Why adhere to ABE Guidelines?

An Exploration of Workshop Feedback From Police Officers and Legal

Professionals

Elicia Boulton

Structure

1. General Information

2. Police Workshop Information– Background

– Workshop Details

– Method

– Analysis

– Results

3. Court Workshop Information– Results

4. Conclusions

General Information

• Adversarial Legal System“...involves two sides, the prosecution and defence, as opponents or adversaries, fighting the case out before a jury” (Rivlin, 258, 2009)

• CPS (Crown Prosecution Service)

• Age of Criminal Responsibility is aged 10

• Special Measures

• Achieving Best Evidence (ABE, 2007)

Workshop Background Information

• Low level adherence to interviewing guidance following training

• Low frequency of open-ended questions

Workshop 1 (November 2008) Police Officers – UK, Midlands

‘Why Adhere to ABE Guidelines? Expert Psychological Analysis of Children’s Testimony’

Workshop 2 (May 2009) Legal Professionals – UK, Staffordshire

‘Achieving Best Evidence, Why Adhere to ABE Guidelines? Expert Psychological Analysis of Children’s Testimony’

Police Workshop Details

Aims1. To improve adherence to ABE interview training

2. To illustrate the adverse impact of practice that does not adhere to this guidance & may therefore cast doubts on the veracity of the child’s account

3. To develop an understanding of potential sources of distortion in the account of a child or other vulnerable witness & how this can be detected in an expert analysis of the interview

Delivery• Group Discussion

• Presentations

• Practical Exercises

Method

Questionnaire DetailsPre Workshop QuestionnaireNumber of Questions: 7Time to Complete: 10 minutes

Post Workshop QuestionnaireNumber of Questions: 18Time to Complete: 15 minutes

• Amount of experience• Number of training courses attended• Motivation and expectations• ABE Guidelines

• Whether expectations had been met• ABE Guidelines • Strengths/Weaknesses• Whether aims were achieved• Workshop rating• Future Training• Recommendations

Data Analysis

Quantitative

• Means• SD• Pearson’s Product Moment Correlation

Qualitative

• Mixture of Content and Thematic Analysis (Braun &Clarke, 2006; Marks & Yardley, 2004; Weber, 1990).

Content and Thematic Analysis

1. Inductive coding

2. Data analysed at the sentence level

Content AnalysisWhat was your motivation for attending the workshop?

Category Theme Participant No. Total

1.) Reason for attending the workshop is related to skills and knowledge

a.) Improvement of skills and/or knowledge

4,7,12,16,18,19,22,23,24

9

b.) Refresh knowledge of ABE (2007)

16,17,29 3

c.) Self development regarding ABE (2007) interviewing

25 1

d.) Improve knowledge of Expert Witnesses

28 1

Results: Quantitative Information

MeanStandard Deviation

Age 35.92 8.58

Total Years Interviewing Children and Vulnerable Witnesses

6.97 5.68

Total Years Interviewing Suspects 12.20 8.39

Total Years of Interviewing Experience 12.20 8.39

Number of Children & Vulnerable Witness Training Courses

2.00 1.14

Number of Suspect Training Courses 2.33 1.11

Results: Quantitative Information Continued...

Do you think the workshop achieved its intended aims?

Mean SD

a) Increasing awareness of low-adherence to ABE guidelines

3.56 .70

b) Increasing motivation to adhere to ABE guidelines 3.78 .80

Likert Scale: 1 - Very Poor 5 - Very Good

Results: Quantitative Information Continued...

Mean SD

How would you rate the workshop overall?

3.59 0.75

How does the workshop compare to other workshops/training programmes?

3.60 0.87

Likert Scale: 1 - Very Poor 5 - Very Good

Results: Quantitative Information Continued...

Non-Significant Results• Total years of interviewing children and vulnerable witnesses and

number of training courses attended in this area

(r(25) = .088, p=.662, 2-tailed)

• Total years of interviewing suspects and number of training courses attended in this area

(r(25)= .034, p=.867, 2-tailed)

• Neither results reached a small effect size

Q15: What would you like future training programmes/workshops to cover?

1. Issues relating to psychology

2. Comments relating to law

3. Use of video clips

4. Use of intermediaries

5. More practical guidance

6. Update knowledge surrounding ABE(2007)

7. Look at good and bad experiences

Themes

1. Issues of concern to expert witnesses

2. Discussion involving the CPS

3. Would like comments made from professionals within the judicial system included

4. More law/legislation

5. Role /Criticism at court

6. Relevant cases/legal practices

Comments relating to law: -

When asked about expectations of the workshop:

“Challenges to evidence and video interviews in court”

When asked about the weaknesses of the workshop:

“Lack of case examples i.e. court cases that have been thrown out as a result of poor interviewing skills and reasons given”

How could the workshop be more appropriate in increasing awareness of low-adherence to ABE guidelines?

“More examples of case law in relation to ABE strengths/weaknesses”

“More research and stats from courts where problems or criticisms would be made”

How could the workshop be improved?

“Preparation for cross-examination in court”

Court Workshop Details

Aims of WorkshopTo look at ABE in the context of the legal process

Delivery• Group Discussion• Presentations• Practical Exercises

Data Collection and Analysis• Questionnaires • Mixture of quantitative and qualitative

Quantitative Information

Mean SD

Age 47.24 5.74

Number of Years of Legal Experience

21.00 9.54

Number of Years Experience With Children and Vulnerable Witnesses

16.93 8.79

Quantitative Information Continued...

Mean SD

Do you think the workshop achieved its intended aim of increasing awareness of the consequences of low-adherence to ABE guidelines?

4.55 .60

How would you rate the workshop overall?

4.40 .60

Likert Scale: 1 - Very Poor 5 - Very Good

Results: Quantitative Information Continued...

Significant Results• Number of years experience with children and vulnerable

witnesses and how participants would rate the workshop overall

(r(17)=.697, p=.001, 2-tailed)

• Number of years experience with children and vulnerable witnesses and whether participants thought the workshop achieved its intended aims.

(r(17)=.647, p=.002, 2-tailed)

• Both results had a large effect size

Conclusions

Training Opportunities

Further legal information required

Child development

Expert Psychology Witness

Conclusions Continued...

Rapport: - “...where relationships are established between the child and the interviewing team and, towards the end of this phase, the aims and conventions of the interview are explained...” (ABE, 2007, Section 2.137).

• Initially discussing neutral topics

• Explaining the ground rules i.e. Saying “I don’t know”

• Exploring the child’s understanding of truth and lies and establishing the purpose of the interview;

• Supplementing the interviewer’s knowledge of the child’s social, emotional and cognitive development.

Conclusions Continued...

Thank You For Listening

For further information please e-mail: -

E.V.Boulton@staffs.ac.uk

References

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101.

Cederborg, A., Orbach, Y., Sternberg, K. J., & Lamb, M. E. (2000). Investigative interviews of child witnesses in Sweden. Child Abuse & Neglect, 24, 1355–1362.

Feltis, B.B., Powell, M.B., Snow, P.C., Hughes-Scholes, & C.H. (2010). An examination of the association between interviewer question type and story-grammar detail in child witness interviews about abuse. Child Abuse & Neglect, 34(6), 407-413.

Home Office (2007). Achieving Best Evidence in Criminal Proceedings: Guidance on Interviewing Victims and Witnesses, and using Special Measures London: Home Office.

Lamb, M. E., & Brown, D. A. (2006). Conversational apprentices: Helping children become competent informants about their own experiences. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 24, 215-234.

Leander, L. (2010). Police interviews with child sexual abuse victims: Patterns of reporting, avoidance and denial. Child Abuse & Neglect, 34(3), 192-205.

Marks, D.F., & Yardley, L. (2004). Research Methods for Clinical and Health Psychology. London: SAGE Publications.

References Continued...

Powell, M. B. (2002). Specialist training in investigative and evidential interviewing: Is it having any effect on the behaviour of professionals in the field? Psychiatry, Psychology & Law, 9(1), 44-55.

Powell, M. B., Fisher, R. P., & Hughes-Scholes, C. H. (2008). The effect of intra-versus post-interview feedback during simulated practice interviews about child abuse. Child Abuse & Neglect, 32, 213-227.

Powell, M. B., Fisher, R. P., & Wright, R. (2005). Investigative interviewing. In N. Brewer & K. Williams (Eds.), Psychology and law: An empirical perspective (pp. 11–42). NY: Guilford.

Rivlin, G. (2009). Understanding The Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Weber, R. P. (1990). Basic Content Analysis (2nd ed. Vol. 49). London: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Wilson, J. C., & Powell, M. B. (2001). A guide to interviewing children. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.

Wright, R., & Powell, M. (2006). Investigative interviewers’ perceptions of their difficulty in adhering to open-ended questions with child witnesses. International Journal of Police Science and Management, 8(4), 316-325.