Transcript Dr Fiona Gabbert and Ian Hynes - Society of Evidence Based Policing

Field trials of the Self-Administered Interview
Fiona Gabbert
Reader in Psychology
University of Abertay / Goldsmiths University
Ian Hynes
Specialist Investigative Interview Advisor and Manager
Greater Manchester Police
Society of Evidence Based Policing (SEBP), Edinburgh, 13.02.13
Consider the Problem..
Serious crime: multiple witnesses
Limited resources = delay before full interview
During this period, eyewitness memory is:
i)
Prone to forgetting
ii) Prone to distortion
Forgetting
• 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.
Memory distortion
• 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.
A potential solution?
A (good quality) initial recall attempt has positive effects on memory:
– Protects against forgetting
• Retrieval activates memory traces & strengthens
associations between them.
– Protects against exposure to misinformation
• More likely to notice, and reject, discrepant post-event
information.
Research objective
Find a solution to aid investigative interviewers in obtaining good
quality evidence from witnesses, quickly and efficiently.
The ‘Self-Administered Interview’
• 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
Mental reinstatement of context
Person description
• non-leading cues
• warnings against guessing
Sketching the scene
• Not a test of drawing ability!
• Emphasis on spatial info.
Step 1: Testing the SAI in the lab
Basic procedure using a mock-witness paradigm:
1. General public recruited to act as mock-witnesses
2. View a simulated crime
3. Complete either an SAI, a free-recall, or nothing
4. Delay > 1wk prior to ‘formal interview’ (during which time
some people might be exposed to misleading PEI)
5. Formal interview to test memory
6. Feedback obtained from those who had completed an SAI
Summary of main lab-based findings
• People understand what is expected of them
• The SAI instructions produce significantly more information
than a simple Free Recall instruction (“What happened?”)
• Completing an SAI after witnessing a (mock) crime
– Minimises forgetting over a delay
– Maintains high accuracy rates
– Preserves memory for details
– Enhances performance in a subsequent Cognitive Interview
– Protects against memory distortions caused by exposure to
misleading questions and Post-Event Information
Potential ‘real-world’ benefits
• Standardised form
• Multiple witnesses can give evidence simultaneously & efficiently
• Frees up police time
• Potential to enable prioritisation of witnesses
• In sum, a useful additional investigatory tool
– not intended to replace the Cognitive Interview
Step 2: Knowledge-exchange activities
Step 3: Field trials of the SAI
Aim: Does the SAI deliver in the field?
Objectives:
1. Examine the quantity & quality of information
provided by witnesses using the SAI
2. Gauge ‘usability’ of the SAI by witnesses and
officers, to lead future development of the tool
3. Identify witnessing contexts in which the SAI
provides most benefit to police investigation
(e.g. multiple witnesses, peripheral witnesses)
Field-trial procedure
• Participating forces identified a liaison who we briefed.
• Our contact briefed other relevant officers, e.g.
– Ideal for multiple witnesses
– SAIs should be completed at scene of crime, or as soon as
possible thereafter
– Not ideal for vulnerable witnesses who need social support
• Copies of completed SAIs return to us in sanitised form.
• Evaluations from end-users obtained wherever possible.
Implementing the SAI at GMP
• Circa 2009 met research team, Abertay University, Dundee
• Practitioner contribution, refinement, and relevance to the business
• Additional witness classification and prioritisation benefits recognised
• Marketed to Criminal Justice SLT and pilot agreed
• CPS liaison and agreement for field trials
• Education of Force interview managers/advisors and SIOs
• Personalised GMP document, now adopted as an electronic ‘force form’
• Piloted force-wide via duty D.I.s
• Incorporated in Operation Charger (CTU) – witness strategy.
• Force-wide training and rollout.
• Deployed operationally
• Introduced to Metropolitan Police in preparation for Olympics 2012
Procedures for Operational Use
Deployment authorised by:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Out of Hours – Duty D.I.
Interview Manager/Advisor
SIO
Used strategically
Incorporated within witness strategy and rationalised
Electronic availability, internet?
Vulnerability of witness?
Discuss operational use in interview environment
NOT A REPLACEMENT FOR A STATEMENT!
Training & Resource Issues
• ‘E’ – Learning
• Incorporation within established CPD
• Now built into interview course lesson plans
• CC orders
• SLT and management meetings
• Enables resource management efficiencies
Training: Intranet-based ‘E’ learning
General Legal Status
• 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
– Unused material
• Officers must get the permission of the Detective Inspector to
use them – Protect against easy option!!!
• Now sanctioned in Greater Manchester Police for everyday use
and designated a Force Form
Case Study 1
• Offenders
– 3 males on a stolen motorbike, collide with a car at 60mph
– Passengers thrown from bike and hit a bus
– 1 fatality, 1 seriously injured, rider tries to escape scene
• Investigating officers (x 2 RPUs)
• Witnesses (x 16) (of the 40+ on the passing bus!)
– 8 witnesses interviewed by police shortly after the collision
– SAI administered to 8 witnesses
Quantity & Quality of Information Reported
• 88% (7/8) of selected witnesses completed an SAI.
• All witnesses gave a detailed free recall account of the incident
(average of 54 lines of text / 2.5 A4 pages of info.)
• In addition, most witnesses completed all other relevant sections
of the SAI, providing information about:
– Perpetrators’ actions & descriptions
– The quality of their own view/testimony
– Other potential witnesses who had been present
• 5 witnesses provided a sketch, appended with descriptors
• SAI identified three additional important witnesses
• Reports were detailed:
– "Male, white, shaved head, wearing long sleeved jumper
and balaclava, 20 years old, around 11 stone, no facial
hair, olive skin, cut on his head”
– "The motorbike had three riders, they seemed to be sitting
in height order with the smallest at the front. I noticed
that they were riding at speed on the wrong side of the
road and overtaking the slower traffic. None of the riders
were wearing helmets, instead they had their faces
covered, in an intimidating manner with balaclava type
clothing"
• High level of corroboration between statements
End user evaluation from investigators
• Usability was evidenced by proper use and understanding of
instructions for use.
• Feedback from the investigating officers:
“Out of all the SAIs issued only one person failed to complete
the form. The forms that were completed were comprehensive,
and a few I would say were more detailed and beyond the
standard that some officers sometimes produce. Many
contained useful detail in proving the case, and in the case of
one witness, crucial evidence in terms of the rider and
passengers’ actions leading up to the event which without doubt
will show the joint venture in this case. The SAI forms have led
to another three key statements being taken.”
Case Study 2:
Innovative adaptation to needs of investigation
• Serious (domestic violence) assault on female (dragged from car,
beaten by two assailants known to her)
• Hospitalised, serious injuries, including fractured jaw
• Indicated she wanted to make a formal complaint, but unable to
speak due to injury
• Suspect arrested early in reactive investigation (time-limited
detention period)
• No other viable/strong witness accounts available
• Witness completed an SAI (in hospital bed) which provided
investigators with essential information and evidence on which to
conduct and effective suspect interview; suspect charged S.18 GBH
with intent
• Witness later interviewed (in hospital) when sufficiently recovered to
speak, visual and audio evidence in chief.
Feedback from the Interview Advisor
“The SAI, completed at an early stage by the victim contained a
considerable amount of vital information, the actual event
description in particular was quite comprehensive. She describes
the events as she recalls they occurred, refers to her feelings (as
'terrified') and directly quotes comments made by the offenders.
In the circumstances, the SAI provided an ethically captured
account at an early stage in an investigation, where the
alternative would have been to simply wait for such time as a
visually recorded interview could be conducted. When it was, the
SAI proved very effective at cementing the victims recall and
inoculating it from false memories”
SAI in Court
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Special measure – Video evidence in chief
X – examination by live video link
Defence ‘abuse’ challenge to SAI – ignorance of process
‘Active defence’ – attack on process
History of development explained
Credentials of academics involved in development
Ethical and transparent
Cognitive process explained
Forensic robustness (questioning style – no questions to
contaminate!)
• Rationale explained – Tier 5 advisor will give evidence
• Abuse argument withdrawn
• Convicted, 2 x guilty verdicts, S18 wounding W/I. 12yrs!
Case Study 3
Operational Deployment: Murder
• Significant Public Order Disturbance at a Public House in Moss Side,
Manchester
• Halloween costume night, 100+ party-goers
• Victim a known gang member, just released from HMP
• Attacked by a group of violent gang members from an opposing
faction
• High Crime Area – Reluctant and Hostile Witnesses (NONE!!)
• 20 Police Officers in attendance
• Victim beaten unconscious and on life support in hospital (died later)
• Interview Advisor instigated Self Administered Interviews (SAIs) after
viewing submitted duty statements – brief and lacking in detail
• Officers completing the SAI:
– Produced additional previously unreported detail from Officers:
Additional Lines of enquiry – Identified additional potential
witnesses – known criminals, cars, activity of individuals (poor
quality cctv, little forensic opportunity)
• Feedback forms submitted by officers on the application of SAIs
• Very positive response:
– Officers reflected that on average it took 35 – 45 minutes to
complete and significantly contributed to an enhanced recall of
events
– Appreciated the enhanced professionalism
– Drew the comparison between ‘quick duty statements’ or debrief notes at 5am on nights! (Effective memory??)
In Summary
• The primary purpose of the SAI is to collect as much information
from witnesses at the scene of an incident - or shortly
thereafter, cement the memory, and preserve it from
subsequent false memory
• It is not intended that the SAI should replace formal police
interviewing procedures with key witnesses.
• Completed SAIs might be used to support and/or guide
subsequent interviews during the investigative process
• Traumatised, or other vulnerable witnesses, should not be
presented with an SAI
– May be potential to work with SARCs to determine whether
there may be a role in the reporting of sexual assaults?
Conclusions
• SAI – part of the Investigator’s Toolbox
• Witness Categorisation
• Witness prioritisation
• Identification of additional ‘key’ witnesses
• Efficient management of ever limited resources
• Enhanced investigative quality
• Forensic robustness of subsequent witness testimony
• Additional detail – evidential and investigative
• Regulatory powers industry?
• Increased recognition and adoption worldwide]
Thank You!
Questions?
Dr. Fiona Gabbert
Reader in Psychology
[email protected]
Ian Hynes
GMP Force Interview Manager and Advisor
[email protected]