VISITING EXPERTSʼPAPERSINVESTIGATIVE INTERVIEWING IN ENGLAND
PART I:M ODELS FOR INTERVIEWINGWITNESSES AND SUSPECTS
Timothy E. Curtis

This essay will, as its title suggests, outline the models of investigative interviewing that have
evolved into current practice,not just in England,but in many parts of the world.It can be read alone
or in conjunction with Part II of this project which will look at some tactical and legal considerations
applicable to investigative interviewing.

I. INTRODUCTION
There is possibly no such thing as a perfect police interview and the author of this paper has heard
many experienced detectives make that observation. That is not to say that they do not constantly
strive for the best product available;it is more a recognition that, under close scrutiny, somebody
somewhere will be able to pass critical comment on some aspect of their performance as the interviewer. The reality is of course that in an adversarial judicial system such as that which operates inmany countries which derive their legal system from the English there will always be ʻ
the other sideʼ
who will be strongly motivated to highlight flaws in the interview process. If an interview was
conducted to such a poor degree that it could be argued the outcome was not reliable then the interview
could ruled as being inadmissible and its content not considered by the decision makers. In thesecircumstances it will almost always be the victim of the crime who suffers.If the product of a witness
interview is deemed to be unreliable then it is possible that they will have to give their evidence ʻ
liveʼin Court;if a suspectʼs admission is ruled to have been secured unfairly it may never get to the ears of
the Judge or jury.
Criticisms of police interviews have long been the topic of debate in arenas wider than just the
Courts though:many politicians,academics and other interested parties have evaluated and commented on some of the tactics and interview-skills employed during formal and informal reviews of cases.
M uch of this critical analysis has informed changes in practice through the years and it is true to saythat these developments continue to this day.But for many,the basic premise of an interview remains
the same:to find out what happened. Or “
the quest for truth”as it is sometimes defined as.Even thissimple foundation on which an interview is built has, in the past, been said to be the source of the
problem:if the interviewer has already decided what happened (or what ʻ
the truthʼis)then they might
conduct the interview in such a way as to achieve confirmation of their preconceived ideas ― rather
than adopt a more open-minded approach to explore of what might have happened.

II. CURRENT POSITION
There are a number of different interview frameworks that are currently trained to police officers
and other criminal justice system practitioners in the United Kingdom and this paper will,in the main,
deal with two ofthem:the four-phased interview advocated in the publication “Achieving Best Evidence
in Criminal Proceedings”(Ministry of Justice 2011)and the PEACE model. The four-phased model isa framework exclusively for witnesses whilst the PEACE model has an application across both witness
and suspect interviews.
These models developed in parallel to each other and although both started to gather a momentum
within the criminal justice system from the late 1980s they have remained as separate entities throughDirector and Training Consultant,Wessex Training Consultancy Ltd.;former Detective Sergeant,Hampshire Constabulary, United Kingdom.

3

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 92
out. That said there are obvious similarities between the two which will not be ignored as this essay
gives a generic overview of both models. It will also focus on some more specific techniques that canbe employed through the various phases.

III. THE SEVEN PRINCIPLES OF INVESTIGATIVE INTERVIEWING
As early as 1992 the British Government recognised the need to set out ideologythat would underpin
all investigative interviews. In doing so it published its seven principles (which can be seen in their
original form at appendix A)which remained unaltered until 2009 when they were bought up to date
to reflect changes in some legislation, publications and working practices. These principles ― still in
use today ― are:i.

The aim of investigative interviewing is to obtain accurate and reliable accounts from victims,
witnesses or suspects about matters under investigation

ii. Investigators must act fairly when questioning victims, witnesses and suspects. Vulnerable
people must be treated with particular consideration at all timesiii. Interviewing should be approached with an investigative mindset.Accounts obtained from theperson who is being interviewed should always be tested against what the investigator alreadyknows or what can reasonably be established.
iv. When conducting an interview,investigators are free to ask a wide range of questions in orderto obtain material which may assist an investigationv. Investigators should recognise the positive impact of an early admission in the context of thecriminal justice system
vi. Investigators are not bound to accept the first answer given.Questioning is not unfair merely
because it is persistentvii. Even when the right to silence is exercised by a suspect,investigators have a responsibility to
put questions to them.
It can be seen that whilst many of the principles apply to both witness and suspect interviews someapply exclusively to one discipline or the other. Acknowledging these differences we need to look at
how the models of interviewing vary,how they evolved and the key drivers behind those developments.
Firstly we will look at specific guidance on interviewing vulnerable and intimidated victims andwitnesses.
A. Victim and Witness Interviewing
In 1988 Judge Elizabeth Butler-Sloss published her report of the inquiry into a significant numberof child abuse investigations in the English County of Cleveland. In it she commented that the interviews conducted with the witnesses:“
mostly failed the standards agreed by professionals working in
the area of child sexual abuse”(Shaw 2011).As a result of this inquiry the Right Honourable Douglas
Hurd,the UK Parliamentʼs Home Secretary of the day,established an advisory group to consider theusing of visually recorded interviews of child victims and witnesses as a means of taking their evidence
to Court. In his letter setting out the groupʼs terms of reference he was clear from the outset that:
although it is the context of child abuse that this idea has gained ground it has wider
implications, and an argument ― although probably a less compelling one― could be mounted forthe evidence-in-chief of other vulnerable groups to be given in this way(Pigot 1989).
The group published their recommendations 18 months later in what has become known as the“Pigot Report”(after its chair, His Honour Judge Thomas Pigot) but is more properly titled:“
The
Report of the Advisory Group on Video Evidence”(Home Office 1989). In it they endorsed Professor

4

155TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTSʼPAPERS
John Yuilleʼ
s “Step Wise”approach to interviewing.1 This is one which recognised the need for rapport
to exist between interviewer and interviewee at the start of the interview;the need for the interviewee
to recognise the seriousness of the context of the interview ― and thus the need to be truthful;the needfor the interviewee to be encouraged to speak freely about what they want to say before questioning
begins;and when questioning actually commences it progresses from an open style before,if necessary,
moving to more specific probing.M etaphorically speaking,this modelʼ
s DNA exists in many of todayʼsinterview frameworks used around the world.
In 1992, adopting (and making reference to) many of the Pigot inquiryʼ
s recommendations, theBritish Government Home Office in conjunction with the Department of Health published “TheMemorandum of Good Practice”(Home Office 1992) and what became known as “
The Four Phased
Interview”was born. This formalised the approach to be adopted in interviews with child witness incriminal proceedings and, in doing so, also acknowledged Judge Elizabeth Butler-Slossʼ
s report referred to earlier. The four phases of the interview were:
RapportFree narrative account
Questioning
Closing the Interview
Instantly the influence of Yuilleʼsʻ
step-wiseʼapproach can be seen and his philosophy of minimising
any trauma the child may experience during the interview whilst maximising the amount and qualityof the information forthcoming and,at the same time,maintaining the integrity of the process (Yuille1998 pg 1) was reflected. To achieve these objectives each phase contained significant guidance andwhilst it is not intended to duplicate it all here some of the key points are worthy of reminder.
1. Phase One:Rapport
Everything needed to done overtly and whilst the main aim of this phase was to establish a rapport
with the child and make them feel as relaxed and as comfortable as possible,the fact that the interview
was being visually and audibly recorded needed to be made clear ― as did the rationale for doing so.
The child also needed to understand the reason for the interview. Given that the Pigot inquiry
recommendations were aimed at securing Court-grade evidence the necessary rules of evidence needed
to be considered during this phase and whilst there was no requirement for the child to swear an oathduring the interview it was acknowledged that it would be helpful for the court to be aware of thechildʼ
s need to tell the truth. This was also the phase that the interviewers were encouraged tosupplement their existing knowledge about the childʼs cognitive and social development and, inparticular, their communication skills so that the rest of the interview could be conducted using
age-appropriate language.
2. Phase Two:Free Narrative AccountThis phase,as its name suggests,was where the child was encouraged to speak spontaneously andfreely ― ideally about the matter under investigation. The key point here is that the account was tobe given in a manner that was free of interviewer influence.Interviewers were encouraged to employ
ʻactive listeningʼskills and use open questions as much as possible ensuring all the time that they werecommunicating at a level suitable for the interviewee sat opposite them.
3. Phase Three:Questioning
The purpose of this phase of the interview was to probe further information volunteered in the freenarrative account phase. Whether the interviewer sought greater detail or just clarification of something already said the guidance was the same ― use four specific question types (open-ended,specificbut non-leading, closed, and finally leading)and recognise the hierarchy that exists between them.
1Professor John Yuille is an Experimental Psychologist at the University of British Columbia,Canada and had spent overthirty years researching memory in adults and children.

5

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 92(1)Open-ended.
The interviewer should, as much as possible, use open-ended questions in the first instance (and,indeed,return to this style at the earliest opportunity when they were departed from).Although it was
obvious that the question phase had been entered it was still possible to secure information with theleast amount of interviewer-influence if ʻ
openʼquestions were employed.
(2)Specific but non-leading.
Specific but non-leading questions allowed the interviewer to secure clarification on particularpoints already made earlier in the process.
(3)Closed
The Memorandum ofGood Practice(MoGP)was clear(Pg:20):“If specific but non-leading questions
are unproductive, questions might be attempted that give the child a limited number of alternative
responses”.This endorsement of the use of closed questions was given with additional guidance.It gives
the example: “Was the manʼs scarf you mentioned blue or yellow, or another colour or canʼt youremember?”(MoGP:Pg 20).Here you can see that the closed question is constructed in such a way as
to allow the child to select an option other than blue or yellow (without such an opportunity thequestion could be construed as leading).It also allowed a response from a child who genuinely did notknow what colour the scarf was.
(4)Leading
The final question type in this hierarchy is ʻ
leadingʼ.Leading questions were advocated only if they
were applied with the utmost care and only then if they were likely to lead on a point which was
unlikely to be a fact in dispute at any subsequent trial.The Memorandum of Good Practice made thedifferentiation clear to new-to-role interviewers insomuch as, when it is generally accepted that aperson X has been killed at a particular time,it would not be not be considered as leading to ask thechild ʻwhat were you doing when X was killed?ʼ
. What is far less likely to be admissible would be aquestion:
which either suggests the required answer, or which is based on an assumption of facts which had
yet to be proved. Thus ʻDaddy hurt you, didnʼ
t he?ʼis an example of the first type of leading
question, and “When did you first tell anyone about what Daddy did?ʼput to child who has not
yet alleged that Daddy did anything is an example of the second type
(MoGP Page 26).
At all times the interviewer was encouraged to revert back to ʻ
open questionsʼif any new information came to light.
4. Phase Four:Closing the Interview
This phase was essential as it was designed to ensure that the child witness did not leave the process
in a distressed state.The child should not feel that they had failed or let the interviewers down and it
was important to ensure that the child left the interview room in a positive frame of mind.It was also
an opportunity to answer any questions that the child might have of the interviewers and for a
discussion to take place about what might happen next.In many respects it can be viewed as a returnto the rapport phase where neutral topics were discussed before ending the process.
The guidance published in the Memorandum of Good Practice proved to be so helpful in achieving
its main objective of securing court-grade interviews of child victims that, following a further Home
Office report (ʻSpeaking Up For Justiceʼ)in 1998 and the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act of
1999, the same model of interviewing was extended for use with certain categories of vulnerable andintimidated adult victims and witnesses.The Memorandum of Good Practice was replaced by“Achieving Best Evidence in Criminal Proceedings”(M inistry of Justice 2001) and four new categories ofvulnerable witness were added to the existing one ofʻchildrenʼ― and thus became eligible for interview
under the four-phased model. They were:i.

6

Witnesses with learning disabilities,

155TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTSʼPAPERS
ii. Physically disabled witnesses,iii. Witnesses with a mental disorder or illness
iv. Witnesses who were suffering from fear and distress (intimidated witnesses).
The four phases of the interview remained more or less the same as they were under the M emorandum of Good Practice and this continued to be the case for nearly six years.In 2007 however,to reflect
the changes in relevant legislation and the adoption of a “Victimʼ
s Charter”, a second edition of“Achieving Best Evidence in Criminal Proceedings”was published.This edition not onlyrecognised thedefinitions ofʻ
significantʼ,ʻreluctantʼand ʻ
hostileʼwitnesses (and gave interview guidance accordingly)
but it also slightly adjusted the question hierarchy of the third ― or question ― phase of the interview.
It now re-labelled the ʻclosedʼquestions of earlier publications as ʻforced-choiceʼquestions and gave
additional guidance as to their use.
2011 saw the third edition of“Achieving Best Evidence in Criminal Proceedings”published ― again
to cater for changes in practice and legislation ― but the model and its phases remained fundamentally
unchanged.A significant addition to this edition however was the inclusion ofextended guidance on theuse of the“Enhanced Cognitive Interview”.Although the cognitive-interview(in 2001)and the enhanced
cognitive-interview (in 2007) were referred to in earlier editions the 2011 version was a much richer
source of information on the various techniques available to interviewers.
Whilst the model to interview victims and witnesses was evolving and enjoying a varietyofre-births
the world of suspect interviewing was no less active and just as 1992 saw the publication of the
M emorandum of Good Practice for the interviewing of witnesses it proved to be a landmark year in
the development of suspect interviewing too.
B. Suspect Interviewing
Police in England and Wales had been audible-tape recording their interviews with suspects since
its trials in 1984 and so by the late 80s a wealth of material (much of which had completed its route
through the full criminal justice system)existed for evaluation and comparison.Some police interviews
with suspects were also visually recorded and in 1992 Professor John Baldwin2 published a report for
the Home Office following his evaluation of 600 such interviews (400 visually recorded and 200 audibly
recorded). His report:“
Videotaping police interviews with suspects ― An evaluationʼis described by
Clarke and M ilne (2001)as probably being the “watershed”moment in the well-documented criticism
of police interview skills (page 1).
Baldwin was able to criticise over a third of the interviews he evaluated, grouping their failings
under four main headings:
I.

The ineptitude of the police officers conducting the interviews resulted in Baldwin identifying
them as being “nervous, ill at ease and lacking in confidence”with some of them being“unfamiliar with the available evidence and had clearly not read the written statements”(M cGurk et al. 1993)

II. The interviewers assumed guilt and therefore expected a confession.This,in turn,influenced
the type of questions posed as well as the manner and tone in which those questions were asked― to the extent that any confession subsequently offered by the suspect was not pursued
sufficiently to sustain the case.
III. A poor interview technique was manifestly demonstrated by,amongst other things,interrupting the suspect and becoming “unnecessarily flustered by the intervention of a third party, suchas a legal representative”. (M cGurk et al. 1993).

2Professor Baldwin was the Director of the Institute of Judicial Administration for over twenty years and is now theEmeritus Professor of Judicial Administration at the Birmingham Law School in England.

7

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 92
IV. Unfair questioning or unprofessional conduct.Baldwin expressed concern “
in a small numberof cases”where the interviewers employed an “
unduly harrying or aggressive approach”(M cGurk et al. 1993).
Whilst Baldwin acknowledged that the interviews he used in his research were not necessarily arepresentative sample both he,and subsequently the Home Office,were sufficiently concerned to makerecommendations for change.The Police were not averse to change and it needs to be recognised thatin parallel to Baldwinʼ
s research the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO)had (in October 1991)
already established a working party on Investigative Interviewing and were actively reviewing theirworking practices.An outcome of all of this work was the adoption,in 1993,of a model of interviewingthat would be applicable to all suspect and witness interviews.It was based on a series of phases andwould become known by the mnemonic P.E.A.C.E., an acronym designed to assist the police inrecognising the different stages.
P.E.A.C.E.
The stages of a PEACE interview are:Plan and prepare;Engage and explain;Account,clarify andchallenge;Closure;and finally Evaluate. PEACE therefore is, in essence, Yuilleʼs step-wise approach
under different headings.Its application to a suspect interview obviously meant that different considerations would exist at each stage ― but officers familiar with the four phased interview (advocated in
the Memorandum of Good Practice)would recognise the parallels.
PEACE

Four phased

Plan and prepare

The M emorandum of Good Practice reflected thisthinking when it was also very clear that: “NoInterview should be conducted without adequate planning”(MoGP pg 9).

Engage and explain

RapportAccount

Free Narrative Accountclarify, challenge
ClosureQuestion phase
ClosureEvaluation

Although,as has already been stated,PEACE can apply to witness as well as suspect interviews wewill focus, in this essay, on its application in a suspect context. We will consider the statutory
obligations on the interviewer later but first we will take a generic look at the various stages of a
PEACE interview.

P eace:Plan and Prepare
It is easy to argue that this is the most important part of the interview ― particularly in a suspectcontext. As somebody once said:“Failing to plan is planning to fail”!Good planning would start toaddress at least three of Professor John Baldwinʼs four categories of failings in the interviews that heassessed (referred to earlier in this essay)and even the fourth,ʻ
the unfair or unprofessional approachʼ,might be further minimised by better preparation.
There are a number of generic points that need to be considered before the interview takes place.
Amongst these are:i.

What can this interviewee contribute to this investigation?

ii. What are my legal considerations /constraints?
iii. What offence (or offences)am I investigating ― and thus what are their ʻpoints-to-proveʼ
?

8

155TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTSʼPAPERS
iv. What do I already know about this interviewee and what do I need to find out?
v. Does this interviewee have a third party present ― a legal advisor or an ʻ
appropriate adultʼ?
This is by no means an exhaustive list and each investigation will bring with it different ʻplanning
and preparationʼconsiderations but for this overview of PEACE we will briefly look at the five points
above.
(a) What can this interviewee contribute to this investigation?
From the outset you always have to plan for one of three responses from your interviewee:i.

prepare for a denial,

ii. prepare for an admission andiii. prepare for your suspect to not answer any of your questions.
All three of these responses (even ʻa suspect who does not answer your questions) can take on
various guises but the need to plan for them is the same. Does, for example, the denial take the formof alibi that needs to be confirmed /rebutted or does the suspect claim ʻ
mistaken identityʼ― in whichcase what are my identification options?
In the case of an admission the interview still needs to proceed to a depth that will,as Baldwin put
it, sustain the case. Does the confession identify additional lines-of-enquiry such as those that might
assist in the recovery of outstanding property― or identify additional victims?Does the admission go
further than the original victim reported?A confession still needs to be probed.
A suspect who wishes to not answer the questions put to him can do so in a variety of ways.He canjust choose to respond “no comment”at the end of each question ― thus provoking the interviewer to
ask the next question ― or he can choose to say nothing whatsoever. The important thing in theplanning phase is that the interviewers have planned to deal with the eventuality.
(b) What are my legal considerations /constraints?
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 is the primary piece of legislation that impacts suspect
interviews. Amongst other things it governs the detention of a suspect when he or she has not been
charged with any offence and stipulates the amount oftime that a person can be so detained ― and who
to apply to if the investigation wants the period of detention to be extended.It also reinforces the factthat a detainee is entitled to free and independent legal advice.
Other things that an interviewer needs to consider at this early stage in the process include things
like:
Is English the first, or most appropriate, language for the interviewee?
The fact that special considerations exist if the detainee is a juvenile or a mentally disorderedor vulnerable adultHas the detainee made any significant statements in the past?
Is there any ʻSpecial Warningsʼmaterial in existence that require additional cautions under
sections 36 or 37 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act of 1994?(This is discussed ingreater detail in Part II of this essay.)(c) What offence is being investigated and what are the points-to-prove?
Whilst it seems obvious that the interviewer should know what they are investigating Milne andClarke (2001) in their comprehensive review of police interviews revealed that less than 30% ofinterviewers covered the points-to-prove in a “comprehensive manner”and,more worryingly,just over9

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 92
14% of the interviewers did not cover them at all (Pg 38). Just as important as points-to-prove isknowledge of any statutory defences that might exist for the offence under investigation so that they
too can be covered in the interview.
(d) What do I already know about this interviewee and what do I need to find out?
Given that the next stage of the PEACE model is “Engage and explain”there is an expectation thatthe interviewer will, at least try to, ʻengageʼwith the interviewee. To this end it is useful to find out,
so far as is relevant to the investigative process,some background information on the individual.This
becomes particularly relevant if the employment of various interview tactics is being considered.The
planning and preparation stage can be viewed as an opportunity to carry out a form ofʻ
gap analysis.
Once the interviewee identifies what they do not know about their interviewee when theyʻ
engageʼwiththeir interviewee in the next phase of the process.
Another consideration could be whether this person has been interviewed in the past.If so,is there
anything to learn from that contact with the police?
Does this interviewee have a third party present ― a legal advisor or an ʻ
appropriate adultʼ
?When
it is remembered that M cGurk et al.(1993)reported that officers became“
unnecessarily flustered by theintervention of a third party, such as a legal representative”the need to prepare for this eventuality is
obvious. Equally the solicitor and appropriate adult have clearly defined roles and responsibilities in
an interview and the interviewer needs to be prepared to ensure that they are carried out.
pE ace:Engage and explain
There are two distinct components to this phase:ʻ
engagementʼand ʻ
explanationʼ
.Firstly letʼs lookat theʻengageʼelement.Depending upon what particular event is under investigation the interviewer(s)may have to spend a considerable amount of time in the next day or so with the person sat on the otherside of the interview table. It is therefore right to recognise that:
Interviewers and interviewees can be influenced by appearance, manner and speech, regardless ofwhat is said［］therefore you must give thought to how you are going to manage the openingof the interview(Centrex 2004).
This extract comes from the Central Police Training and Development Authorityʼ
s publication“The Practical Guide to Investigative Interviewing”and explains perfectly why first impressions count.
It is logical therefore to attempt to manufacture an environment aimed at meeting the needs of theprocess.There is no great mystique in human engagement and people do it every day.When you meetsomebody you have never met before one of the first things you do is introduce yourself― and find out
their name. And yet this seems to be anathema to some investigative interviewers, particularly in asuspect interview context.“I donʼt want［the suspect］to know my first name”,and “I donʼt want tobe his friend”were just two surprising responses from some police officers of an English Shire police
force when this point was addressed with them.The latter comment clearly misses the rationale for theguidance.It is not about trying to create a friendship but about ʻ
engagingʼwith the interviewee. Whilst
this all seems very logical almost all models of interviewing have had to include this instruction as partof their framework,perhaps demonstrating the ease with which this aspect would be ignored by someinterviewers if not so included.
Other ʻengagementʼconsiderations include the identification of any particular concerns that theinterviewee may have. This can range from a desire for a drink of water through to an impassioned
enquiry surrounding his anticipated release-from-custody time.Either way,the important thing is thatthe interviewee is talking to you.Importantly it gives you the ability to actually manage any concernsthat he might voice but also,a potentially beneficial spin-off might be that this interaction may makeit psychologically harder for him to remain silent when the interview moves into its true investigative
phase.
The second element of this phase of the interview is to explain.This should not be seen as a mutually
exclusive ʻchunkʼof the interview and can easily be woven in with the engagement process but,either

10155TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTSʼPAPERS
way, there are two main points that will warrant explanation:the reason that the interview is being
conducted and secondly, the manner in which it is going to unfold. It is illogical, just because theinterviewee is under arrest, to assume that they are familiar with the legal system. It is therefore
appropriate to spend time checking their understanding and,if in any doubt,reinforcing the value thatthe interview will add to the investigation as a whole ― and thus the significance that their contribution in the exchange will make.This is also the opportunity to explain what might happen during theinterview.
These might include things such as:i.

The formalities and procedures of a tape (or video)recorded interview ― including:a. The right to free and independent legal advice,b. What will happen to the recording media at the conclusion of the interview.
c.

If the interview is being remotely monitored,the additional procedures that relate to sucha practice.

ii. Although the interview may be being audibly(or visually)recorded notes might still be taken
during the process.
iii. Exhibits might be produced, revealed and discussed.
iv. The interviewee should not make any thing up and fabricate a response just to ʻ
pleaseʼtheinterviewer.
v. The interviewee should give as much detail as possible
vi. The interviewee will be given time to answer questions put to them ― so if there are times ofsilence it may be because the interviewer is giving the suspect thinking-time.
This is by no means an exhaustive list but it illustrates the need, when engaging with the interviewee in the first instance, to assess his or her linguistic abilities and level of understanding so thatwhen the above features are explained it is delivered at a level that the interviewee will understand.
This becomes particularly relevant when ʻ
cautioningʼthe suspect and ensuring that they have an
understanding of its content.
The “
Caution”
The PACE “
Code of Practice for the detention, treatment and questioning of persons by police
officers”defines an interview as: “
the questioning of a person regarding their involvement orsuspected involvement in a criminal offence or offences”. Every police officer is very aware that suchinterviews need to be conducted only once the interviewee has been told that:
You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention whenquestioned something which you later rely on in Court. Anything you do say may be given inevidence.
This ʻ
Cautionʼhas sometimes been referred to as a ʻright to silenceʼand,to some degree,comparisons can be made with the “Miranda Rights”enshrined in the laws of the United States of America(which start: “You have the right to remain silent”) but the English caution makes the clear
distinction between what the suspect says (or does not say) ʻ when questionedʼand what he later
intends to ʻ
rely on in courtʼ
.
Research (Jacobson 2008:Pg 9) has shown that even well educated people can have difficulty in
explaining the caution in ʻ
plain Englishʼand so when one considers the added stresses that possibly
exist when under arrest it is even more critical to ensure that the suspect understands it. To this end

11

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 92
many interviewers now ask three questions of the suspect who they have just cautioned. These are:i.

Do you have to say anything?

ii. If this matter goes to Court and you tell them something that you could have told me during
this interview what might the Court think?
iii. What will happen to the tapes?
It is argued that coherent responses (by the suspect) to these three questions demonstrate anunderstanding of the caution.Whilst the author of this essay acknowledges it to be a step in the right
direction he does not necessarily see it as the final solution.
peA ce:Account, clarify, challenge
The opening question (in this phase)should give the interviewee the opportunity to admit or deny
the offence,provide a reasonable explanation for what happened (and their involvement)or provide an
alibi.Here we will look at examples of four different question constructs and their potential outcomes.
An open question:“
You have been arrested for［offence］. What can you tell me about it?”This gives the suspect anopportunity to respond in any of the four directions mentioned on the previous paragraph.
A closed question“
You have been arrested for［offence］.Did you do it?”This is merely a variation on the above andmight,at best,secure only a “yes”or “no”reply― which obviously then demands a second question
which will need to have been planned accordingly.
Time constrained question
Restricting the time frame inside which you want the suspect to comment can be done in two ways:“Where were you between［time］and［time］?”or,“Where were you at［exact time］?”.Both addressslightly different investigative objectives and should be employed tactically where appropriate. A
third variation:“What were you doing at［location］at［either a specific time or between-times］?”
could be used with a suspect arrested at or near the crime scene.
M icro-summary questions.
If the suspect has already made a relevant comment it is possible to include that fact to act as aprefix to many of the above types of question. An example might be: “The police and ambulanceservice were called to your house and found your partner had been stabbed in the chest. When they
asked you what had happened, you said that you stabbed him/her. Tell me how you came to stab him/her?”Similarly: “When you were arrested this morning you said youʼ
d been defending yourself when
you hit Brian. Tell me what happened?”
Whilst all of the questions focus immediately on the matter under investigation they approach thesubject in subtly different ways and a good interviewer will have used the engage and explain phase toassess which wording is most likely to provoke the most desirable response from the interviewee.
Again psychology makes a significant contribution here. Look at the difference between these twoquestions, which both ask the same thing:“
You have been arrested for sexually abusing your daughter. Tell me what happened?”and“You have been arrested because we are enquiring into an allegation by your daughter that you had
sex with her. We want to understand what has happened, so tell us what you know about this?”
Knowing your interviewee and therefore being able to assess which wording (and which questiontype)is likely to achieve your objective is the key.Securing the fullest,most detailed account that theinterviewee can (or is willing to)give is the primary aim of this phase of a PEACE interview and it istherefore hoped that the planning, preparation,engagement and explanation will all pay dividends at

12

155TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTSʼPAPERS
this point.
Once an account is forthcoming the interviewers task is to identify specific topics within that
account that they want to clarify further.Once these topics have been identified they should probe each
one separately before moving to the next. Once the suspectʼs topics have been exhausted the interviewers can start to introduce their own topics.These could be,for example,apparent points ofconflict―where a witnessʼ
s account and the suspectʼs account appear at odds. Similarly it could be that theinterviewers want to introduce new material to the suspect ― such as scientific findings.
The Centrex publication of 2004,the “Practical Guide to Investigative Interviewing”(pages 95 and101)has a diagrammatic representation of a PEACE interview and the below is a development of that
illustration showing just the Account phase:In some law-enforcement settings the “Interviewer Areas”are occasionally referred to as “Firststage challenge”(although such terminology does not exist in the purist PEACE model)in recognitionof the fact that this is where the relationship between the interviewer and the suspect can start tochange and even deteriorate if not properly managed.A PEACE traditionalist would refer to this stageof the interview as ʻ
moving from account to clarificationʼ
. Either way the continued use of open,
non-confrontational questions at this point is advocated.The difference in style between the following
two questions is obvious ― even though both use open questions ― but it is important, at this stage,that something akin to the latter is adopted.

13

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 92
In your account you said you left home at 10.00pm whereas I have a witness who says they saw
you in town at 9 .30pm. Tell me again what time you left homeandIn your account you said that you left home at 10.00pm. I need to tell you now that a witness
has come forward who says they saw you in town at 9 .30pm. Can you see the problem we havehere? This is why Iʼm interviewing you［about this offence］― so that we can resolve thisdiscrepancy. So, take your time to ensure we both fully understand what you are saying here andwhen you are ready, tell me when you left home?
In the second example the “we”in the ʻ
problem that we haveʼand ʻ
we can resolve thisdiscrepancyʼrefers to the interviewer and the interviewee.This point can be reinforced by appropriate
body language to ensure that the interviewee does not think that it is a problem that ʻ
weʼ― the law
enforcement agency― have.Was he to think that there is obviously nothing that he can do to address
the issue.This is why it is important that he sees himself as part of the solution ― not just the problem.
Empirical evidence shows that this approach is more likely to maintain the engagement with theinterviewee, which is the objective of the tactic.
This is the phase that all the new evidence (that the investigators intend to use in the interview)isrevealed to the interviewee. Some interviewers want to hold back what they consider to be theirstrongest, most damming piece of evidence, their coup de gras, for a final challenge point ― but thisapproach is flawed.How do they know it is their strongest point if they have not given the suspect theopportunity to comment on it?He might have a perfectly logical explanation for his fingerprints being
on the knife.Until he is asked the interviewers can only guess his response.It is not onlyunprofessional
for them to assume that they know the answer but it also reinforces Baldwinʼs point (as reported in
M cGurk et al 1993) referred to earlier in this essay that the interviewers assumptions unhelpfully
influenced the manner in which they delivered their questions. Only once all the material that theinvestigators intend to use in the interview has been discussed ― and the suspectʼs responses considered― can a decision be made as to what points are the ʻstrongestʼ. Without doubt the assessment of aparticular evidential aspectʼs strength and weakness is very subjective and additional planning isessential. There are a number of different tactics available to interviewers when delivering theirʻchallengeʼand whilst there is no single universal solution to the approach that should be adopted wewill look at one approach in detail this paper:the principle of prioritisation.
The premise is simple:take a number of evidential points that remain in conflict with the suspectʼs
account and assess the value they add to the investigation.Now prioritise them ―weakest to strongest― and prepare a closed question around each point-of-evidence to be put to the suspect. The actual
delivery tactics of the questions will depend upon many factors unique to each investigation but thefollowing is a guide. Start the interview with a brief but formal re-assessment of the suspectʼsunderstanding of the ʻ
Cautionʼ. Deliver the questions (as planned in advance) and acknowledge thesuspectʼ
s responses.Because the question type has moved from ʻ
openʼto a more closed construction theinterviewer is not expecting lengthy replies.The interviewer needs to be ready for potential frustrationfrom the suspect as he (the suspect)will almost certainly be repeating responses he has given earlier.
Whilst the interview concludes on what the interviewers consider to be the strongest point-of-challenge
they should not overtly label it as such.It should be delivered,in question form,in the same measured
and professional manner as the others have been.
The rationale for the use ofthis tactic is two-fold.Overtlythe interviewers are ensuring that all they
have put all of the key points of evidence (that they intend to use in interview)to the suspect and are
giving him chance to reiterate his previously delivered explanations. Perhaps more psychologicallythere is an acknowledgement that by prioritising the points-of-challenge there is an opportunity for thesuspect to see the true weight of evidence being considered against him. Delivering these points in aclosed manner also allows the suspect to see this evidence with absolute clarity.
The tactic is not designed to elicit a false confession and it should not be employed in such a way
as to exert an unfair pressure on the interviewee but a suspect who has lied during the earlierinterviews ― because they have not recognised the evidence that exist against them ― might choose
to reconsider their earlier responses in the light of this clarity.Equally an offender who has chosen to14

155TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTSʼPAPERS
remain silent until this point may decide to respond during this phase.M uch as is the case at the very
beginning of an interview, the interviewer should be ready at this stage to receive an admission ―either full or partial ― or a continued denial.
A third effect of this tactic is that should this matter go before a court, the jury have, in thisinterview,a summary of some of the key prosecution points alongside the defendantʼ
s responses,all ina ten to twelve minute interview tape (or six page interview-transcript).Somewhat theatrically it has
been said in the past that if the interview tapes are played (in court)in chronological order then the lastthing the jury will hear before entering their retiring room to ʻ
decide the fate of the accusedʼis thisresume.
ʻ
Reliableʼand ʻ
Fairʼ:Sections 76 and 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984
There is a similarity between seeking clarification and challenging something insofar as they bothseek an explanation.What makes them different is often just the style with which they are employed.
In an investigative interview both need to be conducted in an appropriate and professional manner.
Sections 76 and 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984,whilst important throughout the entire
investigative process, are particularly relevant here as they deal with the admissibility of evidence ingeneral and confessions in particular.
Section 78 states:
In any proceedings the court may refuse to allow evidence on which the prosecution proposes torely to be given if it appears to the court that, having regard to all the circumstances, including
the circumstances in which the evidence was obtained, the admission of the evidence would havesuch an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings that the court ought not to admit it.
Simplistically this gives the court the option to exclude evidence (which would normally be
admissible)if it considers that it was unfairly obtained.This has in the past included evidence obtainedin such that breaches the European Convention on Human Rights and/or the Police and Criminal
Evidence Act Codes of Practice. In the context of a suspect interview is easy to see that if the Court
considered tactics employed during that interview to have been unfair then it has the right to exclude
it.
Section 76 is even more relevant to interviewers as it relates directlyto anyadmission that a suspect
may make. It allows a court to exclude that confession if it agrees that it:
was or may have been obtained ―(a) by oppression of the person who made it; or(b) in consequence of anything said or done which was likely, in the circumstances existing at thetime, to render unreliable any confession which might be made by him in consequence thereof,
M uch like section 78 above the European Convention on Human Rights is the agreed point ofreference here thus “Oppression”, in this context, would include “torture, inhuman or degrading
treatment, and the use or threat of violence”. Oppression (as a term)was also specifically consideredby the Court of Appeal in the case of Regina versus Fulling (1987) where it was held to be given its
ordinary dictionary meaning and: “was likely to involve some impropriety on the part of theinterrogator”(CPS 2013).In the case of M iller,Paris & Abullahi (1993)the interview was held to havebeen oppressive even though the solicitor was present throughout.
Although there is a lot for the interviewers to consider during the planning and execution of theclarification and challenge phases of any interview the Central Police Training and Development
Authority was very clear in its 2004 guidance (which still holds today):
The account needs to be challenged when you have good reason to suspect that an interviewee isdeliberately withholding relevant information or knowingly giving a false account(Centrex 2004).

15

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 92
If, during a challenge, the suspect was to suddenly make an admission the interviewer should beready to return to an open-style of questioning ― and seek this newʻaccountʼ
; PEACE should therefore
not be seen as a restrictively linear, one-way approach, much more a flexible framework in which tointerview.
peaC e:Closure
In a suspect interview there are some obligations placed on the interviewer,not least by Code E of
the Police and Criminal Evidence Act Codes of Practice. Amongst these requirements is the need togive the suspect the opportunity to clarify or add anything he has already said,the time the interview
is being concluded and the suspect should be handed a notice which explains what happens to theinterview tapes. It remains obvious that these matters should still be carried out in a professionalmanner, not least because there there may be a requirement for further interviews. It is also right to
let the suspect know what will happen next.
Interviewers can sometime treat this stage of the interview as merely a procedural formality when,
in fact, it should be considered tactically. As just one example, it could be used as an opportunity toreveal what will be covered in the next interview. In doing so the legal advisor could be briefedaccordingly and any other ʻdisclosureʼmaterial handed over to the suspect. The Police and Criminal
Evidence Act demands that the police deal with a detainee “expeditiously”:by revealing at the end of
one interview what will be covered in the next ― in order to give the suspect thinking time can surely
be argued to meet that obligation.
peacE :Evaluation
Although this phase is conducted after the interview is concluded it is still a fundamental part of theprocess. Logic demands that there was an aim, an intended objective for conducting the recently
concluded interview. That same logic demands that the interviewer assess whether that aim andobjective was achieved. If it wasnʼ
t then the investigation could be severly let down unless thisevaluation is conducted and a new approach to address the investigative objective is considered.
There are three things that should always be evaluated at the end of the interview: what new
information (if any)was forthcoming, the suspect and finally the interviewer.
i.

The new information that came out of the interview
a. What new information do you now have?
b. Does it corroborate existing information?
c.

Does it generate new lines-of-enquiry?

d. Does it elevate existing lines-of-enquiry to a higher priority?
ii. The interviewee
a. What was his demeanour?
b. Has his health or well-being deteriorated/improved?
c.

Has he changed his approach (from ʻ
no-commentʼto now answering questions ― orvice-versa)?

iii. The interviewerʼs performancea. Was there still a professional rapport existing?
b. Should we change interviewer for the next interview?

16

155TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTSʼPAPERSc.

Has that interview identified any professional development / training issues for theinterviewer?

d. What does the interviewer need to do differently next time to achieve the investigative
objectives?
It is clear that a well conducted evaluation will inform the ʻplanning and preparationʼphase of any
subsequent interview with the suspect and therefore is an essential ingredient in the process.
In conclusion the PEACE framework can be applied to victim and witness interviews just as it canbe to suspects.Whilst some of the considerations discussed above might not be relevant with witnesses,
many will.Equally additional factors may exist with victims ofcrime that are not relevant to suspected
offenders.It is hoped that by comparing the opening section of this report,which focussed on witness
interviewing,with the latter section,dedicated to PEACE (in a suspect context)a broad understanding
has been secured of the current system of investigative interviewing in England.
References
Baldwin, J. (1992)Video taping police interviews with suspects ― an evaluation. Home Office :London
Police Research Series Paper 1.
Central Police Training and Development Authority(2004)The Practical Guide to Investigative Interviewing. London:Centrex.
Clarke, C. & Milne, R. (2001) National Evaluation of the PEACE Investigative Interviewing Course.
Portsmouth :Institute of Criminal Justice Studies.
Home Office (1998)Speaking Up for Justice. London:HMSO.
Home Office (1992) Memorandum of Good Practice. London:HM SO.
Home Office (1992) Home Office Circular 22/19 9 2 Principles of Investigative Interviewing. London:HMSO.
M cGurk, B.J & others (1993) Investigative Interviewing Courses For Police Officers: An Evaluation.
London:Home Office Police Research Group.
M inistry of Justice (2001)Achieving Best Evidence in Criminal Proceedings. London:HMSO.
M inistry of Justice (2007)Achieving Best Evidence in Criminal Proceedings. London:HM SO.
M inistry of Justice (2011)Achieving Best Evidence in Criminal Proceedings. London:HMSO.
Pigot, T. And others (1989)The Report of the Advisory Group on Video Evidence. London:HMSO.
Shaw R. (2011)The Cleveland Report by Judge Elizabeth Butler-Sloss［online］available from:http://www.childrenwebmag.com/articles/key-child-care-texts/the-cleveland-reportby-judgeelizabeth-butler-sloss> Accessed 24/07 13.
Yuille, J. C and others (1993). Interviewing children in sexual abuse cases. In G. S. Goodman & B. L.
Bottoms (Eds.), Child victims. child witnesses (pp. 95-1 15). New York:Guilford Press.
Yuille, J.C (1998) The Step-Wise Interview:A Protocol for Interviewing Children［online］available
from: http://redengine.lawsociety.sk.ca/inmagicgenie/documentfolder/ac2062.pdf> accessed(28/06/13).

17

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 92

APPENDIX AThe Original Seven Principles of Investigative Interviewing
1.

The role of investigative interviewing is to obtain accurate and reliable information from suspects,
witnesses or victims in order to discover the truth about matters under investigation.

2.

Investigative interviewing should be approached with an open mind.Information obtained from theperson who is being interviewed should always be tested against what the interviewing officer
already knows or what can reasonably be established.

3.

When questioning anyone a police officer must act fairly in the circumstances of each individual
case.

4.

The police interviewer is not bound to accept the first answer given. Questioning is not unfair
merely because it is persistent.

5.

Even when the right of silence is exercised the police still have a right to put questions.

18