Facilitating Child Witness Interviewers' Understanding of Evidential Requirements through Prosecutor Instruction
| Author | Jeromy Anglim,Kimberlee S. Burrows,Martine B. Powell |
| Published date | 01 December 2013 |
| Date | 01 December 2013 |
| DOI | 10.1350/ijps.2013.15.4.316 |
| Subject Matter | Paper |
International Journal of Police Science & Management Volume 15 Number 4
Facilitating child witness interviewers’
understanding of evidential requirements
through prosecutor instruction
Kimberlee S. Burrows†, Martine B. Powell‡ and Jeromy Anglim†
‡(Corresponding author) School of Psychology, Deakin University, 221 Burwood Hwy,
Burwood, 3125, Victoria, Australia. Tel: +61 3 9251 7231; Fax: +61 3 9244 6858;
email: martine.powell@deakin.edu.au
†School of Psychology, Deakin University, 221 Burwood Hwy, Burwood, 3125, Victoria,
Australia
Submitted 23 October 2013; accepted 18 December 2013
Keywords: child sexual abuse, investigative interviewing, child witness
Kimberlee S. Burrows is a law/psychology
differences in the evidential qualities that are
graduate and PhD student in the School of Psy-
perceived as important by prosecutors and inter-
chology, Deakin University. Her thesis examines
viewers can be reduced through simple instruc-
the admissibility and sufficiency of child witness
tion. Five prosecutors and 33 interviewers
interviews in child abuse prosecutions.
completed a written exercise wherein participants
Martine B. Powell is a Professor of Psychology,
were required to identify what aspects of informa-
Deakin University. For the past 18 years, she has
tion required follow-up in five hypothetical
conducted research on child eyewitness mem-
narrative accounts of abuse. Twenty of the inter-
ory and investigative interviewing, and has
viewers had (prior to completing the exercise)
played a major role in the design and imple-
received prosecutor instruction on the requirements
mentation of interviewer training programmes
of interviews in terms of the elements and par-
throughout Australia.
ticulars of sexual offences, and the manner in
Jeromy Anglim is a research methods lecturer
which necessary information is best elicited in an
in the School of Psychology, Deakin University.
interview (from a legal perspective). The responses
His PhD was in psychology studying mathemat-
to the exercise of interviewers who had and had
ical models of learning, and his research inter-
not received prosecutor instruction were compared.
ests are broadly at the interface of statistics and
The results indicated that interviewers who had
industrial/organisational psychology.
received instruction were more consistent with
prosecutors in their responses to the exercise. The
importance of these findings, and directions for
ABSTRACT
future research, are discussed.
Prosecutors report that the evidential usefulness of
child witness statements about abuse is often
limited by unnecessary interview content and
INTRODUCTION
excessive length. Prior research indicates that this
Child sexual abuse (CSA) is a global prob-
limitation may be attributed to a mismatch
lem that affects millions of children world-
between interviewers’ and prosecutors’ under-
wide (World Health Organization, 1999).
International Journal of Police
Science and Management,
standings of the legal requirements of an inter-
Estimates of the prevalence of CSA in
Vol. 15 No. 4, 2013, pp. 263–272.
DOI: 10.1350/ijps.2013.15.4.316
view. The aim of this study is to examine whether
developed countries typically range from
Page 263
Understanding of evidential requirements
20–36 per cent (Price-Robertson, Brom-
there is excessive focus on highly specific
field, & Vassallo, 2010). CSA cases, however,
event details and that such details are
are difficult to prosecute, and are more than
elicited in an interrogative manner, using
twice as likely as other offences to be
short answer (ie, specific and closed) as
declined for prosecution (Cross, Whitcomb,
opposed to open-ended questions. Con-
& De Vos, 1995). One reason that many
cerns about long interviews containing
allegations of CSA do not result in convic-
irrelevant contextual details have been prev-
tion is because of insufficient evidential
alent across various jurisdictions, such as the
quality of the main, if not only, form of
United Kingdom (Criminal Justice Joint
evidence in CSA cases: the investigative
Inspection [CJJI], 2012; Stern, 2010), New
interview. Investigative interviews form the
Zealand (Hanna, Davies, Henderson,
central plank of evidence in CSA prosecu-
Crothers, & Rotherham, 2010) and Aus-
tions because physical and other corrobor-
tralia (Cashmore & Trimboli, 2005;
ative evidence is not commonly available in
McConachy, 2002).
these cases (Office of Director of Public
Prosecutors have identified various topics
Prosecutions (ACT) and Australian Federal
that they perceive to be unnecessarily
Police, 2005; Powell & Wright, 2009; Suc-
pursued in investigative interviews with
cess Works, 2011).
children. Particulars (ie, details such as time,
A prominent concern expressed by
place or context of offending) are among
prosecutors when reflecting on the quality
these oft pursued topics (Guadagno, Powell,
and usefulness of child witness interviews
& Wright, 2006; S v The Queen, 1989).
relates to interview length and relevance of
Unnecessary questions are also often asked
interview content. For example, Burrows
about ‘fine tune’ descriptive details such as
and Powell (2013a), who conducted 36 in-
the colour of clothing, bedding and furni-
depth interviews with Australian prosecu-
ture at the scene of the offence (Burrows &
tors shortly before and after the verdict was
Powell, under review). With lengthy inter-
delivered in child abuse trials, revealed
views containing an abundance of specific
widespread criticism that interviews with
questions, there is heightened opportunity
child witnesses were too long and needed to
be more tightly contained around the core
for errors and inconsistencies in witness
offence details required to secure a convic-
accounts. This is due in part to increased
tion. Prosecutors reported that interviewers
number of specific questions, as well as
need to establish beyond reasonable doubt
witness fatigue (Burrows & Powell,
what offence occurred and who perpetrated
2013a).
it. For fairness to the accused, who is
So why do interviewers seek detail in
entitled to know the allegations against him
child investigative interviews which (from a
or her, the child’s account also needs to
prosecution perspective) is unnecessary?
have sufficient particularity to identify and
Prosecutors attribute this to three issues:
distinguish each abusive incident from any
poor interview planning and case prepara-
others (Burrows & Powell, 2013b); that is
tion; inadequate engagement and active lis-
(in most jurisdictions), each act of abuse
tening skills on the part of the interviewer;
needs to be identified with reasonable pre-
and limited understanding (on the part of
cision with reference to time, place or some
the interviewer) of precisely what informa-
other unique contextual detail, such that it
tion is required for prosecution purposes
is clear which act forms the basis of each
(Burrows & Powell, 2013a). This paper
charge (S v The Queen, 1989). However,
focuses on the third explanation, for which
prosecutors report that often in interviews
support comes...
To continue reading
Request your trial