Answer

Investigative Interviewing

Investigative interviewing is a critical component of policing globally, as officers are frequently required to obtain information from victims, witnesses, or suspects of a crime. The efficiency of the interviewing methods employed determines whether a criminal investigation is successful (Vaughan et al., 2024). An adept interrogator is a vital resource for law enforcement, as they aid in the proficient and efficient handling of cases. In the end, efficient investigative interviewing can save time, money, and resources by facilitating prosecution and boosting public trust in law enforcement and the criminal justice system. It can also result in the prosecution or exoneration of a suspect. 

With the passage of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) in 1984, the method of questioning suspects experienced a dramatic change. The right to legal representation for suspects, restrictions on detention prior to charges, and the requirement that suspect interviews be audio recorded are just a few of the significant reforms brought about by this legislation. In order to guarantee police officers are proficient interviewers, improve the administration of justice, and avoid miscarriages of justice, this report explores the interviewing process for criminal suspects. It does this by integrating the PACE reforms and the PEACE model (Smith, 2024). To ensure a successful criminal investigation, the PEACE model—Planning & Preparation, Engage & Explain, Account, Clarification & Challenges, Closure, and Evaluation—will be used.

Planning and Preparation

Planning and preparation are the first steps in conducting an effective investigative interview. The success of the interview and the investigation as a whole is greatly influenced by this foundational phase. Making a thorough interview plan and recording it is the first step. A summary of the investigation, a list of the required materials, and a precise description of the goals and objectives of the interview should all be included in this plan. It is essential to comprehend the suspect’s point of view because it aids in deciding whether an interview should take place right away or if additional information should be obtained beforehand to maximise the effectiveness of the interview (Bull, 2023). The plan should also address the timing and style of the interview as well as specify the precise details that must be obtained from the suspect. 

Considering the unique qualities of the suspect is an important part of preparation. Tailoring the interview approach to the suspect’s age, gender, cultural background, religious beliefs, and disabilities is crucial. For example, it might be required to involve an intermediary if the suspect is a minor. Analysing the suspect’s cultural background can also be helpful in determining whether or not an interpreter is required. These factors guarantee that the suspect’s needs are respected and taken into account during the interview, which promotes improved cooperation and communication. 

Making sensible arrangements is another essential part of getting ready. This entails going to the scene of the crime, looking through the evidence, investigating the offence, and deciding on a suitable interview spot (Rose, 2023). In order to conduct a targeted and knowledgeable interview, the interviewer needs to have a thorough understanding of the case background, which is provided by these steps. For safety and security to be maintained during the interview, logistical details like how the interview room is set up, making sure it is clear of anything that could be used to hurt oneself or others, and preventing unauthorised entry are crucial. 

Engage and Explain

Engaging the interviewee and outlining the process is a critical next step in investigative interviewing after the planning and preparation stage is finished. The goal of this stage is to build a relationship with the suspect—a prerequisite for productive dialogue. To ease any initial tension or anxiety the suspect may be feeling, start a casual conversation on general topics as the first step towards building rapport. This method encourages the suspect to speak more freely by fostering a more open and laid-back atmosphere. Making the interviewee feel at ease and understood is the aim, as this can greatly enhance the calibre of the data they choose to provide (Walsh & Marques, 2022). 

It’s crucial to explain the purpose of the interview to the suspect after you’ve built some rapport. This entails explaining to them the purpose of the interview as well as the precise reasons they are being questioned. It is imperative that the interviewer utilises straightforward language when conveying these details to the suspect to guarantee that they comprehend the entire purpose of the interview. Setting clear expectations also involves outlining the interviewer’s goals for the discussion and the format of the interview. The interviewer may, for example, inform the suspect that they are being given the chance to present their version of events and any information that could shed light on their role in the incident that is being investigated. 

Notifying the suspect of their legal rights under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) is also essential. This covers the rights to a lawyer present during the interview and the right to stay silent. In addition to being required by law, making sure the suspect is aware of these rights promotes mutual trust between the interviewer and the subject. It is also important to stress adherence to the Human Rights Act of 1998, which forbids discrimination, guarantees the right to liberty and security, and provides protection from torture. The interviewer can elicit more cooperation from the suspect by acting professionally and fairly while adhering to these legal frameworks (Farrugia & Gabbert, 2022). 

Account, Clarification, and Challenge

The next stage of an investigative interview is to get the suspect’s version of events, clarify important details, and raise any discrepancies after building rapport and outlining the interview procedure. The suspect is given the opportunity to give a continuous, unrestricted account of the incident at the start of this phase. Without interjecting, the interviewer should urge the suspect to relate their version of events in their own words. This method fosters trust and may result in a more thorough and truthful description of the events. In order to foster a supportive atmosphere that motivates the suspect to be forthcoming and open during this time, the interviewer should actively listen while demonstrating empathy and understanding (Snook et al., 2021). 

Following the suspect’s unrestricted confession, the interviewer must pinpoint any crucial points that still need explanation or more information. In order to do this, you ask open-ended questions that nudge the suspect to elaborate on particular details of their account. For instance, if the suspect mentions being somewhere at a specific time, the interviewer may ask them to explain their activities, who they were with, and any other pertinent information. In order to paint a precise and comprehensive picture of the events in question, the objective is to collect as much information as possible. In order to preserve the integrity of the information gathered and prevent the suspect from distorting their story, the interviewer should refrain from asking leading or suggestive questions during this phase. 

The interviewer must address any contradictions or inconsistencies in the suspect’s account after providing clarification. This entails politely refuting the suspect’s claims while avoiding confrontation. The interviewer may present exhibits or evidence that refutes the suspect’s story and ask them to explain any differences. The interviewer should show the forensic evidence and ask the suspect to explain any discrepancies if, for example, the suspect insists they were not at the crime scene but the evidence shows they were there (Walsh, 2021). It is imperative to handle these challenges delicately in order to prevent the suspect from becoming defensive or hostile. 

In order to give the suspect plenty of opportunity to present their side of the story, the interviewer must remain impartial and fair throughout the process. Giving the suspect some time to consider their answers and encouraging them to add details that could clear up any ambiguities are part of this. An in-depth examination of the suspect’s story combined with specific, fact-based questions to address discrepancies allows the interviewer to obtain trustworthy data that will be essential to the investigation. In addition to improving the quality of the information gathered, this methodical approach preserves the investigative process’s values of justice and fairness. 

Clarification and Disclosure

The goal of the clarification and disclosure phase of an investigative interview is to confirm and elaborate on the information that the suspect has provided. At this point, the interviewer has the opportunity to probe further into the suspect’s story in an effort to get more information and clarifications on particular issues that are crucial to the investigation. The interviewer listens to the suspect’s first uncensored account, identifies areas that require further information, and then uses targeted questions to extract these details. At this point, open-ended questions are especially useful because they nudge the suspect to go into more detail and provide a richer, more detailed account of what happened (Griffiths & Rachlew, 2018). For example, the interviewer may ask the suspect to elaborate on their activities or to clarify any unclear statements if they mention a specific time or place. 

Presenting the evidence is a crucial part of this stage. The interviewer can start presenting the evidence that has been gathered throughout the investigation once they have a thorough understanding of the suspect’s account. This could include tangible evidence, like DNA or fingerprints, as well as intangible evidence, like eyewitness accounts or security camera footage. Presenting this evidence aims to elicit further information and, if needed, cast doubt on the suspect’s story. For instance, if a suspect says they weren’t at the crime scene, the interviewer can show them evidence that disproves their claim and ask them to explain the discrepancy. This technique helps to find any inaccuracies or omissions in the suspect’s account in addition to corroborated statements. 

A methodical and deliberate approach is necessary for effective disclosure and clarification. The interviewer has to strike a balance between the necessity of getting precise information and the requirement to act in a non-aggressive and professional manner. It is crucial to present the evidence methodically and gradually, allowing the suspect a chance to refute each piece of information as it is presented. By not giving the suspect a sense of overwhelm or cornering them, this tactic helps avoid defensive reactions. Rather, the interviewer should try to open up a conversation that makes the suspect feel obliged to give candid, in-depth justifications for the evidence against them. The information gathered is accurate and comprehensive, and the suspect is given a fair chance to respond thanks to this methodical and gradual disclosure process. 

Closure of the Interview

The closure phase of the investigative interview is as critical as the earlier stages, ensuring that the process is wrapped up methodically and that all necessary information has been gathered and verified. The first step in this phase is a comprehensive analysis and summary of the data gathered during the interview. The suspect’s account should be summarised by the interviewer, who should also make note of any important details and clarifications that were addressed. In addition to providing the interviewer with additional information, this summary allows the suspect to verify the veracity of their statements and clear up any miscommunications.
At this point, mutual understanding is essential (Clarke & Milne, 2017). The interviewer needs to make sure that all significant points have been discussed and that the suspect has had an opportunity to offer all relevant information. Eliminate any unanswered questions or loose ends to avoid the need for time-consuming and logistically difficult follow-up interviews. By taking this step, the interviewer not only ensures a thorough account of the suspect’s perspective but also shows that they are committed to being fair and thorough. 

Preserving the accuracy of the data collected is yet another essential component of the closure stage. It is imperative for the interviewer to guarantee that all digital records, notes, and other types of documentation are appropriately arranged and securely stored. In the event that the interview was recorded, it is crucial to ensure that the recording is accurate and comprehensive. This paperwork will be necessary for the investigation’s later phases as well as any prospective court cases. Additionally, the interviewer needs to explain to the suspect the value of the information they have given and how it will be put to use. Clear communication about the next course of action with the suspect is the final step. The interviewer should clarify whether the suspect can go, will be detained for more interrogation, or will be subject to any pending legal proceedings right away, like charges or bond (Tedeschini & Jung, 2018). This lucidity aids in controlling the suspect’s expectations and lessens any doubt or fear regarding the procedure. If the suspect is going to be held, it’s critical to explain why and what will happen to them after that. 

Evaluation

An important step in the investigative interviewing process is the evaluation phase, which entails assessing the interview’s efficacy and pinpointing opportunities for development. As soon as the interview is over, the interviewer starts this process by going over the interviewee’s performance and the session’s results. Self-evaluation is essential; the interviewer needs to think about the things that went well and the difficulties that were faced. Examining elements like question clarity, rapport-building skills, and evidence handling can yield insightful information for both professional and personal growth (Farrugia & Gabbert, 2022). 

To ensure the quality of the evaluation, getting input from a peer or senior officer is crucial. This outside viewpoint can bring to light areas for improvement and strengths that the interviewer may have missed. If the interview was videotaped, the assessor can watch the recording to give a thorough evaluation of the methods employed during the interview as well as the session’s overall efficacy. This kind of unbiased criticism is essential for pinpointing particular areas that require improvement and for praising job well done. It also offers a starting point for fruitful conversation about how to handle comparable circumstances in the future. 

The evaluation ought to take the interview’s results into account in light of the objectives of the inquiry. This entails determining whether the data collected was adequate, accurate, and relevant to strengthen the case. After going over the suspect’s answers, the interviewer should make a note of any noteworthy admissions, inconsistencies, or clarifications that came to light. This review aids in assessing how the interview affected the investigation and identifies the need for follow-up interviews or other investigative measures (Bull, 2023). The assessment process includes ongoing professional development as a crucial element. The interviewer should set clear goals for improvement based on the feedback they received, and if necessary, seek out more training or mentoring. The interviewer will always be proficient and knowledgeable about the latest techniques in investigative interviewing thanks to this proactive approach to skill development. Sustaining the police force’s high standards of professionalism and efficacy requires regular evaluations and continuing education. 

Conversational Management

The goal of the interviewing technique known as “Conversational Management,” created by psychologist Eric Shepherd, is to help interviewers who are evasive, dishonest, or uncooperative communicate effectively. This approach is especially helpful when dealing with suspects who are hostile, don’t say anything, or stay silent. Establishing a cooperative relationship with the interviewee and guiding the discussion to extract relevant and truthful information are the objectives of conversational management. Three fundamental components of the approach are response, reciprocity, and a controlled conversational flow. To foster mutual respect and trust, reciprocity requires the interviewer to start the self-disclosure process (Griffiths & Rachlew, 2018). Interviewers can establish a rapport with interviewees by disclosing personal information, which may prompt the interviewee to divulge information about themselves in return. Through the process, a rapport is built that may increase the interviewee’s comfort level and willingness to speak candidly. 

The response component is all about showcasing a variety of people skills that help with efficient communication. Respect, empathy, support, and a nonjudgmental demeanour are all part of this. Interviewers should communicate clearly and create a relaxed atmosphere so that the interviewee feels comfortable sharing information. The interviewer can lessen the interviewee’s resistance and persuade them to participate in the conversation by being upbeat, honest, and encouraging. The structured sequence of managed conversations is based on the GEMAC acronym, which stands for Greet, Explain, Mutual Activity, and Closure. Greeting and introducing oneself to the suspect establishes a cordial yet formal beginning to the process. The interviewer then goes over the steps of the interview, including what will happen and the interviewee’s expectations (Smith, 2024). In mutual activity, questions are posed to the suspect to elicit information about their story. Open-ended questions are used to start the process. In order to delve further into the specifics of the suspect’s story, the interviewer may pose more targeted questions as the interview goes on. The interviewer keeps control of the conversation during this stage while making sure the suspect feels understood and heard. 

The interviewer reaffirms the rapport they have built during the conversation during the closing phase. This entails highlighting the main ideas covered, removing any last doubts, and making sure the suspect is aware of what has to be done next. Regardless of the interview’s outcome, the interviewer should express gratitude to the interviewee for their cooperation in order to keep the exchange civil and constructive. Furthermore, Conversational Management takes a different tack when it comes to taking notes. The interviewer progressively extracts, builds up, and reviews information rather than taking notes verbatim. This approach keeps the conversation flowing and enables the interviewer to respond to the interviewee’s statements in a more natural way (Walsh & Marques, 2022). Examining case files and interview transcripts prior to and during the interview facilitates the interviewer’s ability to maintain focus on pertinent subjects and formulate pertinent questions. 

Interviews under Caution

Cautionary interviews are an essential part of the investigative process and are subject to stringent legal guidelines that guarantee impartiality and safeguard suspects’ rights. The guidelines and requirements for conducting these types of interviews are outlined in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) 1984, specifically Code C. People should be informed that their answers may be used as evidence in court when they are questioned by police about their involvement, or suspected involvement, in a criminal offence. By making sure the suspect is aware of their rights and the possible repercussions of their statements, this precaution acts as a legal safeguard. 

The warning usually entails telling the suspect that although they have the right to stay silent, anything they do say could be used against them in court. This is essential to guaranteeing the suspect’s rights are upheld and that any information gathered during the interview is admissible in court. If this warning is not given, the suspect’s statements may not be accepted, which could have a serious effect on the investigation and any ensuing legal actions. As a result, following this procedure is crucial to preserving the integrity of the investigation and guaranteeing that justice is done (Farrugia & Gabbert, 2022; Soukara et al., 2018). Apart from this warning, PACE requires that all interviews with suspects be audio recorded. This prerequisite guarantees a factual and objective transcript of the interview, which is admissible in court. Audio recordings facilitate accountability and transparency by enabling the verification of statements made by the suspect and the interviewer. This safeguard guards against possible misconduct or coercion by the interviewer and helps avoid disagreements regarding the interview’s content. 

It is also crucial to conduct interviews cautiously in a safe setting, like a police station. This environment guarantees that the resources and staff needed to carry out the interview are available. Additionally, it aids in keeping the interview formal and serious while emphasising to the suspect the legal significance of the proceedings. In certain situations, it is also necessary or advised for the suspect to have a legal representative present in order to further protect their rights and guarantee a fair interview (Vaughan et al., 2024). Additionally, the interviewer is required to adhere to particular protocols regarding pre-interview disclosure and, if necessary, pre-interview briefing. Pre-interview disclosure is giving the accused person and their attorney enough information about the charges to enable them to comprehend the purpose of the interview and the nature of the investigation. This procedure complies with the ideals of openness and justice by giving the suspect enough time to prepare their answers. 

References

Vaughan, M., Milne, R., Cherryman, J., & Dalton, G. (2024). Managing investigative interviews with vulnerable suspects in the UK: do specialist interview managers (IM’s) understand vulnerability?. Psychology, Crime & Law, 1-20.

Smith, K. (2024). Twenty-Five Years of Achieving Best Evidence: Investigative Interviews with Victims and Witnesses in England and Wales. International Journal of Police Science and Management, 211.

Bull, R. (2023). Improving the interviewing of suspects using the PEACE model: A comprehensive overview. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 65(1), 80-91.

Rose, K. B. (2023). The phased interview model of suspect interviewing: evaluating the model, methodological considerations, and preliminary observations (Doctoral dissertation, University of British Columbia).

Walsh, D., & Marques, P. B. (2022). Is confession really necessary? The use of effective interviewing techniques to maximize disclosure from suspects. In Police psychology (pp. 357-380). Academic Press.

Farrugia, L., & Gabbert, F. (2022). Forensic interviewing of mentally disordered suspects: the impact of interview style on investigation outcomes. Current Psychology, 41(5), 3216-3224.

Snook, B., Barron, T., Fallon, L., Kassin, S. M., Kleinman, S., Leo, R. A., & Trainum, J. L. (2021). Urgent issues and prospects in reforming interrogation practices in the United States and Canada. Legal and criminological psychology, 26(1), 1-24.

Walsh, D. (2021). Towards a framework for interviewing suspects of fraud (Doctoral dissertation, University of Leicester).

Snook, B., Barron, T., Fallon, L., Kassin, S. M., Kleinman, S., Leo, R. A., & Trainum, J. L. (2021). Urgent issues and prospects in reforming interrogation practices in the United States and Canada. Legal and criminological psychology, 26(1), 1-24.

Griffiths, A., & Rachlew, A. (2018). From interrogation to investigative interviewing: The application of psychology. In The psychology of criminal investigation (pp. 154-178). Routledge.

Clarke, C., & Milne, R. (2017). Interviewing suspects in England and Wales. In International developments and practices in investigative interviewing and interrogation (pp. 133-150). Routledge.

Noone, G. (2015). A Garda Síochána model of investigative interviewing of witnesses and suspects. Investigating Terrorism: Current Political, Legal and Psychological Issues, 100-122.

Tedeschini, J., & Jung, S. (2018). Motivational Interviewing in the Context of Police Investigative Interviews with Suspects. Investigative Interviewing: Research & Practice, 9(1).

Soukara, S., Bull, R., Vrij, A., Turner, M., & Cherryman, J. (2018). What really happens in police interviews of suspects? Tactics and confessions. In Investigating the Truth (pp. 206-220). Routledge.