evidentially
significant detail missing. Not one contained all the relevant information. On
average, fourteen items of relevant information were omitted per interview.
Before they give evidence in court, which may be months or even years after the event,
a statement is used to refresh the interviewee’s memory. The ‘refreshing’ effect of the
statement will be more powerful if it is a complete account written in the interviewee’s
own words. Further, in court witnesses will give evidence according to their memory. If
this is inconsistent with their statement they can be open to criticism under cross-
examination by defence counsel. In an attempt to undermine their credibility and
reliability they may be blamed for the inconsistencies. Highlighting such inconsistencies
may lead the judge or jury to form ‘reasonable doubt’ about the prosecution case
resulting in a wrongful acquittal.
Page 35 of 76
Investigative interviewing doctrine,
Continued...
Listening
Introduction
International research reveals that investigators will ask an interviewee for an account
and then, on average, interrupt the interviewee within 7.5 seconds. New Zealand
research produced a similar result, with the average interruption occurring within 6.8
seconds.
One of the most important communication skills is the ability to listen, a skill that many
people have to develop. It is easy to jump to conclusions and assume that we know what
another person is experiencing or needs. In everyday life we are often selective in our
listening and filter out what we think is non-essential information. However when
interviewing for evidence it is vital that interviewers are able to listen effectively.
Active listening
Listening is not a passive activity. You must actively process the information that is
being provided by the interviewee. Active listening allows you to:
• engage the interviewee and establish a working relationship
• identify topics raised during the interview and therefore manage the conversation
• communicate your interest in the interviewee and their account
• identify important evidential information
• identify gaps and inconsistencies.
To improve your ability to listen, before you start the interview you should:
• select an appropriate place for the interview that will minimise distractions
• plan and prepare for the interview so that you have a greater understanding of what
is being said and can compare it to other sources (to assist further questioning)
• keep an open mind about the interview.
The components of active listening are detailed below.
Concentrate
Be attentive to the interviewee and concentrate on what they are saying. Focus on what
you are doing.
It is useful to take notes that can act as a memory aid but do not allow this to affect the
flow of the interview.
Comprehend
It is important that you gain a full and accurate understanding of what is said and that
you identify what are reported facts and reports of opinion. Consider how the
information fits in with the information you already have and how it affects your
interview plan.
Sustain
Reinforce your commitment to giving the interviewee adequate time and space to talk.
Active listening should encourage interviewees to tell you how they feel about an
incident. Use attentive silence and do not interrupt (refer to the section below on
'Techniques for effective listening' for tools to assist with this process).
Use listening strategies
A variety of strategies can be used to encourage the interviewee to recall and reveal
information. Using non-biasing behaviours to reinforce the interviewee communicating is
part of active listening.
Listening strategies that can be used are detailed below.
Page 36 of 76
Investigative interviewing doctrine,
Continued...
Listening strategies
Showing you want to listen
It is important that you convey to the interviewee that you want to listen to their
account. The following will help you achieve this.
• Inform the interviewee at the outset that you will be giving them time to answer your
questions and that you expect them to answer fully and accurately.
• Once you have asked a question, wait for a reply. This will convey the perfectly
natural expectation that you wish them to talk to you.
• Always allow the interviewee time to formulate their thoughts and give their replies.
This process has benefits for you. It enables you to have ‘thinking time’ about where you
are in the interview process and where any new information might take you.
Taking turns to speak and allowing the interviewee’s contribution
You have all met people who dominate conversations by interrupting and not allowing
others their turn to speak. They speak loudly in their attempt to have people listen to
their story. When asking a question, they often answer it themselves. These people are
only interested in their own agenda, having poor social and communication skills.
During an interview it is the interviewee who has all the important information. You
should give the interviewee their turn to talk and the time to do so. This helps them to
feel part of a conversation and encourages talking. During an interview you should aim
to have them do 80% of the talking.
Remember the purpose of the interview is to obtain the interviewee’s version of events.
They must be given the opportunity to have their say.
In the initial phases, you will need to speak more whilst explaining the purpose of the
interview and setting the ‘ground rules’ etc. In later phases you will need to listen more
as you endeavour to analyse the information being given.
Conversation topics
It is important to let the interview flow naturally from one topic to the next. By listening
effectively to the account you will encourage the natural progression of the conversation.
It takes a great deal of mental effort on the part of the interviewee to recall something in
detail. Changing topics prematurely before the interviewee has exhausted the detail they
can or wish to give is distracting and counter-productive. Wait until a more appropriate
time in the interview before asking questions about another topic. Finish each topic
before moving on. If something comes to mind during one topic that is not immediately
relevant, jot it down so that it can be raised later and is not forgotten.
During the
Engage and Explain phase you will be providing a lot of information and
must actively strive to bring the interviewee into the conversation.
In the
Account phase, the interviewee should provide you with information and will
therefore do most of the talking.
Encouragement cues
Nodding of the head or saying 'yes' to encourage the witness to keep talking is likely to
be seen as the wrong sort of encouragement by defence counsel. Particularly if that part
of the evidence is damming to their case. In those circumstances, the defence would
have a good chance of having the interview excluded from evidence and therefore we
need to avoid giving this type of 'positive' feedback. An open hand gesture or a brief ‘Uh
huh’ are examples of encouragement cues which are ok to use and are used naturally to
Page 37 of 76
Investigative interviewing doctrine,
Continued...
encourage the speaker to continue. It tells the speaker you are interested in what is
being said and that you do not wish to interrupt. Use sparingly as overuse may result in
the opposite effect and interrupt the interviewee and cause them to think that you do
not believe them or that you want them to pause so you can say something.
Insincere use of these techniques when you are not really listening should be avoided as
they can easily be detected by the interviewee.
Echo probing
This is the process of repeating a phrase or the last few words of a reply. Its effect is to
act like a question to prompt elaboration of a specific point and invites the other person
to continue speaking about the subject. It can be particularly effective when a person
who has been talking freely, stops speaking. It shows that you are listening and
encourages the person to continue. It should not be used too quickly or where the
witness is still thinking (indicated by looking away), echoing can easily be an interruption
and counterproductive. It is better used as a paraphrase effectively asking a new
question using the words used by the witness.
Example of echoing
Interviewee: 'He had a large knife'
Pause
Interviewer: 'Large knife?'
Select relevant phrases or words but do not overuse this technique. Mindless repetition
of words and overuse will have the opposite effect to what you intended and can make it
seem that you are not really listening, or make you look foolish.
You should take care that any emphasis you place on repeated words does not
unintentionally indicate any judgemental feelings about the other person.
Summarising
Use summarising strategically when interviewing by repeating (in summary) what the
interviewee has said. This can be done both during the account and at the end of the
interview. Summarising has the following advantages:
• it allows interviewees to check your understanding of what has been said and in doing
so provides them with the opportunity to make any corrections
• it shows you value what interviewees tell you and encourages them to become
increasingly open with you
• it assists you with encoding the information into your memory through rehearsal
• It confirms the account and ownership of the information as correct by the
interviewee
When interviewing suspects on visual recording, summarising should be used regularly
to lock the suspect into their account and emphasise important aspects of their account
to the suspect and anyone watching the interview.
Use summarising with witness interviews to ensure you understand correctly what they
have told you and can prepare an accurate written statement. Summarise back to them
using their own words using a clarification seeking approach. Explain to the witness that
they need to correct you if any part of your summary is inaccurate. Careful accurate
summarising is vital as inaccurate summarising can contaminate the person's memory.
Other non-verbal communication
Be aware of both your own and the interviewee’s nonverbal communication. To
encourage the interviewee to speak you should:
• use eye contact appropriately
Page 38 of 76
Investigative interviewing doctrine,
Continued...
• adopt an open posture
• lean forward to listen
• be seated in appropriate proximity
• show empathy in your voice
• avoid distractions such or glancing at your watch
• avoid yawning or fidgeting as these suggest a lack of interest.
Use of silence and pauses
Silence in an interview can be unnatural and uncomfortable for both interviewer and
interviewee alike. We all have a natural urge to fill pauses and gaps. Having asked a
question, pause so that the interviewee may process what you are asking, access their
memory, and formulate an answer. This will take time and concentration on the
interviewee’s part, so be patient.
When people concentrate hard, they remain silent and normally focus on a neutral space
such as the floor or ceiling. By not interrupting this process you may obtain that valuable
extra piece of information. Breaking eye contact can usually encourage this to occur.
As the interviewer, wait until the interviewee has finished answering the question before
you formulate your next question. Whilst they are answering your question you should
be actively listening to what they are telling you, not thinking of the next question. It is
acceptable and often beneficial to pause between their answer and your next question –
they expect you to act professionally and doing so involves both active listening and
asking thoughtful questions.
Silence can also be a powerful tool to use when wanting to prompt an interviewee to
speak. After putting a question to a person who is reluctant to answer, or after receiving
a reply which needs further elaboration, consider remaining silent. As people normally
speak in turns, and your silence is the cue that it is still their turn, the interviewee will
find it difficult not to do so.
Finally, remember that no investigator may try to obtain answers to questions by the use
of oppression, so use silence with discretion. For example, when a person has said
something that you think is patently untrue it can be very effective to stay silent and see
what happens. However this might be viewed as unfair if overused.
Page 39 of 76
Investigative interviewing doctrine,
Continued...
Questioning
Introduction
All members of the public have a duty to help investigators to prevent crime and identify
offenders. This is a civic rather than a legal duty. When you are trying to discover
whether, or by whom, an offence has been committed, you are entitled to question any
person from whom you think useful information can be obtained (refer to the Chief
Justice Note Guideline 1).
Most people will assist your investigations readily, but if a witness is unwilling to answer
questions about a particular offence or incident no action can normally be taken. The
exception to this rule is when there is a legal obligation to provide information (e.g.
under the Land Transport Act 1998).
Basic rules of questioning
The type of questioning you use in an investigative interview is vital. An outline of the
basic rules is as follows:
Vocabulary
The language used should be simple, unambiguous and jargon-free
so all parties understand what is meant.
Relevance
Each question must have a purpose and not be used to fill time. A
well-prepared interview plan accompanied by listening carefully to
everything that is said should eliminate repetitive questioning.
Pace
The interviewee must be allowed time to understand the question,
think what knowledge they have of the matter, formulate their
answer and deliver it.
Interruptions
Interviewers must learn to curb any tendency to interrupt the
interviewee as this will break the person's train of thought and stop
the flow of information, potentially preventing important facts from
emerging.
Control
If a suspect interviewee strays from the point, direct him or her back
firmly but tactfully e.g. ‘That's very interesting, but before you
continue, can you tell me what happened when you first saw the
person acting suspiciously in the street?’ Suspects often try to take
interviewers off track to avoid difficult or evidential topics in the
hope that you will be sidetracked and not go back. However this 're-
direction' back to topics by the interviewer should be used sparingly
with witnesses as they will often move to information that is readily
available i.e. what comes to mind and therefore what they are
thinking about. In those circumstances we need to ask questions
that are compatible with what they are thinking about. Once we have
done that, we can move back to the unfinished issue or topic.
Appropriate questions
There are a variety of different types of questions you can use as an investigative
interviewer. The types you use should be those that will elicit the most accurate,
complete and reliable information. How the first question of the interview is worded is
vital to the usefulness or otherwise of any subsequent information provided by the
interviewee.
Open-ended questions
An open-ended question is the best type of question and is framed to encourage the
interviewee to provide a detailed answer. Advantages of asking open questions include:
• allowing interviewees to give a detailed full account in their own words
• encouraging the interviewee to control the information flow
• minimising the risk of the interviewer influencing what the interviewee says.
Page 40 of 76
Investigative interviewing doctrine,
Continued...
The resulting account will have better quality and quantity of information than if other
types of questions were used.
Open questions should be used as much as possible during the interview and your full
attention is required to observe and listen to everything.
TEDS
Learning to ask open questions is a skill that will take practice. Asking questions using
the words represented by the mnemonic
TEDS will assist with this process:
Tell Tell me
Explain Explain
Describe Describe
Show Show me
TEDS act as instructions rather than questions and encourage the interviewee to provide
a full and detailed account of what they know.
Example of TED style questions:
'
Tell me everything that happened...'
'You have told me that you saw the guy give the woman a crack.
Explain what you
mean by this?
'
Describe the man...'
'
Show me what happened...'
Another useful instruction is ‘
Talk me through… ’.
Probing questions
Probing or closed questions are ones that allow only a relatively small range of
responses, usually a word or short phrase. These are the second best type of question
but should only be used when an attempt to use an open question has failed. They can
be used to get specific detail or to probe information given from an open question.
5WH
Who, what, when, where, why and how (5WH) can often be framed as open questions
but are also used to elicit short answers. These are appropriate probing questions that
can be used:
• 'Who said that?'
• 'What did they say?'
• 'When was that?'
• 'Where were you standing?'
• 'Why did you go there?'
• 'How long were you there for?'
As investigators we want to know the answers to these types of questions and the
temptation is to use them to control the interview and minimise irrelevant information.
This should be avoided as it causes the interviewee to be passive, interrupts their
concentration and affects memory recall. Closed questions are also more likely to
provide incorrect responses than they would with open questions.
Page 41 of 76
Investigative interviewing doctrine,
Continued...
Instead, you should always start the interview using open TEDS type questions giving
the interviewee an opportunity to provide a full account. When open questions are no
longer fruitful the 5WH type questions can be used to probe their account for any details
omitted.
Example of the appropriate use of a probing question
While interviewing a witness who has already given you a detailed description of the
offender but not mentioned the offender’s height, it would be proper in this situation to
ask the offender, ‘
What was the height of the man you saw?'
Be careful when repeating questions to witnesses because they might infer that their
initial response was incorrect (it might be better to ask the same question in a different
way).
Questions beginning with ‘why’ should be limited or avoided in interviews with victims
and, to an extent, witnesses, because of the possibility they might think you are judging
or blaming them.
Inappropriate questions
There are a number of types of questions that should be avoided as they may affect the
quality and quantity of the information given.
The ultimate closed questions seek to elicit a 'yes' or 'no' answer, these may start with
'Did you…?', 'Can you…?' 'Would you…?' etc. This type of question will encourage very
short answers. Repeated requests for short answers will quickly train the witness to
respond with short answers and can reduce the responses to following open questions
and TEDS. These types of questions are generally used as a last resort when all else
fails.
Leading and misleading questions
Leading and misleading questions imply the answer or assume facts that are likely to be
in dispute. Leading questions imply the correct response whereas misleading imply an
incorrect response. These types of questions may provide the interviewee’s with
knowledge or ideas they have not previously formulated.
Example of a leading or misleading question
The interviewee has not mentioned the type of car but the interviewer says:
‘
Was the car you saw driving off, a station wagon?'
If the car was a station wagon this is a leading question, if it was a van this is a
misleading question.
Interviewees may give the expected answer for a variety of reasons including:
• they are trying to be helpful because they are confused or frightened
• they may see you as a person in authority and believe you know more about a
subject than they do and will often defer to what you appear to know.
• they may be susceptible to suggestion and incorporate your suggestion into their own
memory
This is especially true for young children and people of a limited mental capability,
though is not limited to these groups. When this happens, the integrity of the evidence
obtained during an interview might be challenged in court on the basis that the
interviewer influenced the interviewee’s recall. The information you provide may also be
incorrect and reduce the quality of the investigation and the evidence.
Page 42 of 76
Investigative interviewing doctrine,
Continued...
Forced-choice questions
These types of questions leave the interviewee with a small number of alternatives to
choose from. There is no guarantee that any of the alternatives are the correct option.
The interviewee may guess the answer by selecting one of the options given, even if
they know the correct option is not provided. You should never use these types of
questions.
Examples of forced-choice questions
Interviewer: ‘Was the car dark blue or black?’
'
Did it happen on Monday or Tuesday
By giving the interviewee only two alternatives, both of which could be wrong, they may
pick one in an attempt to assist the interviewer.
Multiple questions
Asking more than one question at once is a multiple question and can lead to confusion.
Firstly, the interviewee does not know which part of the question to answer and must
choose between them. This results in either part of the sub-question being unanswered
or additional cognitive loading on the interviewee who is trying to remember the sub-
questions at the same time as retrieving information to answer each sub-question.
Secondly, when an answer is given, the interviewer does not know which question was
answered. Make sure you ask only one question at a time.
Example of a multiple question
Interviewer: ‘
Did you see him? What was he wearing? Did he have a jacket on?’
If the interviewee answers ‘
Yes’ what question are they answering?
Complex questions
Avoid using grammatically complex questions. They are confusing and reduce the
confidence of the interviewee. Where possible, keep your language simple and at the
level used by the interviewee.
Example of a complex question
Interviewer: ‘
You said you’ve never been there before but I think you did go there, and
that you said you’ve never been there before because you know that you would get in
trouble for being there because you know that the place was burgled. What do you say
to that?’
Negative phrasing
Avoid using negative phrasing as it is confusing for the interviewee. This is especially
true for people who have English as a second language.
Example of negative phrasing
Interviewer: ‘
You’re not employed are you?’
In this situation if the interviewee was unemployed they could answer ‘
Yes’ or ‘
No’ and
be quite correct.
Opinion type questions
Avoid asking questions that include a personal statement or opinion.
Page 43 of 76
Investigative interviewing doctrine,
Continued...
Example of an opinion type question
Interviewer: ‘
We know you did it, so why don't you just admit it?'
Jargon
Avoid using jargon of any sorts. Police jargon such as "decamped" is not understood by
everyone. Use everyday language that is unlikely to make someone feel inferior or be
misunderstood.
Page 44 of 76
Investigative interviewing doctrine,
Continued...
Part 3 - The Peace Interviewing Framework
Introduction
This section is an introduction to the PEACE interviewing framework, which has been
adopted by the New Zealand Police as a good practice model.
Interviewing framework
Investigators should conduct all interviews using the PEACE interviewing framework. This
involves the following phases:
Phase Action
1
Planning and preparation:
Review available information and establish interview objectives.
2
Engage and explain:
Develop rapport and explain interview processes and procedures.
3
Account, probe and challenge:
Using an appropriate interview model gain an account of events, probe the
account for more information and challenge any inconsistencies.
4 Closure:
Conclude the interview and address any concerns.
5 Evaluation:
Evaluate how the interview impacts on the investigation and the performance
of the interviewer.
Time should be spent on each phase but no rigid boundaries exist between the phases.
The amount of time on each phase should be determined by the seriousness of the
offence.
What is the PEACE interviewing framework?
This part of the doctrine expands on the five phases of the PEACE framework. PEACE is a
professionally validated, evidence based framework for investigative interviewing.
Figure 4: The PEACE model of investigative interviewing
Page 45 of 76
Investigative interviewing doctrine,
Continued...
The PEACE framework provides the structure for all investigative interviews whether with
witnesses or suspects. The term interview structure recognises that the interview is
something we build or create. As the interviewer, you are responsible for the planning
and conduct of the interview.
A well-planned and carefully conducted interview has a good chance of obtaining
complete, accurate and reliable information. The PEACE framework helps you do that.
Movement between phases in the interview
The ‘
PEACE framework’ diagram shows lines linking the phases of the interview. Some
lines are solid, indicating that there is a natural forward movement from one phase to
the next. For example, explaining the purpose of an interview is a task that may require
repetition and redefinition throughout the interview. Similarly
Closure is linked back to
Account, Probing and Challenge with a dotted line. This indicates that you might
need to re-open discussion of the interviewee’s account during the
Closure phase. The
interviewee may recall some new information or may wish to test your memory of what
they have previously said.
When this happens you will naturally return to the
Account, Probing & Challenge stage. It is important to remember that there are no rigid boundaries between the
phases and flexibility is required throughout.
Time should be spent on each phase but no rigid boundaries exist between the phases.
The PEACE framework for every interview
For every interaction requiring you to obtain information, whether conducting a vehicle
turnover or interviewing a suspect for a homicide, the PEACE framework can be applied.
Time must always be spent on each of the phases and the type of interaction will
determine how much time you spend.
Example of applying the PEACE framework with the turnover of a speeding
vehicle.
Planning and preparation: you must decide why you are stopping the vehicle, where
is the best place to pull over, whether you will ask the driver to get out of the vehicle or
remain inside, what you will say to them.
Engage and explain: you will spend time introducing yourself to the driver and
explaining to them why you asked them to stop.
Account: you will ask them why they were speeding, show or explain the evidence of
the recorded speed and discuss their speeding with them.
Closure: you will either issue a ticket or give them a warning depending on the decision
you have made and explain why you have made that decision. You may give them your
card and ask them to contact you if they require any advice or further information.
Evaluation: you will consider what else needs to be done such as completing any
further details required on your Infringement Offence Notice and placing the copy in your
supervisor’s tray. You will reflect on your interaction with that person and consider what
went well, what did not and how you might be able to deal with the situation better next
time.
Page 46 of 76
Investigative interviewing doctrine,
Continued...
Interview models
Within the PEACE framework you can apply different interview models to elicit
information. The models known as 'free recall', 'cognitive interviewing' and 'conversation
management' are examples of these and will be detailed in this doctrine. These models
are used during the actual interview process so affect the engage and explain, account
and closure stages of PEACE.
Time taken to conduct interviews
Learning to use the PEACE framework with the free recall or conversation management
interview models will take practice. Initially you may find that your interviews take
longer as you are still learning the skills. Once your skills have developed you will
become more efficient at interviewing and find that any extra time you do spend
interviewing will be due to the increased quantity and quality of information you
generate. You will find that by asking the right questions and allowing the interviewee to
give their recall of events without interrupting is a more efficient way of producing a
complete and accurate account than continuous questioning. Electronically recording
suspect interviews will also save you the time consuming task of writing down everything
that is said in the interview.
In addition, higher quality interviews will save you time later during the prosecution
process. The PEACE framework is flexible and you will develop the ability to tailor the
interview so that the amount of time spent matches the investigation needs.
Page 47 of 76
Investigative interviewing doctrine,
Continued...
Planning and preparation
Introduction
This section will detail the procedures involved in the first phase of a PEACE interview:
planning and preparation.
Summary
How much time should be spent on planning and preparation?
All officers should spend time planning and preparing for an interview. The amount of
time will depend on the circumstances of the case - it will vary from 5 minutes to weeks.
What should be covered when planning and preparing for an interview?
When planning and preparing for an interview the following should be taken into
consideration:
• interview objectives
• investigatively important topics
• interviewee profile: identity factors and current state
• legal requirements
• interview structure
• contingencies for interviewee reaction
• practical arrangements
Written interview plans
Where possible a written interview plan should be completed.
Why plan and prepare?
Planning and preparation:
• is one of the most important phases in effective interviewing
• should be carried out no matter what type of interview is being considered, whether it
is with a witness or suspect
• ensures that you are ready to conduct an effective and ethical interview.
Each factor should be considered in relation to the others when preparing for an
interview. The circumstances of each case will determine the importance of each variable
and how they impact on one another. For example, when and where the interview takes
place may be affected by the need for a nominated adult or an interpreter to be present.
The amount of time you spend planning and preparing for an interview may vary from
minutes to weeks depending on features such as the time available and the severity of
the offence. Regardless of the pressure you are under you should always spend a
minimum of five to ten minutes planning and preparing (except in those circumstances
where you are stopping a car or attending an urgent event.
Whatever time restraints you are under, always make time to plan your
interview.
Sources of information
There are many sources of information available including:
• information contained on the investigation file
• a full NIA check especially of a person's Criminal History, Links, 'Records'
• speaking with other staff who have previous knowledge of the interviewee or the
interviewee’s family and/or associates
• records held by Youth Aid Section
• information held by your local Intelligence Section
• information held by M.O. Section, Police National Headquarters
Page 48 of 76
Investigative interviewing doctrine,
Continued...
• examining historic files relating to the interviewee
• any previous statements or explanations made by the interviewee
• checks with other government agencies
• search warrants on bank accounts, telephones and so on.
What sources you use will be dependant on the time available and seriousness of the
offence. Use these sources to address the different categories detailed below.
Interview objectives
When interviewing suspects you should always read and analyse all information available
about the investigation before starting the interview. For an enquiry file this translates
into reviewing all file documents including statements (previously made by the
interviewee and other persons), reports, jobsheets, notebook entries, other
documentation, examining any relevant exhibits and, if the circumstances warrant it, a
visit to the scene. This is not necessary when interviewing witnesses as minimising the
information the interviewer has can minimise the possibility of accidentally giving
information to the witness and influencing their evidence.
If you are reacting to information provided by the Communication Centre this phase may
merely involve obtaining the full details over the radio and ascertaining any further
details from the informant.
Knowledge of the incident and details of what was reported may indicate whether an
interviewee is likely to be co-operative or hostile, use this to risk assess the situation but
try not to pre-judge the interviewee's response.
When reviewing the file you will also need to consider your strategy by asking such
questions as:
• which persons need to be interviewed and in what order?
• why is a particular interviewee’s viewpoint so important?
• what information do I now need to obtain?
• do I interview the interviewee now, or wait until I have obtained more information
from other sources?
This will help ensure that you obtain relevant and useful information from the interview.
With all the information established so far, decide on the purpose of the interview and
set objectives. The main objective will always be to obtain complete, accurate and
reliable information from the interviewee. But there will also be additional objectives that
you have identified, these may include:
• covering the ingredients of the offence and identifying possible defences
• obtaining evidence
• establishing and corroborating facts obtained from victims, witnesses, suspects, scene
and exhibits
• determining whether a suspect should be prosecuted, warned or eliminated from the
investigation
• linking victims, witnesses, suspects, scene and exhibits
• obtaining an explanation for actions taken (with suspects)
• locating, identifying or recovering articles
• gathering intelligence about the identities of criminals, and their activities
• cultivating human sources.
Every interview must be prepared with the needs of the investigation in mind, but these
objectives must not be met at any cost. You must behave ethically, fairly and
reasonably.
Page 49 of 76
Investigative interviewing doctrine,
Continued...
Investigatively important topics
With both witnesses and suspects there are topics that you will need to explore for the
purposes of the investigation - these are called investigatively important topics. You
need to ascertain what evidence you already have, what needs to be established and
how the interview might contribute to this process. Clearly identify all investigatively
important topics such as possible offences, ingredients to prove and any defences that
might be offered.
The main areas to consider are:
Intent (mens rea)
What was in the suspect's mind at the time?
Why did the suspect commit the crime?
What evidence is available to infer the suspect's
intent?
Action (actus reus)
What did the suspect do?
Method (Modus operandi)
How did the suspect commit the crime?
Defences What
possible
defences are open to the suspect?
Identity
How is the suspect linked to the offence?
It is your responsibility to understand the ingredients required to prove any criminal
offence.
If you complete a witness interview without covering ingredients and probable defences,
it is likely that a re-interview will be required. This should be avoided as it is both time
consuming and could affect the perceived integrity of the interviewee later in court.
There are a number of publications that can be accessed by an investigative interviewer
that provide the ingredients to prove and defences for criminal offences for example:
Adams on Criminal Law. If you are unsure, consult your supervisor, a member of the CIB
or a legal adviser.
Interviewee profile: identity factors
To interview effectively you need to build a profile of the interviewee. You will need to
ensure you have any available background knowledge. Consider what you know about
the interviewee, what you need to establish, and any information to meet their individual
needs. Elements which will help you develop an effective interviewer/interviewee
relationship are as follows:
Age
Children, young persons and the elderly require special consideration. Knowing their age
will help determine the most appropriate time for the interview and whether a nominated
adult, support person or referral to a trained child evidential interviewer is required. If
you do not feel able to make an informed decision, get advice from your supervisor.
Cultural background and language
Cultural background can affect what is and is not appropriate behaviour during the
interview. For example: women from certain ethnic groups may not want to be
interviewed by male officers. Similarly, some interviews may require a more formal or
informal approach, depending on the interviewee's cultural background. You should also
consider matters such as how their body language may be different given their cultural
background and whether the interviewee has proficient English so that you can
understand them and they can understand you. Think about using an interpreter.
Page 50 of 76
Investigative interviewing doctrine,
Continued...
Gender
All investigators regardless of gender, should be capable of carrying out effective
interviews. Selection for a particular interview should be on the basis of their
competency not gender.
Previous contact with police or other government agencies
This knowledge will assist you identify any warning signs that have previously been
noted e.g. factors that may impact on your safety during the interview. Background
checks may reveal information about the types of offences committed, methods used,
general behaviour when interviewed or if arrested. That said, it should be noted this
attitude and behaviour may have been in response to the situation at that time.
Other government agencies such as the Department of Corrections, Customs, and Child
Youth and Family Services may also have valuable information that may be of
assistance.
Domestic circumstances
Knowledge of an interviewee’s domestic circumstances may provide valuable information
on the influences on their life and what is important to them.
Consider speaking to members of the family, relatives, associates, colleagues and
neighbours but be aware that if you speak to these people first they may in turn inform
the interviewee that you have spoken to them. NIA links may also assist you with
establishing the interviewee’s family and associates (Family Violence records may in
invaluable in this respect).
Employment and routines
This will help you understand when is and is not an appropriate time for the interview. It
also will help you build a profile of the person which may assist you with developing a
working relationship with them.
Educational background and intellectual ability
Knowing something of a person’s educational background and achievement can provide
an indication of their vulnerability. These types of interviewees require special
consideration.
For example, interviewees with an intellectual disability may not understand their rights,
the significance of your questions and the implications of their answers. It may be
appropriate to arrange to have a support person present. If you do not feel able to make
an informed decision, get advice from your supervisor.
Physical, learning or mental disorder or disability
Interviewees may be vulnerable because of the condition of their physical and mental
health. These interviewees require special consideration. You should be alert to signs
and symptoms of health problems during your planning and preparation. Again, it may
be appropriate to arrange to have a support person present.
Interviewee profile: current state
While identity background checks are important, you should keep an open mind as
historical details may lead to pre-judgements that are no longer valid. Speak to any
officers that have had contact with the interviewee more recently to determine current
emotional and physical state. You should also use the factors below to make your own
assessment during the 'Engage and explain' phase of the interview.
Page 51 of 76
Investigative interviewing doctrine,
Continued...
Emotional state
Traumatic experience
Consider the experiences the interviewee has recently undergone, either as a witness or
suspect. The interviewee may be distressed as a result of the incident and this may be
heightened if asked to recall the event. Bear in mind that trauma may also affect their
memory. It may be appropriate to delay the interview because of the person's need for
treatment, counselling or social support.
Consider your own mental and physical state. After witnessing an incident you may not
be in a fit state to conduct an effective interview.
Fear of intimidation/recrimination
When an interviewee fears for their safety this will often be their primary concern and
may detract from the quality of information they give. Consider how to address these
concerns before conducting the interview.
Emotional factors not related to offence
Bear in mind that the offence is not the only thing taking place in the interviewee's life.
There may be other significant events taking place that should be catered for in your
planning such as bereavement, sickness, job loss, moving house and separation. Even
more everyday factors such as childcare and parking can cause an interviewee to be
distracted.
Physical state
Physical injury
The interviewee's physical health is always a priority. Make an assessment and arrange
for medical assistance if required. Delay the interview if need be.
Tiredness
If the interviewee is exhausted you should consider delaying the interview. This is
especially true for witnesses. You want to get the best possible information from them,
therefore this requires them to be alert and able to concentrate. With a suspect you may
only have a limited opportunity to interview them, so balance the need for an interview
with the need to be fair.
Intoxication
If the interviewee is intoxicated from alcohol or drugs, it may be unfair to interview them
at this time. These types of interviewees require special consideration. Consider delaying
the interview until a more appropriate time.
Legal requirements
Witnesses
Children, the intellectually impaired and adult victims of sexual abuse must be
interviewed by an appropriately trained person.
Some types of witnesses may be eligible to have their evidence presented by way of a
visually recorded interview. Legal requirements for these types of interviews are
specified in the Evidence Act 2006 and the Evidence Regulations 2007.
Suspects
There are a number of legal requirements that affect the conduct of investigative
interviews with suspects. When conducting interviews, investigators must comply with:
• Evidence Act 2006
Page 52 of 76
Investigative interviewing doctrine,
Continued...
• Practice Note on Police Questioning
• New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990
• Crimes Act 1961
• Children, Young Persons & their Families Act 1989
• Police Act 1957
Included in your considerations should be the following:
• should I caution the interviewee?
• how will I ensure they understand their rights?
• if they refuse to be interviewed what will I do?
• without an interview, is there sufficient evidence to arrest?
• if they are free to go, how will I ensure they understand this?
• if the interviewee asks to speak to a lawyer, will I speak to the lawyer and if so, what
will I say?
These are fundamental issues you must be clear about. For more information refer to
'Investigative Interviewing: Suspects Guide'.
Interview structure
Consider which approach you will use to interview the interviewee (e.g. free recall or
conversation management, refer to the section on 'Account'). You should note that
flexibility is required throughout and you may not be able to stick rigidly to one
particular model.
Establish the likely parameters of the interview and consider an appropriate opening
question(s). Decide what investigatively important topics need to be covered including
possible offences, ingredients and probable defences. You will need to address these as
separate topics if the interviewee does not discuss them of their own volition.
Identify any likely inconsistencies, or challenges you already have, and think about how
you will deal with these.
Contingencies for interviewee reaction
You should plan ahead for every possible eventuality, especially when dealing with
suspects, including if they:
• are fully co-operative and give you a truthful account
• give you a dishonest account
• exercise their right to silence.
You should plan how you will deal with each of the above situations. For example, if a
suspect refuses to be interviewed be prepared to decide whether to arrest or release
them.
Practical arrangements
Whether with a witness or a suspect practical arrangements are an important
consideration when planning and preparing for an investigative interview.
Who should be present?
Decide who should be present during the interview. Consider whether a support person,
nominated person or interpreter is required. Brief them as to their role.
Where the interview should take place?
The location and physical layout of the interview is important because it affects the
relationship you are able to establish with the interviewee.
Page 53 of 76
Investigative interviewing doctrine,
Continued...
Example:
Children interviewed about their school, friends and teachers replied differently according
to setting. When interviewed in the playground they were far more forthcoming than
when interviewed in the classroom. They tended to respond with a much greater variety
of content. Basically it seems that the informal setting of the playground encouraged
spontaneous speech, whereas classroom interviews were more constrained.
The setting may affect the interviewer as well as the interviewee. Being aware
that this is the case, it may be necessary to make a special effort to overcome the
drawbacks of particular settings. You should also consider your own safety. No interview
is worth placing yourself at undue risk. Supervisors are responsible for ensuring that
interviews are carried out in circumstances that are appropriate.
Witnesses
Witnesses may be interviewed at a variety of locations e.g. a designated witness
interview room, another location in a police station, their home or somewhere else
nominated by the police or the person involved. You must make every effort to ensure
the location is private, reasonably comfortable quiet, and free from distractions.
Remember that recalling information from memory requires concentration and therefore
somewhere quiet is desirable. Is it appropriate to use the person’s house or place of
work? If there are exhibits can you get them there?
You also need to consider the possible implications of interviewing a witness at home or
at work, if either place was the scene of the crime such as other people present and
associating their home with a traumatic experience.
Suspects
These should normally be carried out in an interview room at a police station using visual
recording equipment. If you have to interview a suspect elsewhere, give the same
consideration to privacy, etc. as for witnesses.
When the interview should take place?
You should always allow sufficient time to conduct your interviews. If you are working as
a response unit inform the Communications Centre and your supervisor that you are
conducting an interview.
Your supervisor is responsible for deciding whether an incident that is reported is so
urgent that you should suspend the interview.
Ideally witness interviews should be conducted immediately, as delays may prejudice the
investigation, however, this may not always be possible. If the time is unsuitable for a
witness, they do not want to be there, or are worried about outside factors like childcare
or parking, the interview will be less effective. Make sure you have plenty of time –
interviews should not be rushed.
When a suspect interview can be conducted will be affected by legal requirements and
the availability of interview rooms.
Type of recording
Consider whether it is appropriate to electronically record the interview. With suspects,
you should conduct a visually recorded interview. With witnesses, a written statement
will generally be taken. If you think the interview meets the criteria of section 103 of the
Evidence Act and that visually recording the interview should be considered.
Page 54 of 76
Investigative interviewing doctrine,
Continued...
Equipment
Make sure you have all the necessary forms and equipment required. Check in advance
that all the equipment is working correctly. Ensure you have the appropriate
communication aides available - such as a pen and paper for drawing a sketch plan.
Seating arrangements
Consider the following for your interview:
• how to arrange the seating – how closely to sit, the positioning of the chairs (10 to 2
is usually the best position), the distance from other items in the room
• whether you want a table in the room and where it should be positioned.
If visually recorded, consider whether the interviewee is:
• clearly visible on the electronic recording (remember you want the jury to see their
body language)
• directly facing the camera should be avoided and an angled view would facilitate
better communication between yourself and the interviewee yet also make the
interviewee reasonably visible to the camera angle.
How you arrange the room will differ depending on who you are interviewing.
Radios
It is distracting for both you and the interviewee to hear your radio (and looks
unprofessional to anyone watching the visual recording). Turn it off during the interview.
Searching premises
Where necessary arrange for photographs or a video recording of the scene. If that is
not practicable then make or obtain a sketch plan. This evidence gathering will assist you
and other investigators to orientate themselves. It will provide information which may be
needed to conduct an effective challenge to a suspect’s account.
This process will also assist the prosecution when presenting the case at court as well as
members of the jury when they try to visualise the scene. Remember: a picture is worth
a thousand words.
Exhibits and property
Some exhibits and property may be too large to show in an interview room. Alternative
arrangements may need to be made such as using photographs or video recordings of
the items. All property should be clearly marked and identified to assist in the interview.
Exhibits must be in appropriate packaging to preserve trace evidence and eliminate the
possibility of cross-contamination.
If you intend to use the exhibit as a key tactic in the interview consider whether you
want it displayed in the interview room from the beginning or whether you want to
introduce it at an appropriate time.
Monitoring
Consider whether it would be advantageous to have your interviewed monitored by a
supervisor or colleague. Do not be afraid to ask for assistance.
Putting allegations to the suspect
Prepare a series of allegations to put to the suspect should they invoke their right to
silence. This should be a maximum of 3 to 5 allegations detailing to them the evidence
that has been gathered and for which you are seeking an explanation e.g. ‘
My
investigation has produced a witness who can identify you running from the scene of last
night's burglary; can you explain what you were doing there?’ Such allegations must be
Page 55 of 76
Investigative interviewing doctrine,
Continued...
based on evidence which would withstand the scrutiny of the court. They should be put
to the interviewee in the interests of fairness – it is their right to know the nature of the
allegations and why you want to interview them.
Your interview plan is part of the investigative process so should not be
disclosed (See Criminal Disclosure Act Section 16(1)(c)(iii)).
Page 56 of 76
Investigative interviewing doctrine,
Continued...
Engage and explain
Introduction
Engage and Explain represents the second letter of the PEACE mnemonic, and is the first
phase of the actual interview. During this phase you begin to establish a relationship
with the interviewee. Engage is the first step in order to encourage conversation and
includes building rapport. Explain is the step by which you help the interviewee
understand the purpose of the interview.
Engage the interviewee
To establish rapport with the interviewee Investigators should:
• introduce themselves
• personalise the interview
• discuss neutral topics
• address any concerns.
Investigators should maintain impartiality by:
• keeping an open mind
• using open questions
• active listening.
Explain interview procedures
During the explanation of the interview procedure ensure the following is covered:
• reason(s) for the interview
• routine(s) that will be adopted
• the interview structure.
Ground rules for the interview
Investigators should explain the following to the interviewee when using the free recall
model:
• need to concentrate
• report everything
• transfer control
Engaging in conversation
Engaging someone in conversation is not always an easy task, especially if the person is
a stranger. Factors such as their background, age and gender may also make it more
difficult. The witnesses and suspects you interview will usually be strangers to you and
from a wide range of backgrounds. The way you engage with them will therefore not be
the same in every case.
It is your role to generate an atmosphere that encourages the interviewee to converse
with you in an open manner.
It is not your role to express disapproval of any offence the suspect may have
committed. Rather, you are there to get complete, accurate and reliable information. To
do this you must establish a professional working relationship with the interviewee.
Establishing a professional relationship with the interviewee is vital to the success of the
interview.
Managing first impressions
First impressions occur immediately and tend to be lasting. Creating a negative
impression will impact negatively on the rest of the interview. For some interviewers
building rapport will come naturally. For others, these skills need to be developed
Page 57 of 76
Investigative interviewing doctrine,
Continued...
through practice. Essential to success is finding a genuine but professional approach that
suits your personality. This section will identify factors that can help.
Factors that may make it difficult to manage first impressions include anxiety, which
may come from both the interviewer and interviewee. You need to create a positive
atmosphere and the reduce interviewee’s anxiety to enable maximum memory recall.
Anxiety on your part may be because you may believe that a witness is reluctant to
speak to you or that a suspect has been advised not to answer your questions. Anxiety
on the part of the interviewee may be because they have not had any previous contact
with police. As a result both parties may enter into conversation reluctantly, thereby
confirming their anxiety.
Therefore you must plan how you are going to manage the opening of the
interview.
As discussed, your
non-verbal communication and clothing can influence the attitudes
of other people towards you. If an interviewee initially sees you as impatient or
unsympathetic they will interpret your subsequent behaviour in that light. They may
respond in a way which makes you feel impatient and unsympathetic even if you were
not to begin with. Adopting an approachable, confident and straightforward manner will
maximise your chances of obtaining high quality information.
Treat interviewees the way you would wish yourself, family or friends to be treated.
Greeting and personalising the interview
Your first contact with the interviewee will often determine how well the interview
proceeds. It is important to establish trust and lay a foundation for successful
communication. Plan how you are going to introduce yourself and when possible greet
the interviewee by his or her name.
Tell them how you would like to be addressed and find out how they would like to be
addressed. Using that name will demonstrate you have respect for them as an individual.
Because you want to create an equal relationship, you may need to adapt to the
circumstances. For example, if the interviewee wants you to call him/her by their first
name, you should suggest they also call you by your first name.
Regardless of who the person is do not prejudge them - keep an open mind and
remain objective. With a suspect adopt a neutral position, do not presume
innocence or guilt. Research has shown that this is essential to establishing a
sound professional relationship with the interviewee.
Informing suspects of their rights
If you are dealing with a suspect and you have a legal obligation to inform them of their
rights, do so in a conversational manner. Reciting their rights quickly in a monotone
voice as though reading out a list will diminish any rapport already developed. Ensure
that they understand what you are saying.
Establishing rapport
To establish a working professional relationship with the interviewee you need to treat
them as individuals with a unique set of needs. You can do this by personalising the
conversation and establishing rapport.
For example, by:
• how you address the interviewee
• establishing his/her immediate needs/concerns (e.g. how long the interview is likely
to be, who is looking after their children)
Page 58 of 76
Investigative interviewing doctrine,
Continued...
• being aware of physical needs (e.g. for water, a cigarette break, the toilet)
• explaining to them what is happening and keeping them informed if this changes
• showing an interest in them and their individual circumstances
• showing empathy as appropriate
• treating them fairly and with respect
• putting aside any responses you have to an interviewee that are a result of a
stereotypical image based on culture, clothing, speech, behaviour etc
• discussing neutral topics that can be answered positively to create a positive mood
• using open questions.
During the interview it is up to you to convey to the interviewee that you are genuinely
interested in their comments, views and statements. Use active listening and non-verbal
communication to show you are interested in what they are saying.
Active listening and showing genuine empathy are key factors in building rapport.
Sometimes your efforts may not be effective as you feel they could be. This could be due
to personality differences or the offence may be such that the witness or suspect asks to
talk to another officer. In such circumstances you must consider whether to stop the
interview and find someone else to conduct it. The new interviewer would need to be
fully briefed about the interview to date.
Establishing a professional, working relationship is as important in a suspect interview as
with any other. You may find it takes more effort because of the statutory requirements.
You must always enter an interview with an open mind and use open questions.
Speaking in a slow, calm and relaxed manner will induce the interviewee to do the same.
Explaining suspect interview procedures
As you engage the interviewee in conversation you can begin to explain the purpose of
the interview and the form it will take. This will consist of four main elements:
• reason(s) for the interview
• routine(s) that will be adopted
• expectations for the interview
• outline of the interview
In fairness to suspects (whether arrested or not) you must tell them what the interview
is about. Having an understanding of the degree of jeopardy they are under is necessary
as it may influence their decision on whether or not to have a lawyer.
Routine(s) that will be adopted
Whilst you may be familiar with interviewing and the routines that are involved many
interviewees are not. It is useful therefore to explain these routines at an early stage to
help relax the interviewee. Do not assume that an interviewee is conversant with police
investigations and the criminal justice system. Explain what is happening as suspects
who feel out of control or ill-informed are likely to be cautious about giving information.
Suspect routines
The routines include:
• introducing and explaining the roles of all persons present (if visually or audibly
recorded this must be done whilst recording)
• explaining the methods used to record the interview
• explaining you will be taking notes during the interview
• if applicable, explaining the introduction of exhibits.
Page 59 of 76
Investigative interviewing doctrine,
Continued...
Expectations Expectations may include some ground rules and or additional requirements:
• that you will try to be clear in your questions but if they do not understand, that they
will tell you that they do not understand
• that they will listen to your questions and think carefully about their answers
• if they do not understand a question then you will ask it another way
• if they do not know the answer to a question, then they should say so
Outline of the interview
You should explain to the interviewee that they will be asked to give their account of the
incident under investigation. That you will ask them for their account of what happened
and then you will ask questions to expand certain points if needed.
At this stage, give the interviewee a chance to ask any questions or express any
concerns that they may have about the process.
Explaining suspect rights
With suspects a number of legal requirements must be complied with to ensure they are
aware of their rights. The procedural elements of suspect interviews should become part
of establishing a professional working relationship. Their purpose is to inform the suspect
of their rights and what is going to happen.
There is information that you must give in accordance with the Chief Justice Practice
Note on Police Questioning and section 23 New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. It is vital
for you to be familiar with these provisions before you commence any suspect interview.
Your manner should remain conversational, even when informing the suspect of their
rights. Ensure the suspect understands their rights. Ensure you explain it to them in a
language and manner they understand. If you are unsure, ask them to explain the
meaning back to you using their own words
Having complied with these procedural requirements it is good practice to remind the
suspect why they are being interviewed. This should be done in a non-judgemental way.
You should assure them that they will soon be able to give their account of what
happened and clear up any misunderstandings that may have occurred. Tell the suspect
that you want to get to the truth of the matter. Do not ask any non-procedural questions
at this stage.
Explaining witness interview procedures
Many witness procedures can also be used with a co-operative suspect, together with the
legal requirements associated with suspect interviews.
Reason(s) for the interview
For many, this will be their first contact with police, therefore it is important to ensure
they have a clear idea of what is expected of them. The interviewee may know why they
are being interviewed, but it would be wrong to assume that to be the case without first
checking. They may be unclear of the potential importance of their contribution to the
investigation or that the information they provide may be used as evidence and may be
presented to a court. Whilst we are required to make this clear to suspects, witnesses
are sometimes left to read their statement, only realising their own criminal liability
when coming to the last page of their statement. Whilst we would not wish to put
witnesses off providing information in statement form, it is only fair that they know what
they are signing for.
Page 60 of 76
Investigative interviewing doctrine,
Continued...
Start to transfer control to the interviewee by asking them why they think you want to
talk to them. If they don't know, explain to them that you believe they have information
that will assist in your investigation. Be careful not to contaminate their memory by
providing too many details.
Ground rules for witness accounts
Once you have explained and answered any questions about the interview procedure,
you should explain the ‘ground rules’:
The following should be covered after the interview procedures have been explained:
•
Report everything
Tell them you want them to give an account of all they know in as much detail as
possible. Not to edit their account but tell you everything that comes to mind – including
all the information they are not confident about or think may be trivial or partial. Take
you through it in their own time and pace.
•
Concentrate
Tell them that you understand that considerable effort and concentration is required, so
they will be given time to remember and provide their account. That you understand
that this may be difficult.
•
Transfer control
Tell them that you weren't there so you don't know what happened. You want them to
do all the talking because they have the information you want to know. This is not like a
normal conversation because you want them to give you as much detail as possible.
If they don’t know something, they should say so. They should not be influenced by
what they think you or others might want them to say. They should correct you if they
feel you have misunderstood something they have said.
•
Don't understand or don't know
Tell the witness that if they do not understand a question, they should tell you and you
will rephrase it. You should also tell them that if they don't know the answer to a
question it is ok to say they don't know, that you do not expect them to know everything
but you still need to ask, just in case.
Page 61 of 76
Investigative interviewing doctrine,
Continued...
Account
Introduction
This section will identify and describe the steps involved in eliciting a complete, accurate
and reliable account from an interviewee.
Interview models
The following interview models can be used within the PEACE framework to elicit an
account:
• free recall
• cognitive interview (used by Level 3 adult witness interviewers)
• conversation management
Free recall model
The steps to obtaining an account when using in the free recall model are:
Step Action
1
Set the scene and initiate a free report using an open TEDS question
2
Consider whether a sketch plan and/or another free report is required
3 Identify
witness
topics
4
Expand each witness topic by using open TEDS questions and if necessary,
probing 5WH questions
5
Identify and expand investigatively important topics by using open TEDS
questions and if necessary, probing 5WH questions
6
Summary and prepare written statement
Conversation management model
The steps to obtaining an account when using in the conversation management model
are:
Step Action
1
Initiate a free report using open TEDS question(s) and summarise back what
was said
2
Identify suspect topics
3
Expand each suspect topic by:
• using probing 5WH questions
• summarising and linking topics
4
Identify and expand investigatively important topics by:
• using probing 5WH questions
• summarising and linking topics
5
Challenge any inconsistencies in an explanation seeking manner
Which interview model?
Generally speaking the free recall model should be used for witnesses and the
conversation management model for suspects.
Obtaining an account from the interviewee
With experience, different techniques can be used to help the interviewee to provide a
full account of events. For example, the conversation management model can also be
used with difficult or unco-operative witnesses.
Many interviewees want to be helpful but you also need to be aware that sometimes
witnesses and suspects have their own agenda.
Page 62 of 76
Investigative interviewing doctrine,
Continued...
The focus is on whether the witness or suspect is co-operative or uncooperative. It is
important to note that interviewees can move from being cooperative to unco-operative
and vice versa.
During the
planning and preparation stage you will have considered how you will deal
with possible changes in the interviewee’s behaviour. You will also need to be fully alert
during the interview, in order to detect such changes.
The interviewee should do the talking
With whatever interview model you use, your goal should be to get the interviewee to do
most of the talking - they should be doing all the work because they were there and
have the information you want.
Using open questions and active listening will help this to happen. Asking lots of
questions should be avoided because it places heavy cognitive demands on you, disrupts
the interviewee's thought process and gives less time for the interviewee to speak.
Asking lots of questions is often a sign of poor interviewing. Choose your questions
carefully, use a minimum to elicit maximum information.
Page 63 of 76
Investigative interviewing doctrine,
Continued...
Account: using free recall model
Introduction
In the majority of situations, witnesses will be willing to co-operate with the police and
the free recall model should be used. Free recall was developed in recognition that
‘witness reports can be incomplete, partially constructed, unreliable and malleable’
(Milne & Bull, 1999, p.34).
Put simply, free recall allows witnesses to give their account of what happened, in their
own words and at their own pace, with no interruptions. You may also find it useful to
get witnesses to make sketches of what they are trying to explain - like the layout of a
room. Sketches also encourage the person to concentrate harder and assist their
memory recall. Refer to the diagram overleaf of the Free Recall Model.
The goal of free recall is to get the witness to generate information rather than
you extracting the information. Try to get as much information from the
witness as possible using a minimum number of questions. They have the
information you want, so they should be doing most of the talking.
Step 1: Set the scene and initiate a free report
Frequently an interviewee will be recalling an event that they experienced days, weeks,
months, or even years previously. In addition, their ability to recall may be influenced by
trauma. This can make it difficult to recall details accurately. Even so, if the interviewee
is given time to concentrate, is willing to make the effort and is not interrupted, more
details about the incident may be recalled.
One way you can help interviewees to recall is to mentally reinstate, as near as possible,
the same conditions which existed when the information was encoded both physically
(environment) and internally (how they feel). This is called ‘setting the scene’ or context
reinstatement. Many people already use the technique of setting the scene when they
can’t find an important item such as a cellphone or wallet. You might think about or even
physically go back to where you were when you last saw it, not just to search for the
item but to help you remember where it was and what happened next.
Statements which set the scene
Setting the scene is the first step when conducting a Free Recall interview. You should
help the interviewee remember by using verbal cues that guide their memory back to
the time and place of the incident. The words 'think about', 'concentrate on' and 'focus
on' are particularly effective. Once the witness has a point in time that they wish to start
from, use the cues to set the scene.
Examples of verbal cues used to set the scene
‘Think about where you were at the time'
'Think about what you were doing'
'Think about what was happening'
'Focus on everything you can see'
'Concentrate on who you were with'
'Think about what you could hear'
'Concentrate on what was said'
'Think about how you were feeling’ Make each statement in a slow and deliberate manner. In between each statement you
should pause to allow time for the interviewee to think, concentrate and focus.
Remember at this point the interviewee needs to be silent as they work hard to recall
information. The more time and effort you spend on setting the scene without actually
leading the interviewee, the more information the interviewee will be able to give. These
instructions are set out as instructions and not questions for a reason, be careful not to
Page 64 of 76
Investigative interviewing doctrine,
Continued...
turn them into questions as this would become a multiple question without hope of the
witness being able to answer them.
Then ask the witness to tell you everything they know about… (the matter under
investigation).
This process has the following advantages:
• you will get to know their version of events without leading, prompting or interrupting
them
• the witness will have a chance to explain what they know
• you have the chance to show you value their contribution and acknowledge their
efforts
• it passes control of the interview to the witness (the person with the information).
Initiate a free report
Use a TEDS style open question to initiate this uninterrupted account. For example,
'Please tell me everything you know…’ Remember, uninterrupted means just that –
do
not interrupt! The interview is about the witness - they are the one with the
information; your job is to listen to what they can tell you and help them to remember
more.
As the witness gives their account, use active listening and note topics that you wish to
obtain further details about. This could include such details as clothing worn, the route
travelled, or what happened at a particular place or time. Witnesses must be given
sufficient time to provide their account. Use silence to allow them to recall and provide
all the information they have.
Page 65 of 76
Investigative interviewing doctrine,
Continued...
Step 2: Sketch plan and/or another free report?
Consider getting the witness to draw a sketch plan
To help the witness to communicate with you and to recall events give them the
opportunity to draw a plan or sketch of the area where the incident took place.
Remember a picture speaks a thousand words. Any sketch or plan that is produced
should be signed, dated and attached to the statement as it may later be produced as an
exhibit. It will also assist the witness and members of the jury should the matter come
to trial.
Appreciation – another free report?
Use your judgement to determine if you should attempt another free report. The more
attempts that witnesses have at recall, the more detail they are likely to remember. It is
impossible to remember everything at once. As an interviewer you need to ensure that
you increase the amount of accurate ‘freely recalled’ information, and minimise the need
for questions.
During the interview, encourage witnesses to search through their memory extensively.
It is extremely unlikely that everything will be recalled initially. If you feel the witness
has not provided enough detail, thank them for what they have told you and explain to
them again that you think they may be able to remember a bit more. Be sensitive in the
way you phrase this.
Step 3: Identify witness topics
The first uninterrupted account given by the witness is likely to be incomplete. Often a
witness’s account will need to cover a broad time span or range of events. It may be
difficult for a witness to manage such a wide range of information all at once.
Subsequent questions must be put systematically to ensure the witness has attempted
to remember all he or she can.
It is a natural process of social interaction for people to give a 'reasonable' amount of
information. If you were to ask someone to describe their car, you would not normally
expect them to describe the design of the dashboard, seats, steering wheel, the contents
of the glove compartment, the boot, the engine compartment etc. It is only when you
enquire further and ask for descriptions of these elements that the interviewee feels able
to expand and provide more and more detail. Breaking the account down into topics has
a similar effect, focusing the witness on elements of the account and the details held
within it.
By breaking down the account in this way you can:
• keep track of what has been covered
• understand new information introduced by the witness and fit it into the overall
investigation.
Step 4: Expand witness topics
You can gain more detail from the account by systematically expanding each identified
topic and asking for more details when necessary. To expand each topic you will need to
use open and, if necessary, closed questions.
Open questions
Use open TEDS type questions to gain a free report of the topic you have identified.
Example: Expanding a topic using open TEDS type questions
Interviewer: ‘
Describe him in as much detail as you can.’
Page 66 of 76
Investigative interviewing doctrine,
Continued...
Continue to use open questions to expand on the information given. For example: you
may want the witness to describe in further detail the appearance of the offender’s
shoes. Keep asking open TEDS type questions until they are no longer fruitful.
Remember, accessing memory takes time and concentration. Be patient and use silence
so witnesses have every opportunity to search their memory and provide a complete
account.
Actively listen to what they tell you. Keep asking questions about each topic until you
have all the information you need or the witness is unable to provide any more
information. The witness should still be doing all the talking - you are just guiding them
through this process.
Probing questions
You may need to use probing 5WH type questions to clarify ambiguities or cover
investigatively important information that the witness will not provide with open
questions.
Do not topic hop as this may interfere with the witness' recall. It is important that all
questions relating to a particular image are asked before the interviewer asks the
witness to activate and probe another image.
Step 5: Identify and expand investigatively important topics
When you made your initial interview plan you should have identified investigatively
important topics you wish to cover with the witness, for example: ingredients to the
offence and probable defences. Identify any topics that have not yet been covered and
still need to be addressed (if there are any remaining).
Use the same process used in 'witness topics' to expand the witnesses' account. The
need to cover ingredients should not dominate the interview by controlling the flow of
information. Nor should it artificially constrain or distort the account of events given by a
witness. Use open TEDS type questions where possible, and if required, probe with 5WH
type questions.
Step 6: Summary and written statement
Once you have elicited a full account you should summarise the main points back to the
witness to ensure you have understand what they said. If you were interviewing a
witness, and the interview was not electronically recorded, you should now transpose the
full account into a written statement with the assistance of your notes, memory and the
witness. Remember the statement should be chronological but avoid other types of
standardisation.
Upon completion of the statement the witness must be invited to read the statement to
ensure it is correct, asked to make any alterations or additions they consider necessary
and initial those changes as they are made. They should also initial the bottom of each
page and sign the statement.
Through this process you will have systematically examined the witness’s account and
obtained all the information they can give. The next step is to assess the information
obtained against the aim(s) of the interview and the interviewer’s areas identified in your
written plan.
Page 67 of 76
Investigative interviewing doctrine,
Continued...
Account: using conversation management model
Introduction
If you think an interviewee is likely to be unco-operative you will need to manage the
account phase to a greater extent than with co-operative interviewees. This is especially
true for suspects but may also apply to witnesses. The ‘Conversation Management
Model’ will assist you to take greater control of the interview early in the interview
process.
The conversation management model will:
• provide a structure so that you can plan the account phase of the interview
• manage the interviewee's behaviour from the start and keep them focused on the
interview content
• encourage the interviewee to say what happened from their point of view
• get them to go beyond their pre-rehearsed script
• make them uncomfortable should they attempt to lie.
There are similarities in this approach to the Free Recall model. The skilled interviewer
can move between both approaches when and where they perceive the need to do so.
Refer to the diagram overleaf for a pictorial representation of the model.
All suspect interviews should be electronically recorded unless there are exceptional
circumstances that prevent this from happening. If for any reason the suspect interview
cannot be conducted electronically, you will need to record the statement
contemporaneously as you go through the questions and answers.
Step 1: Initiate a free report
The first question you ask is of vital importance and may well set the tone for the rest of
the interview. You need to ask an open question probing enough to demand a response.
Initially your aim will be to obtain the suspect's version of events.
It may well be that your initial question brings little response in terms of an account
which you can probe. You therefore may need to ask more than one question in order to
obtain an account sufficient enough to probe.
In your planning and preparation you should consider what format your opening
questions will take. As with an interview using the Free Recall model you should obtain
the suspect’s free report of events using an open TEDS type question.
Summarise
Using the suspect's words summarise what they have told you to check your
understanding is accurate and if any topics have been missed.
Step 2: Identify suspect topics
While the suspect provides their account note down different topics that you want to
expand.
Step 3: Expand suspect topics
You can gain more detail from an account by systematically expanding each identified
topic. It is your role to decide what order to introduce the topics and to define the
parameters of each topic. To expand each topic you will need to ask probing 5WH
questions, summarise and link to the next topic.
If the interviewee is deliberately lying, they are likely to fabricate further, thereby
providing you with more information that may be disproved with further questioning or
Page 68 of 76
Investigative interviewing doctrine,
Continued...
investigation. It is very difficult to remember a large number of lies. By forcing the
interviewee to tell lie upon lie you will also make it more difficult for them to remember
what lies they have told you and that may later cause them to contradict themselves.
If the suspect refuses to answer, make a note of it and come back to the topic when
covering your investigative important topics or during the challenge.
Summarise and link
Before moving on to the next topic you should summarise what has been said to check
that your understanding is accurate. To maintain the conversational flow you should link
the summary to the next topic with an open question.
Repeat this process until you have covered all suspect topics.
Step 4: Identify and expand investigatively important topics
When you made your initial interview plan you should have identified investigatively
important topics you wish to cover with the suspect, for example: ingredients to the
offence and probable defences. Identify any topics that have not yet been covered and
still need to be addressed. Included are topics you have identified during your planning
and preparation such as ingredients, defences and so on.
To expand on the interviewer areas you should go through the same process as with the
suspect’s account –using probing 5WH type questions. Summarise each topic to confirm
that you understand their version of events.
Page 69 of 76
Investigative interviewing doctrine,
Continued...
Step 5: Challenge
The account needs to be challenged when you have good reason to believe a suspect is
deliberately withholding relevant information, or knowingly giving a false account. If the
suspect has made a full admission you may not need to challenge anything.
What a suspect says may be inconsistent with existing evidence from other sources or
their own account before or during the interview. The existing evidence could have come
from other interviewees or consist of physical or forensic trace evidence. Inconsistency
with other evidence does not, of course, necessarily mean that the suspect is lying or
even mistaken. But such inconsistency will need exploration, either immediately or in the
future.
It is important to bear in mind that challenge refers to the task of exploring the reasons
for any evasiveness or inconsistencies with the suspect.
In this stage you should:
• put apparent lies to the suspect to test or check the details, to ensure the suspect is
not mistaken; and
• where there is evidence to prove the suspect is lying, present this in a positive and
confident manner.
The process of challenge
You should maintain a positive and professional approach when challenging the suspect.
Remember, a jury may later watch your interview and they expect you to be
professional, firm and fair. There are three aspects you should consider when challenging
a suspect’s account:
• the timing of your challenge
• adopting a clarification seeking approach
• asking for an explanation of the discrepancies.
Use an open ended question to introduce each challenge and seek an account of it from
the suspect by:
• stating what the suspect has said that is disputed e.g.
'You said...'
• explaining what the contrary evidence is e.g.
'we have...'
• asking the suspect to provide an explanation for inconsistencies between what they
have said and the evidence e.g.
'explain that...'
E.g. '
You said you have never been to 12 Parrot Street. We have located your
fingerprints on the window sill at 12 Parrot Street. Explain that.'
The timing of your challenge
Good practice suggests that such challenges should take place towards the latter part of
the account stage, prior to the closure. For example, you would normally not challenge a
suspect whilst they are actually giving their account as this would discourage them from
continuing to give their explanation.
Adopting a clarification-seeking approach
You should explain to the suspect that you wish to explore certain areas or points again.
It is important that you present your continued questioning as a form of problem solving
to which the suspect can contribute. That way, the suspect is not put on the defensive if
they do have explanations for the inconsistencies and are telling the truth.
Asking for an explanation of the discrepancies
You must ensure that any discrepancies requiring an explanation or gaps in evidence are
clearly put to the suspect. To begin with you should ask the suspect for suggestions as
Page 70 of 76
Investigative interviewing doctrine,
Continued...
to how the discrepancies between their account and the evidence you have gathered
have occurred.
Go through each piece of evidence one at a time and ask for their explanation. Make
sure that what you say is a correct and fair representation of what they said. If they are
not telling the truth they may realise that the evidence is overwhelming and admit to the
truth.
Example of challenging a suspect’s account
Interviewer: ‘
You told me that you have never been to ‘Tools Are Us’ in Avalon. We have
found your fingerprints in the store, explain that’
Suspect response.
Next interviewer challenge…
In the case of evasiveness, ask if there is anything they can add to what they have said,
as there are still some questions you need to have answered. Reiterate the purpose of
your enquiries and
indicate the openness of your search for the truth. Explain that
you will be continuing your enquiries until satisfied that you have an accurate and
reliable understanding of what has happened.
The use of silence at this stage may encourage the suspect to provide an explanation.
When challenging the suspect on inconsistencies between their account and a witnesses',
avoid reading out aloud long passages from the witnesses' statement. The witness may
later not come up to brief on this issue. It is preferable to put an accurate summary of
the allegation to the suspect and seek a response (refer to Guideline 4 of the Practice
Note).
Initially do not try to give an explanation of why the discrepancies have occurred (e.g.
‘
You are not being honest'). Remember to give plenty of time for the suspect to respond
to your query. Eventually you may need to state openly that you think the suspect is not
telling the truth. As long as you have a good reason for saying it, this comment in itself
is not oppressive. Remember you cannot normally call the suspect a liar this is your
opinion and can prejudice the jury. It may lead to part or your entire interview becoming
inadmissible.
Use the conversational techniques discussed earlier (personalising by using their
preferred name, asking open questions, listening actively, expecting the suspect’s
contribution and summarising their explanations) before going onto the next area of
challenge.
The ‘No comment’ response
Operationally, there will be occasions when suspects, whether on legal advice or not, will
respond to questions by stating ‘No comment’. The well prepared interviewer should not
be put off by this response.
You should be prepared to ask a limited number of questions supported by the evidence
the investigation has accumulated. Ask a maximum of five questions allowing the
suspect time to respond to each one.
Page 71 of 76
Investigative interviewing doctrine,
Continued...
Closure
Introduction
This section will examine how to close the interview and prepare the interviewee for
future events.
How should the interview be closed?
Once all the required information is canvassed from the interviewee, investigators
should:
• address any concerns
• prepare the interviewee for future events
Information about future events
When concluding an interview, if relevant, investigators should provide the interviewee
with information on:
• any further evidential requests - photographs, medical examination, voluntary
fingerprints or DNA sample
• the investigation process
• the prosecution/court process
Purpose of closure
The interview should be brought to a close when you have properly concluded that no
purpose will be served by continuing. It is important to plan the termination or
Closure of an interview. This should be done in a courteous and professional manner. When the
interview is clearly drawing to its close, your aim should be to:
• verify that information has been sufficiently covered
• ensure that there is mutual understanding about what has taken place
• prepare for future ground
• close the interview positively to encourage the interviewee to provide accurate and
reliable information in the future.
In this section we will consider how this is achieved.
Verification
The answers to four key questions must be considered before Closure of the interview:
• Have you covered all the questions you want to ask?
• Has the interviewee provided all the information they are able and willing to provide?
• Have you covered all the aims of your interview?
• What is the effect of additional information provided by the interviewee and does this
warrant further questioning?
These questions are most easily answered by reviewing the topics that were covered
during the interview and the information obtained.
Dealing with new information: opening a new account phase
Do not hesitate to raise additional issues that occur to you during your closure and be on
the look out for signs that the interviewee might have more to say. A suspect may
indicate willingness, verbally or non-verbally, to answer questions about topics on which
they had previously remained silent. A witness may suggest that they have relevant
information that has not yet been discussed. Be prepared for these eventualities.
You may respond by re-entering the Account phase immediately or if a break is required
adjourning the interview and in effect starting the Account phase afresh.
Page 72 of 76
Investigative interviewing doctrine,
Continued...
Consider again the PEACE framework. Closure provides the opportunity to re-enter
Engage and
Explain or the
Account stage. This allows you to explore any new
information in a systematic manner.
Mutual understanding - questions from the interviewee
You should ask the interviewee if they have any questions. An interviewee may well
want to clarify whether they will be required to attend court and what this entails. They
may have worries and concerns about their personal safety or some other query. A
willingness to listen at this point may well prove fruitful; not only in obtaining new
information but also in their attitude towards you and other investigators in the future.
If they do ask questions, give honest answers. If you do not know the answer, say so.
Do not discuss bail or sentencing. Point out that this is a matter for your supervisor or
Watch-house Senior Sergeant and the courts.
Thank the interviewee for their time.
Preparing for future ground
Preparing for the future will differ depending on whether the interviewee is a witness or
suspect.
Information to witnesses
Ensure that abrupt endings are avoided by ensuring adequate time is set aside to close
the interview properly and explain the next stages of the process. Remember that most
witnesses will not have been through this experience before and will therefore, in
appropriate cases, appreciate information regarding:
• the investigative and court process
• Victim Support
• claims for reparation
• crime prevention issues.
It is important to tell the witness that the case should not be discussed with other
witnesses who may have different perceptions of the same incident; as doing so could
confuse them, contaminate their memory and devalue their efforts.
Witnesses may need the support of friends, relatives and in some circumstances,
professional counselling. Spending time with witnesses after an interview reinforces the
trust which was developed earlier and can pay dividends. This developing relationship
will hopefully encourage interviewees to report information that they might recall later.
They might also be keener to come forward to help police with other matters in the
future.
You should explain to witnesses that they may be likely to remember more information
about the incident in the future. They should be asked to make a written note of any
additional recall. It is very important that you leave them with a method of getting new
information to you. In appropriate cases you should also explain that you will contact
them in a few days, to see if they have remembered anything else and to inform them of
any developments.
The potential to become a police informant/confidential source also applies to witnesses.
Information to suspects
There are formal aspects to the Closure of suspect interviews which must then be
complied with.
Page 73 of 76
Investigative interviewing doctrine,
Continued...
Practice Note Guideline 5 requires you to give the suspect the opportunity to review the
interview.
With an electronically recorded interview police procedures also require you to:
• give the time that the interview finishes
• seal the master tape in the presence of the suspect.
Once you have closed the interview you should continue to adopt an approachable and
professional style.
Ensure that the suspect understands what is going to happen next.
Offer refreshments when appropriate and ensure that they are provided. Remember this
may be one of a series of interviews. You should continue to maintain a working
relationship with the suspect throughout. They should be left feeling that they have been
dealt with fairly and in an approachable professional manner. Remember, there is always
the potential for a suspect to become an informant. How you deal with the suspect may
affect the chances of this happening and the quality of information given at a later date.
Final closure
Always close the interview with the ‘
three P’s’:
•
Polite: end the interview politely, thanking the interviewee for their time and efforts
with assisting with the investigation. Thank the suspect for speaking to you.
•
Positive: end the interview positively, for example ‘The information you provided is
in such detail it will certainly assist with the investigation, thank you.’
•
Prospective: ending the interview politely and positively will help prepare for future
contact. You want the witness or suspect to contact you if they recall details to add to
the information provided.
Remember that no matter the type of interviewee, there may be an occasion in the
future when you or a colleague will need their co-operation to conduct effective and
professional investigations which may result in the saving of lives.
Always provide the interviewee with your name and contact details so they can get hold
of you if required.
Page 74 of 76
Investigative interviewing doctrine,
Continued...
Evaluation
Introduction
Evaluation concludes the PEACE procedure. You need to evaluate from the interview:
• the information that has been obtained and how this relates to the investigation
• your performance as the interviewer.
Summary
Evaluate the information obtained in the context of the investigation
Once the interview is complete the interviewer should evaluate how the information
obtained impacts on the investigation. You should:
• identify what evidence there is in relation to the offences, ingredients and potential
defences
• identify investigatively important descriptions of people and objects
• establish what enquiries need to be conducted and determine urgency.
Evaluate the interviewer's performance
The investigator should conduct a mental appreciation of their own performance at
interview.
Covered in the performance evaluation should be:
• what was done well
• what could have been done better
• what areas can be developed
• how these skills can be acquired
Evaluate the information obtained
Evaluate the information provided during the interview and ask yourself the following
question:
‘What effect has this new information had on the investigation as a whole?’
The evaluation should be completed as soon as practical after the interview,
while the information is still fresh in the interviewer's mind.
To answer this question you should:
• process the information from the interview in the context of the investigation
• identify what evidence there is in relation to offences, ingredients and potential
defences
• identify important descriptions of people and objects that may be vital to the
investigation
• establish what further enquires need to be conducted and determine urgency.
When evaluating the interview you must consider what evidence there is in relation to
offences, ingredients and potential defences, and determine what enquiries need to be
made.
Often this can be accomplished by posing a series of questions and evaluating the
answers. With each piece of information consider ‘So what?’
Objectives
Consider first your interview plan and your initial objectives:
• Were these revised during the interview? If so, why?
• Have you achieved your (possibly revised) objectives?
• Have you covered the points needed to prove the offence(s) in question?
Page 75 of 76
Investigative interviewing doctrine,
Continued...
New information
Similarly, you should consider:
• What new information do you now have?
• Is it consistent with evidence already obtained?
• Are there any conflicts to be resolved?
• What further enquiries do you need to make?
The above questions will assist you to assess what impact the interview has had on the
investigation and what action you need to take next. Consider how your investigation
has changed as a result of this interview. For example the person suspected of assault
may now appear to have been acting in self-defence.
The interview may have given you new lines of enquiry to follow, such as the
involvement of another person not previously known about. Maybe it has merely
confirmed and strengthened your previous view of the investigation. Be precise about
what evidence you actually have to support your understanding of this incident and
identify where you are merely putting forward an opinion. Seek evidence to corroborate
what was said.
Witnesses
If the matter will proceed to prosecution, consider whether a mode of evidence
application will need to be made for the witness under section 105 of the Evidence Act
2006. Make sure you note this down in your report to the prosecutor.
Suspects
In the case of interviews with suspects you should also ask the following questions:
• Should the suspect now be eliminated from your enquiry?
• What evidence do you have to support the allegation that the suspect committed the
crime?
• Is there sufficient evidence to charge them with an offence?
You will have to answer these questions carefully. You should make a full note of the
reasons for your conclusions and what further action needs to be taken. An 'Interview
Evaluation Form' must be completed for all electronically recorded interviews.
Evaluate your performance
To improve your interviewing skills you need to learn from experience. This means that
in addition to evaluating the evidence you must also evaluate your own performance:
• What did you do well?
• What could you have done better?
• What areas can you develop?
• How do you acquire these skills?
Evaluate the whole PEACE process. Look back at your Planning and Preparation.
Establish where your interviewing can be improved. Evaluate your performance and set
goals to improve it where necessary. The more interviews you conduct the more
proficient you should become. If you are working with a colleague, feedback should be
sought and given on each other’s interviewing.
The NZ Police have a formal evaluation and supervision process where trained
supervisors and assessors examine interviews, give feedback and advise on how to
develop interview skills.
The important point in evaluating performance is the setting of appropriate aims and
objectives whether by yourself or with a supervisor. This is a way to develop your skills
as a professional investigative interviewer.
Page 76 of 76
Document Outline
