Contrasting the Perceptions of Child Testimony Experts, Prosecutors and Police Officers Regarding Individual Child Abuse Interviews

Abstract

The aim of this study was to compare and contrast the perceptions of various stakeholders regarding a series of interviews about child abuse. Eight focus groups were conducted, each involving a police officer (child abuse investigator), a prosecutor who specializes in child abuse and a child testimony expert. The aim of the focus groups was to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the specific interviews, which were conducted by the police officer in each focus group. Thematic analysis showed that the prosecutors and child testimony experts were relatively consistent in their perceptions about the need for more free narrative from child witnesses, and to ensure that police officers demonstrate open-mindedness when interviewing children. Differences in priorities and assumptions about the value of various interview techniques, however, were found among the stakeholders. These differences and their practical implications are discussed.

Evaluating interviews which search for the truth with suspects: but are investigators’ self-assessments of their own skills truthful ones?

“…As such, self-ratings, no matter how accurate, applied towards the lower end of the scales on a frequent basis, may be more of an admission of their failings than which investigators are prepared to accommodate or acknowledge, so central is the task to their investigative professionalism. Walsh and Milne (2007), for example, found that experienced investigators, though yet to undergo training, all rated themselves as good interviewers, similar to findings in other studies involving investigators' (often found misplaced) perceptions of their own ability (Bull & Cherryman, 1996;La Rooy et al, 2011;Powell et al, 2011;Walsh & Bull, 2011).…”

“…Other studies have also found that investigation professionals challenged when attempting to measure their own interview skills. For example, Powell, Wright and Hughes-Scholes (2011) found that police officers rated their own interviews more highly than either testimony experts or lawyers, who had assessed the same sample. However, in a more recent study, where investigators assessed their colleagues' interviews, an increased concordance of views was found between investigators, lawyers and mock jurors as to the interview quality (Ridley, Van Rheede, & Wilcock, 2015).…”

Policing child abuse: challenges and opportunities for specialist units

“…Currently, 'working together' to protect children is promoted in various policy developments which claim that shared approaches provide valuable tools for 55 56 57 58 59 60 assessment and intervention (HM Government, 2010;Scottish Government, 2014a). Yet, police officers report that professional collaboration, among other factors such as hefty caseloads, is a common work stressor (Wright, Powell & Ridge, 2006;Powell, Wright & Hughes-Scholes, 2011;Powell et al 2014;Powell, Guadagno & Cassematis, 2013). Police personnel identify different organisational missions and contrasting thresholds to be barriers associated with joint working with child protection services.…”

“…It has been speculated that a more robust understanding of the legal system combined with more effective training in the use of appropriate interviewing techniques may alleviate many of the structural limitations that prohibit the usefulness of child witness statements for evidential purposes ( Powell, Wright & Hughes-Scholes, 2011). Transparency of the interview processes, appropriateness of questioning techniques and adoption of an open-minded, understanding, non-judgemental approach are considered key to the effectiveness of investigative interviews with young witnesses ( Read et al, 2014 (Powell & Barnett, 2015).…”

Where There's Smoke, There's Fire: the Effect of Truncated Testimony on Juror Decision‐making

“…Testifying in court is stressful for most people, but it can be particularly stressful for children, who often do not understand the process and may be intimidated by the formality of the proceedings (Bala, 1999;Cashmore, 1992;Davies, 1992;Flin, 1990;Goodman, Taub, Jones, England, Port, Rudy, & Prado, 1992;Hall & Sales, 2008;Hill & Hill, 1987;Murray, 1995;Pipe & Henaghan, 1996;Powell et al, 2011;Underwager & Wakefield, 1992). In addition, it was not uncommon for there to be a long delay between the child's initial allegation and the trial where the child was required to give evidence (e.g., Connolly & Read, 2006;Hanna, Davies, Henderson, Crothers, & Rotherham 2010;Klemfuss & Ceci, 2009;Lash, 1995).…”