Fiona Gabbert Steve Retford Lorraine Hope Mick Confrey Ron Fisher Ian Hynes

1. UNIVERSITY OF ABERTAY Field trials of the Self-Administered Interview (SAI) with real eye-witnesses Fiona Gabbert Steve Retford Lorraine Hope Mick Confrey Ron Fisher Ian Hynes Kat Jamieson

2. Consider the Problem.. Limited resources = delay before full interview Serious crime: multiple witnesses • During this period, eyewitness memory is: • Prone to forgetting • Prone to distortion

3. Amount recalled decreases as delay increases. Information less accessible as memory traces (& associations between traces) are weakened. Memory becomes fragmented. Memory fades from specific to gist. Forgetting

4. Memory is fallible and reconstructive. Susceptible to influence From internal sources (stereotypes, schemas) From external sources (co-witnesses, media) Source-confusions are responsible for many memory errors. The source of a memory is forgotten faster than the content of the memory. Memory distortion

5. A (good quality) initial recall attempt has positive effects on memory: Protects against forgetting Retrieval activates memory traces & strengthens associations between them (Anderson, 1983; Raaijmakers & Shiffrin, 1981). Protects against exposure to misinformation More likely to notice, and reject, discrepant post-event information (Gabbert et al., 2009; Memon et al., 2009). A potential solution?

6. Find a solution to aid investigative interviewers in obtaining good quality evidence from witnesses, quickly and efficiently. Research objective

7. A recall tool to facilitate witnesses when remembering & reporting information, comprising; Carefully designed information regarding what is expected from witnesses Guidelines and questions that provide retrieval support Components from the Cognitive Interview: Mental Reinstatement of Context Report Everything Spatial layout probe The ‘Self-Administered Interview’

8. Mental reinstatement of context

9. Person description • non-leading cues • warnings against guessing . . . • Sketching the scene • Not a test of drawing ability! • Emphasis on spatial info.

10. Step 1: Testing the SAI in the lab Basic procedure using a mock-witness paradigm General public recruited to act as mock-witnesses View a simulated crime Complete either an SAI, a free-recall, or nothing Delay > 1wk prior to ‘formal interview’, during which time some people might be exposed to misleading PEI Formal interview to test memory Feedback obtained from those who had completed an SAI

11. Summary of main lab-based findings People understand what to do, and follow the SAI instructions The SAI instructions produce significantly more information than a simple FR instruction Completing an SAI after witnessing a (mock) crime Minimises forgetting over a delay Maintains high accuracy rates Preserves fine-grain details Enhances performance in a subsequent CI Protects against memory distortions caused by exposure to misleading questions and PEI

12. Potential ‘real-world’ benefits Standardised form Multiple witnesses can give evidence simultaneously & efficiently Potential to free up police time Potential to enable prioritisation of witnesses In sum, a useful additional investigatory tool - not intended to replace the Cognitive Interview

13. Step 2: Knowledge-exchange activities

14. Step 3: Field trials of the SAI Aim: Does the SAI deliver in the field? Objectives: Examine the quantity & quality of information provided by witnesses using the SAI Gauge ‘usability’ of the SAI by witnesses and officers, to lead future development of the tool Identify witnessing contexts in which the SAI provides most benefit to police investigation (e.g. multiple witnesses, peripheral witnesses)

15. Field-trial procedure Participating forces identified a liaison who we briefed. Our contact briefed other relevant officers, e.g. Not ideal for vulnerable witnesses who need social support Ideal for multiple witnesses SAIs should be completed at scene of crime, or as soon as possible thereafter Copies of completed SAIs return to us in sanitised form. Evaluations from end users obtained when possible.

16. Examples of Operational Applications Significant Public Order Disturbance at a Public House High Crime Area – Reluctant and Hostile Witnesses 20 Police Officers in attendance Victim beaten unconscious necessitating life support in hospital Interview Advisor – Self Administered Interviews (SAI’s) of officers after some submitted brief duty statements – Lack of detail SAI’s = Produced more detail from Officers – Additional Lines of enquiry – Identified possible additional witnesses – Poor quality CCTV- known criminals, cars, activity of individuals Feedback forms submitted by officers of the application of SAI’s Very positive, Response Officers reflected that on average it took 35 – 45 minutes to complete and enhanced their recall of events (We use this on de-briefing officers engaged in major/serious incidents)

17. Fatal Road Traffic Collision • 3 Youths on an off road motor cycle came onto main roadway • Collided with a taxi vehicle killing one, serious injury to another and one ran away • Bus was at the scene and 16 witnesses claimed to have seen the collision – All could not remain at the scene – Logistical Problem! • Only 2 Traffic Patrol Officers to conduct the investigation • Called in Interview Advisor – Use the Self Administered Interview • Excellent tool for Categorisation and Prioritisation of Witnesses • Established Key and Significant Witnesses and who actually saw the incident – 5 Significant Witnesses from 16 who came forward actually provided sketch plans to accompany descriptions • Allowed better allocation of resources for the important interviews, supports a prompt and effective investigation

18. R v Crago (GMP Case) • Multiple Rapes of a victim by her half brother over many years producing 6 children 4 of whom died from genetic defect – • Victim wrote down her recollections of many offences – The Judge at trial stated that the product of this process was a compelling piece of evidence for the prosecution – Uninfluenced or contaminated by third party contact

19. Grievous Bodily Harm with Intent • 3 year Feud between two groups multiple incidents • Victim ended relationship after her boyfriend sent to prison • Boyfriend tasked associates to attack victim and new boyfriend • He was shot and she beaten breaking her jaw unable to speak requiring urgent surgery • One arrested initially and in custody (significant criminals) Bail? • Testimony urgently required in a legally useable format • Interview Advisor liaised and decision to use SAI • SAI produced - excellent detail and sequence of events – attributable action detail, named suspects, descriptions, sketch of scene, other witnesses identified • Charged with S.18 GBH with Intent. • After surgery full Key / significant witness interview conducted consistent with the SAI

23. Legal Position • In Greater Manchester Police Consulted with the Crown Prosecution Service – Full agreement to use • Clear advantage in the early identification of your witnesses and Category / Priority - if you encounter multiple witness situation • No Issues of Legal Disclosure to Defence – Unless Sensitive Witness Protection issues exist • Officers must get the permission of the Detective Inspector to use them – Protect against easy option!!! • Now sanctioned and accepted in Greater Manchester Police for everyday use and designated an Electronic Force Form with the sanction proviso

24. Introduction into GMP using e-learning Acceptance within-force

25. Thank you. Questions and comments welcome For further information: www.selfadministeredinterview.com Or e-mail: f.gabbert@abertay.ac.uk stephen.retford@gmp.pnn.police.uk lorraine.hope@port.ac.uk Acknowledgements to The British Academy & ESRC