1 / 19

Upping our game the way forward for investigative interviewing

Upping our game the way forward for investigative interviewing. Dr. Becky Milne. Centre of Forensic Interviewing University of Portsmouth. What is an investigator’s job: reactive investigation?. Two Primary investigative questions: What happened? If anything did happen?

chuong
Download Presentation

Upping our game the way forward for investigative interviewing

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Upping our game the way forward for investigative interviewing Dr. Becky Milne Centre of Forensic Interviewing University of Portsmouth

  2. What is an investigator’s job: reactive investigation? • Two Primary investigative questions: • What happened? If anything did happen? • Who committed the offence? Milne and Bull (2006)

  3. How do investigators answer these two primary investigative questions? • Gather information from a number of sources (Kebbell & Milne, 1998) • People • Interview is pivotal – wide definition • Performance measure: quality and quantity of information - contamination • Interviewer behaviour

  4. Importance of interviewing: suspects • Miscarriages of Justice (Cardiff 3 etc). • Central to acquittal - police interview with suspects • McGurk et al (1994) - most frequent task • Milne and Bull (1999) - most important job • Limited guidance to do this ethically • PACE and PEACE developed • Minimal training around the globe

  5. Aim of PEACE “Course aimed to ensure that the basic interviewing skills necessary to apply the model were developed for the interviewing of all interviewees (witnesses, victims and suspects) with integrity and in accordance with the law. Shaw (1996)

  6. Did PEACE work? – suspectsClarke and Milne (2002) • P&P: average skill level • Engage & Explain: • Good: conform to legal requirements • Poor: check understanding of caution interview process and purpose rapport • Account: average skill level • Good: self-confident and communication skills relevant topics and questioning • Poor: Summaries, links and challenges • Closure: poor skills level

  7. PACE (1984): Sections 76 or 7810% (17) breaches • 5 oppression • Undue pressure and bullying • Continual challenge • 3 mental health issues • 7 legal requirements • Failure to caution • Explanations missing concerning legal advice • 2 other • Background noise • Overuse leading questions

  8. PEACE and counter-fraud • Formally adopted for public sector fraud investigations in 1990s • Walsh & Milne (2006) – DWP • 99 interviews benefit fraud suspect interviews • Good use of open questions- facilitated info from suspect • Legal and ethical • Poor rapport • Poor planning • Not covering points to prove sufficiently • Lack summaries • Reasons for committing offence

  9. Shawyer & Milne (2009) • Questionnaire and examined actual interviews • DWP and police fraud interviews/ers • Advantages ‘…it focuses the mind on the interview with crib notes. It helps on the format and flow of questions…’ (DWP) • Disadvantages ‘…PEACE in (some) cases is often a “sledgehammer to crack a nut”…’ (DWP)

  10. Performance in interviews • Planning and prep. – good performance • Rapport – poor • Checked caution understanding appropriate • Use of questions poor • Few open questions • Majority appropriate closed • Some leading • Closure adequate

  11. Walsh & Milne (2007) • Questionnaire to investigators and managers – views • General support • Is it effective? • Time • Inflexibility of the model • Supervisory framework to ensure standards

  12. The importance of witnesses/victims • Sanders (1986) - central and most important feature of criminal investigations • Kebbell and Milne (1998) - central leads • Milne and Bull (1999) - cornerstone of investigation • often no other forensically relevant info. • Planning and preparation prior to suspect interview • outlines areas to prove an offence • determines possible offenders

  13. Clarke & Milne (2002)“far more leading questions asked, most interviewers didn’t allow the witness to tell their account and the interviews were mainly police led” • Interviewing was poor • Limited use CI or CM • Closed questioning style • Interviewer driven and confirmatory

  14. ACPO Five Tiers • Tier 1: Probationer and police staff • Tier 2: Uniform investigators & detectives • Tier 3: Specialist Interviewers • Tier 4: Interview manager (supervision)/PIP • Tier 5: Specialist interview management and co-ordination

  15. Do the Tiers work?: SuspectsGriffiths and Milne (2005) • Study one – Does advanced interviewing work? • 49 AIs examined – assessment • Pre and post training examination – simulations • Improvements across all skill areas

  16. Do the Tiers work?: SuspectsGriffiths and Milne (2005) • Study two – Do skills transfer to real life? Do the skills stay over time? • End of course baseline vs real life within 6 months (mean 3 months) vs real life 10 months plus (mean 19 months) • 27 AIs = 81 interviews • Transference immediately into the workplace • Skill erosion seen over time

  17. Conclusions: the future • Front-line interviews: • Dando, Wilcock, Milne & Henry (2010): quick and not complex • Telephone exchange – call handling • Technology • Counter-fraud specific interview model? • Detecting deceit • Using the ECI – reverse order recall (Vrij, Mann, Fisher, Leal, Milne & Bull, 2008)

More Related