Police Information

INTERVIEWING CHILD WITNESSES

Wed, September 19, 2001

Source: Graham Davies & Helen Westcott

INTERVIEWING CHILD WITNESSES UNDER THE MEMORANDUM OF GOOD PRACTICE: A RESEARCH REVIEW

Policing & Reducing Crime

Briefing Note

Summary

This report summarises the findings of recent research on children as witnesses and draws out the implications for interviews conducted under the guidelines in the ‘Memorandum of Good Practice on Video Recorded Interviews with Child Witnesses for Criminal Proceedings’ (Home Office/Department of Health, 1992). Although the report reviews work conducted or published since the original draft of the Memorandum, it does not claim to be an exhaustive review of the literature; rather, it focuses on the practical relevance of studies from psychology, social work and policing.

Four major areas of work are discussed: 

• Child development;
• Planning the interview;
• Conducting the interview; and,
• Appearing at court. 

Main findings 

Child development

Since the publication of the Memorandum, research has tried to identify how childrens’ competence as witnesses grows with age. Such research is of particular relevance to those who interview children and has recently been highlighted as important for police training (PRS Paper 94). Research in this area has drawn attention to: 

• The vulnerabilities of very young witnesses;
• The value of prompt interviewing;
• Ways of reducing the possibility that children will go along with suggestive questioning;
• The need to accommodate to the child’s language and understanding;
• The importance of asking questions at a level, and in a form, appropriate to the child;
• Whether credibility can be assessed through the content of the child’s statement, or their non-verbal behaviour; and,
• The importance of listening to what the child has to say. 

Planning the interview

When planning an interview, a range of issues, other than those purely concerned with the interview, need to be taken into account. This means that interviewers need to be aware of: 

• Differences in children’s disclosure of abuse: disclosure can be ‘accidental’ or deliberate, immediate or delayed, partial or complete, and many factors may influence disclosure. Children may also later retract their disclosure. 
• Proper preparation of the child for the interview: the child should be given as much choice (and thus control) as possible over factors such as where and when the interview takes place, the gender of the interviewer and who accompanies them. 
• Tailoring the interview to the child: factors such as the age of the child, their state of mind, physical or learning impairments and their race and culture should be considered. 
• The influence of the interviewer: children need support throughout the interview. 

Conducting the interview

When conducting the Memorandum interview, interviewers should be aware of the following findings that have largely emerged from the analysis of tapes of interviews conducted by trained interviewers: 

• Rapport: Although some advocate dispensing with rapport when there has been previous contact with the child, this phase can help to reduce the social distance between interviewer and interviewee, and determine the child’s level of understanding and competence. It can also provide the opportunity to lay appropriate ground rules for the interview and to explore the child’s understanding of truth and lies. 
• Ground rules: Assumptions such as ‘every question must be answered’ and ‘every question has a right or wrong answer’ should be challenged by interviewers. Experiments where interviewers have emphasised that ‘don’t know’ is an acceptable answer have demonstrated substantial improvements in accuracy and completeness of recall. 
• Truth and lies: As children are often asked to distinguish between truth and lies, the use of appropriate concrete examples is advised - for example, ‘If I knocked over this glass and broke it, and then I told x that you did it, what would I be doing?’. 
• Free narrative: Free report can be incomplete, especially from younger children. However, it normally provides the most accurate information, and therefore procedures should be adopted to obtain such evidence. These include setting appropriate ground rules and teaching interviewers restraint before interrupting. 
• Questioning styles: Open questions generally produce longer and more detailed answers than closed questions and produce more accurate information, particularly from younger children. However, in some circumstances, more direct questioning is needed. In these situations, inappropriate questioning styles such as forced choice questions, multi-part questions and ‘can you...’ questions should be avoided. 
• Closure: The closure stage of the interview should attempt to leave the child in a positive state of mind, and should provide the interviewer with the opportunity to summarise what the child has said, to answer any questions, and to thank the child for their time and effort.  

The report also suggests that further guidance is needed on the duration, pace and number of interviews; the potential value of drawings, props, toys and anatomically detailed dolls; and alternative questioning techniques, such as the Cognitive Interview, semi-scripted interviews and SAGE (Systematic Approach to Gathering Evidence). 

Appearance at court

Although the Memorandum is concerned only with the investigative interview, it is important to see the interview as a process, which culminates, for some children at least, in an appearance at court. The court appearance itself may be a new, potentially traumatic experience for the child, rather than the satisfactory closure of the investigation. The literature on child witness preparation and the long-term effects of appearing in court on children concludes that: 

• The impact of a court appearance can be exacerbated by poorly conducted repeat interviews, harsh cross-examination or by testifying more than once; 
• Maternal support, case resolution and the passage of time ameliorate the effects of court appearance;  
• Preparation programmes are beneficial to children, but are under-funded and not sufficiently evaluated; and, 
• Experimental research on preparation suggests some potentially valuable practical interventions which deserve to be tried out in realistic settings. 

Points for action

Points for action emerging from this report focus on those who interview children, as well as policy makers involved in this area of work. 

Interviewers

This report recommends a move away from a single prescribed questioning style toward a more flexible approach based upon broad principles of interviewing, taking account of childrens’ ages, state of mind and abilities, their social and cultural background and the nature of the allegations. Such an approach requires more planning and individual decision-making by the interviewer, but would enable a wider range of children to qualify for a formal interview. This approach also has implications for training, which again would require greater insight on the part of the trainee and less adherence to formulae. The introduction of a nationally accepted training curriculum is recommended. On a day-to-day basis, interviewers should also ensure that: 

• The risks of suggestive responding are minimized through appropriate training and awareness of children’s strengths and vulnerabilities at different ages; 
• Children are given the opportunity to take informed decisions about the interview, including the gender of the interviewer and the time and location of the interview; 
• They focus on free recall in interviews, avoid inappropriate questioning techniques, and minimise the number of repeated interviews during the investigation and pre-trial period. 

Policy makers

Recent policy developments such as the Utting report (1997) and ‘Speaking up for Justice’ (1998) suggest that changes in the criminal justice system as it affects child witnesses will continue, and this is reflected in the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Bill. This report therefore urges that any revision of the Memorandum is informed by recent research, and is located within a strategic, comprehensive and nationally agreed framework of reform. More specifically, any revision of the Memorandum should: 

• Stress the importance of establishing and addressing children’s needs and concerns prior to interview and highlighting the role of appropriate rapport and closure in that process; 
• Outline the need for flexibility in styles of interviewing, particularly for children with communication or learning impairments; 
• Include a specific section(s) devoted to the interviewing of very young and particularly vulnerable witnesses; 
• Stress the evidential value of responses to open-ended questions, the importance of following closed questions with further open-questions and the importance of giving the initiative for responding to the child; 
• Provide examples of productive and counter-productive questioning techniques; 
• Acknowledge that there will be exceptions to the ‘one-hour rule’ on interviewing; and, 
• Provide further guidance on tests of truth and lies, the duration, pace and number of interviews, the use of drawings, props, toys and anatomically detailed dolls and specialised questioning techniques. 

To view the full paper click the URL below