Enhancing Investigative Interviewing Through the PEACE Model and PACE Reforms

Investigative Interviewing

Investigative interviewing is an important tool of policing everywhere in the world. Every now and then a police officer will be called upon to obtain information from a victim, a witness or a suspect to a crime. The success of an investigation into a crime depends on effectiveness of the methods and techniques used in the interview process (Launay & Py, 2015). A skilled interviewer is an indispensable resource to the police force owing to the expectations of professionalism and quality results. Undertaking proper investigative interviewing can lead to the prosecution or exoneration of a suspect. It also saves time, money and resources by supporting prosecution, and increases public confidence in the police service and criminal justice system as a whole.

There was a paradigm shift in manner in which suspects were questioned in 1984 after the formulation of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE). The new legislation introduced new changes including the right to legal representation for suspects, limits on detention before charge and mandated audio recordings of all suspect interviews. As a result this report on interview process of a criminal suspect interview will take into account the PACE reforms and PEACE model introduced to ensure that police officers became skilled interviewers for better delivery of justice and miscarriage of justice avoidance ( Barron, 2017). In order to complete a successful criminal investigation I will apply PEACE model of investigative interviewing which stands for: Planning & Preparation, Engage & Explain, Account, Clarification & Challenges, Closure and Evaluation.

Planning and Preparation

This forms the foundational basis of effective interviewing and success of the interview largely depends on it. To begin with, I will create and record and interview plan which will help in the review of the investigation, determining materials needed, deciding on the aims and objective of the interview. In order to establish the accuracy of information I will enquire information from the suspect, outline the kind of information needed, the interviewee’s viewpoint and establish whether the interviewee must be interviewed immediately or it would be more useful to obtain more information before proceeding (Griffiths et al., 2011). I will further take keen interest into the individual characteristics of the suspect. The age of the interviewee will be useful in determining whether an intermediary will be needed, the time the interview is conducted and the kind of approach used. It will also be important to take into account the cultural background of the interviewee in case an interpreter may be needed.

I will further take into account the interviewee’s religious beliefs, domestic circumstances, disability, gender and any previous contact with the police. It will also be important to make practical arrangements which may help me understand the background of the offence and inform an effective interview (Walsh & Bull, 2010). In this regard, I may visit the scene of crime, look at the exhibits, research the offence and consider the location of the interview. It is also important to take precautions regarding my safety as an officer and that of the suspect. Therefore, I will after taking into account the character of the interviewee maintain distance and have them restrained if they are aggressive. It may also be important to restrict the movement of people into the interview room and keep the room clear of any objects that may be used by the interviewee to hurt themselves or others.

Engage and Explain

Having prepared for the interview and put in place an interview plan, I will proceed to engage the interviewee by encouraging a conversation. Before formally beginning the interview, I will try to establish and maintain a rapport by talking to the suspect about general topics. The first step will be to explain to the interviewee the reason for them being in the current place (Vallano & Schreiber, 2015).The next step will be to explain in simple and plain words to the interviewee the objectives of the interview. Basically, I will inform the suspect what I hope to achieve from the interview. More importantly, I will explain to the suspect the routines of interview and my expectations during and at the end of the whole process. For instance, I will explain to him that because I want to establish the existence of certain facts, it is an opportunity for them to explain their involvement in the offence under investigation. Alternatively, I will tell the suspect I expect him to share with me his side of the story.

It will also be vital to inform the suspect of his or her legal rights under PACE, including the right to remain silent and or have a legal representation during the whole interview process. I will further take into account provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998 on prohibition of torture, right to liberty and security and the prohibition of discrimination (Human Rights Act 1998). Additionally, I will follow the guideline on pre-interview disclosure and pre-interview briefing as appropriate. The importance of pre-interview disclosure and briefing cannot be underscored because it may jeopardise the prosecution case. In fact, section 34 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act of 1994 (CJPO) implies that the above failure may lead to the prosecution being unable to rely on the drawing of adverse inference. The PACE Code of Practice C note 10B provides that an interview should provide the arrested and their legal representative enough information to ensure that they understand that the allegations against them, that they are deprived of liberty and the reason for the arrest.

Account, Clarification and Challenge

After establishing a rapport with the suspect and explaining the ground rules for the interview, I will now allow him or her to give their uninterrupted free account of the incident under investigation. The suspect will then give his or her free account of the incident under investigation without any unnecessary interruptions. I will actively listen to the interviewee as a way of establishing a rapport and eliciting a full and accurate account of events under investigation (Scott et al., 2015). I will give the suspect adequate time to think and reflect during their account to encourage the suspect to expand on what has been stated and add extra information. During this time when the suspect is giving his free account, I will be recording this account so that I can later use it to clarify or challenge any contradictions. Once the suspect is done with his free account, will identify critical areas that require me to prompt them into providing further detail. I will mostly use open-ended questions on specific areas where I require the suspect to shed more light. At the beginning I will not directly challenge the suspect but simply let them know that I need further information on a given area.

Clarification and Disclosure

In this stage of the interview process, the interviewer has the opportunity to expand and clarify all the relevant areas in the case. As a result, at some point I may introduce exhibits or evidence that the suspect has touched on in their free account to seek clarification on the same. For instance, I could ask the suspect to explain the presence of their DNA or fingerprints at the scene of crime or in the alternative to explain their whereabouts on the date when the offence was committed (Clarke & Milne, 2017). The above strategy touches on the clarification and disclosure stage where as an interviewer I decide to introduce evidence against the suspect. After understanding and summarising the suspect’s account of events, I will invite them to explain the evidence having exhausting all alternatives explanation for the same. I can also encourage the interviewer to give more details by using probing questions- Why? When? What? Where? Who? How? I will take care not to rush this stage of the interview because the suspect may want to add something and there may be need to re-interview the suspect.

Closure of the Interview

The interview should methodologically be closed by first ensuring that there is a mutual understanding of the suspect’s account of events. To determine the above, I will review and summarise everything obtained from the interview and verify that all the critical points have been covered. I can check this by confirming that all the information I need from the suspect has been provided. I will put much emphasis on the integrity of the information obtained from the suspect especially if they are digital records of the interview. Communication is key hence I must explain to the suspect that I have all the information I need and they are free to leave unless they have any questions for me. In other circumstances the suspect may be informed to post bail or of potential pre-trial detention.

Evaluation

At the end of the interview, it is important to evaluate my performance and get feedback. The evaluation can be conducted by my senior officer or an officer of the same rank. As the interviewing officer I should be given the opportunity to comment on my own performance before the evaluator awards points noting to begin with the positive areas before moving to those that require improvement (Griffiths & Rachlew, 2018). Evaluation will be easier where the interview was recorded so that the person evaluating my work will simply go through the recording to note the important areas of evaluation. It may be necessary to conduct a follow-up interview and the evaluation will help me in improving on my weak areas so as to conduct a better interview and obtain the necessary information. More importantly, evaluation is useful for an officer who aspires for professional development and may even help in goal setting.

Conversational Management

This interviewing method was developed by a psychologist, Eric Shepherd, to build a working relationship with an interviewee. It was designed to be used on interviewees who give no comment responses, who are evasive, hostile, lying, and non-co-operative and remain silent ( Shawyer et al., 2013). It is possible that I may come across a suspect who has the above qualities and refuses to answer questions or is deceptive. This method is specifically designed for such circumstances and it will give me control over the interview while acquiring relevant information from the interviewee. The method consists of three elements including reciprocity, response, and a managed conversational sequence. I will use reciprocity by initiating self-disclosure and building trust and respect between me and the interviewee. This will build a connection necessary for free communication between me and the interviewee. In applying the response element, I will display, respect, empathy, supportiveness, positiveness, openness, non-judgmental attitude, straight forward talk and encourage equal s talking approach. A combination of these elements will make the interviewee open up to the interviewer, and if they do not, the next element will do the trick.

In applying the Managed Sequence approach the GEMAC acronym is used. In this regard, I will first greet the suspect before anything else and then introduce myself. After that I will explain the interview process in detail then engage the suspect in a mutual activity which simply entails a deep exploration of their free account followed by probing questions (Shawyer et al., 2013). At the closure stage of the interview, I will endeavour to reinforce the relationship earlier established. Additionally, the Conversational Management Method adopts a unique way of taking notes which is built around the gradual extraction, build-up and review of information. It basically allows the interviewer to review case documents and interview records then respond to that information during the interview or a follow-up interview. Continue your exploration of Eyewitness Evidence Reliability In The Criminal Justice System with our related content.

Interviews under caution

Code C (Revised Code of Practice for the detention, treatment and questioning of persons by Police Officers) made pursuant to PACE 1984 provides for instances when interviews must be carried out under caution (Home Office, 2018). When a person in questioned by the police regarding their involvement or suspected involvement in a criminal offence then they must be cautioned that their response from the interview may be used against them in a court of law. However, if I fail to caution the suspect and proceed to interview them, any evidence from the interview may not be admissible. I am also required to always audio-record such an interview and it is good practice to conduct the interview at the police station.

References

Barron, W.T., 2017. The peace model of investigative interviewing: a comparison of trained and untrained suspect interviewers (Doctoral dissertation, Memorial University of Newfoundland).

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

Criminal Justice and Public Order Act of 1994

Griffiths, A. and Rachlew, A., 2018. From interrogation to investigative interviewing: The application of psychology. In The Psychology of Criminal Investigation (pp. 154-178). Routledge.

Griffiths, A., Milne, B. and Cherryman, J., 2011. A question of control? The formulation of suspect and witness interview question strategies by advanced interviewers. International Journal of Police Science & Management, 13(3), pp.255-267.

Home Office. 2018. CODE C Revised Code of Practice for the detention, treatment and questioning of persons by Police Officers.

Human Rights Act 1998

Launay, C. and Py, J., 2015. Methods and aims of investigative interviewing of adult witnesses: An analysis of professional practices. Pratiques psychologiques, 21(1), pp.55-70.

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984

Scott, A.J., Tudor-Owen, J., Pedretti, P. and Bull, R., 2015. How intuitive is PEACE? Newly recruited police officers' plans, interviews and self-evaluations. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 22(3), pp.355-367.

Shawyer, A., Milne, B. and Bull, R., 2013. Investigative interviewing in the UK. In International developments in investigative interviewing (pp. 50-64). Willan.

Vallano, J.P. and Schreiber Compo, N., 2015. Rapport-building with cooperative witnesses and criminal suspects: A theoretical and empirical review. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 21(1), p.85.

Walsh, D. and Bull, R., 2010. What really is effective in interviews with suspects? A study comparing interviewing skills against interviewing outcomes. Legal and criminological psychology, 15(2), pp.305-321.