Lost in the detail: Prosecutors' perceptions of the utility of video recorded police interviews as rape complainant evidence
| Date | 01 June 2017 |
| Published date | 01 June 2017 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0004865815620705 |
| Author | Nina J Westera,Becky Milne,Martine B Powell |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Australian & New Zealand
Journal of Criminology
2017, Vol. 50(2) 252–268
!The Author(s) 2015
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0004865815620705
journals.sagepub.com/home/anj
Article
Lost in the detail: Prosecutors’
perceptions of the utility of
video recorded police
interviews as rape complainant
evidence
Nina J Westera
Griffith Criminology Institute, Griffith University, Australia
Martine B Powell
Centre for Investigative Interviewing, Deakin University, Australia
Becky Milne
Centre of Forensic Interviewing, Institute of Criminal Justice Studies,
University of Portsmouth, England
Abstract
This study explored the perceptions of ten Crown Prosecutors about the utility of police
interviews as video evidence-in-chief for adult sexual assault complainants to determine how
to improve these interviews. A themed analysis of prosecutors’ responses indicated three
major concerns about these interviews: the interviewer using wordy instructions, the lack of
chronology and logical structure, and the relentless pursuit of unnecessary detail. These
findings suggest that prosecutors’ concerns are primarily due to police using cognitive inter-
view methods that attempt to enhance the amount of detail recalled by a complainant. The
authors discuss why generating large amounts of detail may be problematic in interviews with
sexual assault complainants and provide recommendations for how police can adapt inter-
view practices to better meet evidential needs.
Keywords
Cognitive interview, criminal investigation, eyewitness testimony, prosecution, sexual
offences, video-evidence
Introduction
Achieving just outcomes in adult sexual assault cases is one of the most serious and
complex problems faced by the criminal justice system today. A review of attrition
Corresponding author:
Nina Westera, Griffith Criminology Institute, Griffith University, 176 Messines Ridge Rd, Mt Gravatt, Queensland
4122, Australia.
Email: n.westera@griffith.edu.au
studies in five countries (Australia, Canada, England and Wales, Scotland and the
United States) conducted between 1990 and 2005 found that only 14% of all victims
choose to enter into the criminal justice process by reporting to police (Daly &
Bouhours, 2010). For those that do report, attrition is high and outcomes are poor,
with only 12.5% of reported cases resulting in conviction. These poor prospects, pro-
longed prosecutions and the stress of giving testimony lead to low victim satisfaction,
with some victims even reporting being ‘re-victimised’ by the process itself (Estrich, 1987;
Konradi, 1999; Lees, 2002).
To address the issue of poor reporting and prosecution rates, a number of countries
1
have introduced the ability to use a video record of the complainant’s police interview as
the basis for his or her evidence-in-chief (referred to in this article as video-evidence). For
this alternative measure, the video-recorded interview is played to the judge or jury,
followed by any supplementary questions from the prosecutor and cross-examination by
defence counsel. Video-evidence is likely to improve both the completeness and reliabil-
ity of a complainant’s testimony (see Loftus & Palmer, 1974; Read & Connolly, 2007;
Westera, Kebbell, & Milne, 2013b), and reduce the stress on the complainant of having
to recall evidence-in-chief in the courtroom (Burton, Evans, & Sanders, 2006;
Deffenbacher, Bornstein, Penrod, & McGorty, 2004; Hamlyn, Phelps, Turtle, &
Sattar, 2004; Kebbell, O’Kelly, & Gilchrist, 2007). Despite these potential benefits,
many prosecutors are reluctant to apply to use video-evidence with adults (Criminal
Justice Joint Inspection, 2009; Stern, 2010; Triggs, Mossman, Jordan, & Kingi, 2009).
This study examines one of the main reasons prosecutors give as to why they choose not
to apply to use video-evidence – police interviewing practices do not present well as
evidence.
There is a growing body of literature to suggest legal professionals are concerned
about the suitability of police interview methods as evidence with adult sexual assault
complainants (Criminal Justice Joint Inspection, 2009; Stern, 2010; Westera, Kebbell,
& Milne, 2013a). Anecdotes reported in reviews of the use of special measures and the
criminal justice response to rape in England and Wales include comments from pros-
ecutors and judges that police interviews are overly long, difficult to follow, not
chronological, repetitive and rambling (Criminal Justice Joint Inspection, 2009;
Stern, 2010). These anecdotes are supported by a systematic analysis of the percep-
tions of thirty prosecutors in New Zealand (NZ), which found that one of the per-
ceived disadvantages of video-evidence with adult sexual assault complainants was the
quality of police interviewing (Westera et al., 2013a). In this NZ study, the use of a
questionnaire meant only superficial responses were given, making it impossible to
ascertain exactly why police interviewing was a problem. For example, it was not
established whether this dissatisfaction was due to poor police practice or the inter-
view methods used by police. Alternatively these concerns could reflect a reluctance of
prosecutors to adopt video-evidence with rape complainants due to perceptions that
live oral evidence is the most credible and persuasive form of testimony (see Ellison &
Munro, 2013; Taylor & Joudo, 2005; Westera et al., 2013a). To date there has been
no evaluation of the suitability of police interviewing methods for eliciting evidence
from adult complainants. A more detailed understanding of this issue could help
determine how, if needed, police practice can be adapted to better meet evidential
purposes.
Westera et al. 253
To continue reading
Request your trial