A guide to clarifying evidence in Australian child forensic interviews
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JFP-09-2014-0030 |
| Published date | 09 May 2016 |
| Date | 09 May 2016 |
| Pages | 91-103 |
| Author | Kimberlee S. Burrows,Martine B. Powell,Mairi Benson |
| Subject Matter | Health & social care,Criminology & forensic psychology,Forensic practice |
A guide to clarifying evidence in
Australian child forensic interviews
Kimberlee S. Burrows, Martine B. Powell and Mairi Benson
Kimberlee S. Burrows,
Martine B. Powell and Mairi
Benson, all are based at Centre
for Investigative Interviewing,
Deakin University, Burwood,
Australia.
Abstract
Purpose –Interviewing victims of child sex abuse requires considerable care in order to minimise error.
Due to children’s heightened suggestibility any question asked of a child could potentially incite error that
could undermine the witness’s credibility. A focus group was conducted in order to facilitate the development
of guidance for interviewers around the circumstances in which it is necessary to ask children follow-up
questions in an interview. The paper aims to discuss these issues.
Design/methodology/approach –Seven Crown prosecutors representing every Australian state and
territory (with the exception of one small state) were issued with 25 hypothetical narrative accounts of child
abuse and asked to indicate what information, if any, required follow-up in the child’s narrative. Their
responses and rationale for requiring following up in some cases and not others were discussed.
Findings –Thematic analysis revealed three recommendations to guide questioning: whether the case
involved identification or recognition evidence; the presence of contextual features that may influence the
witness’s memory, or that should trigger a particular line of questioning; and whether the information can or
should be sought at a later stage by the trial prosecutor, rather than by the interviewer.
Practical implications –The recommendations are discussed within the context of their implications for
interviewing, that is, how each recommendation could be implemented in practice.
Originality/value –The present study extends prior literature by elucidating principles to guide decision
making across interview topic areas. The need for such guidance is highlighted by research suggesting that
topics such as offender identity, offence time and place, and witnesses are a source of overzealous
questioning in interviews.
Keywords Evidence, Child abuse prosecution, Child witness, Evidential quality, Forensic interview,
Investigative interview
Paper type Research paper
Child witness interviews are the primary, and often only evidence available in the prosecution of
child sexual abuse (CSA) cases. There is rarely any physical evidence or witnesses in CSA cases
(Hoyano and Keenan, 2010). Conducting a child witness interview is a challenging task. From a
legal perspective, the child’s statement needs to include information which identifies both the
nature of the sex act alleged and the accused offender (Burrows and Powell, 2014a).
The statement should also provide sufficient particulars, that is, details about the timing, location,
or other contextual information that distinguishes offences from one another such that it is clear
which act forms the basis of each charge (Podirsky v. R., 1990; Sv. R., 1989). In order to
maximise the accuracy and detail of information provided, interviewers also need to use
open-ended questioning, where possible (see for review Lamb et al., 2007). Specific questions
tend to limit the amount of detail provided and heighten the risk of error that could undermine the
witness’s credibility (e.g. Lamb et al., 2007; Burrows and Powell, 2014a).
Prior research has highlighted the negative impact of specific questions on the evidential quality
of child witness interviews. Burrows and Powell (2014a) conducted 36 phone interviews with trial
prosecutors shortly before and after CSA trials, eliciting feedback from prosecutors about the
Received 16 September 2014
Revised 17 December 2014
Accepted 22 December 2014
The authors acknowledge the
support of the professionals who
volunteered to participate in this
project. They also wish to thank
Graeme Barry and Sylvia Gulliver
for their feedback in relation to the
issues raised in this paper.
DOI 10.1108/JFP-09-2014-0030 VOL. 18 NO. 2 2016, pp. 91-103, © Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 2050-8794
j
JOURNAL OF FORENSIC PRACTICE
j
PAG E 91
To continue reading
Request your trial