Communication in Investigative and Legal Contexts

Integrated Approaches from Forensic Psychology, Linguistics and Law Enforcement

Gavin Oxburgh, Trond Myklebust, Tim Grant, Rebecca Milne, Gavin Oxburgh, Trond Myklebust, Tim Grant, Rebecca D. Milne, Rebecca Milne, Gavin Oxburgh, Trond Myklebust, Tim Grant, Rebecca D. Milne

• Publisher: Wiley-Blackwell
• Year: 2015
• Print ISBN: 9781118769225, 9781118769232
• eBook ISBN: 9781118769218
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Psychology
• Subtopic: Forensic Psychology
• Index: Psychology

Communication in Investigative and Legal Contexts

Despite a number of research studies, there remain significant differences of opinion among psychologists, linguists and other practitioners on how best to describe particular types of questions and communicate most effectively in forensic contexts. Communication in Investigative and Legal Contexts brings clarity to the subject by providing readers with in-depth coverage of the complex area of communication in forensic settings, for example during investigative interviewing of victims, witnesses and suspects/high-interest groups, during discourse in courtrooms, and via legal intermediaries and interpreters. Drawing on knowledge from forensic psychology, linguistics and law enforcement worldwide, the text is unique in bridging the gap between these fields in a definitive guide to best practice, with chapters written by teams bringing together expertise and specialties from each field. Part of the Wiley Series in the Psychology of Crime, Policing and Law, the book is also linked to the International Investigative Interviewing Research Group (iIIRG), a worldwide network of interviewing professionals working with international bodies committed to improving investigative interviewing and ensuring all improvements are underpinned by a robust evidence base. Contributors are sourced from North America, Europe, and Asia Pacific, ensuring International relevance.

1
Communication in Investigative and Legal Settings: Introduction and Contexts

Gavin Oxburgh¹, Trond Myklebust², Tim Grant³ and Rebecca Milne⁴

¹ Newcastle University, UK

² Norwegian Police University College, Oslo, Norway

³ Aston University, Birmingham, UK

⁴ Portsmouth University, UK

Introduction

Society cannot afford investigative interviewing to be poor. This affects people’s perception of the criminal justice system. The guilty get away, the innocent are convicted, justice for children and vulnerable adults is inadequate. Poor interviewing is of no value to anyone; it is a waste of time, resources and money. No one wins. People will not come forward if they have no confidence in the quality of investigators’ interviewing techniques.

(Milne & Bull, 1999, p. 191)

Although some 16 years old, the above quote is still valid today. That said, there has, without doubt, been a paradigm shift within the field of law enforcement interviewing during the past two decades, from the traditional interrogation model, with its emphasis on persuading the interviewee to confess, to the investigative interviewing model emphasizing the search for accurate and reliable information. One can trace the scientific perspective on investigative interviewing back to the German scientist William Stern (1903/1904). Stern was occupied with examining techniques that achieved the most valid information from children. He was the first to introduce the important distinction between open (bericht) and closed (verhör) questions. In his research, he clearly demonstrated the superiority of open questions, showing that they gained more quantity and with a better quality of information compared to closed questions. Today, there now exists a large body of scientific research that has investigated various elements of the investigative interview, including: (i) the interviewer; (ii) the interviewee; (iii) the context of the interview (e.g. where the interview takes place) and (iv) the interplay between these factors.

There have also been many studies over the past decades that have critically evaluated police interviewing skills. These studies have considered the impact of the information gathering approach to investigative interviewing (including training), the various skills that effective interviewers display and the structure of good quality interviews with suspects (e.g. Baldwin, 1993; Cherryman & Bull, 2001; Clarke & Milne, 2001; Clarke, Milne & Bull, 2011; McGurk, Carr & McGurk, 1993) and witnesses (e.g. Ceci & Bruck, 1995; Lamb, Orbach, Sternberg, Esplin & Hershkowitz, 2002; Lamb, Sternberg, Orbach, Esplin & Mitchell, 2002; Walsh & Bull, 2010; Walsh & Milne, 2008). The amount of research cited above is purely indicative of the comprehensive dataset available and it is sometimes difficult to get an overall picture of the relevant available research and training manuals that are available across the world. Taken together, the myriad of information might appear overwhelming for the practitioner. However, since the first scientific studies by Stern, almost all the scientific efforts illuminate potential in the interviewing process and, as a result, they offer an opportunity to improve the quality of the interview and bridge the gap between the fields of psychology, law enforcement and (forensic) linguistics.

Forensic linguistics

Linguistics as a discipline involves the description of texts and linguistic interactions and involves the description and explanation of the nature of communication at a variety of levels, including at lower levels, word choice and syntax, and, at a higher level, issues of context and the functional intent of the interactants. Forensic linguistics takes the methods and insights of linguistics and applies these to forensic texts and contexts. A large part of the work and research in forensic linguistics considers language evidence, evidence of authorship, evidence of meaning and evidence of textual origin (e.g. Grant, 2008). Forensic linguists also examine written legal texts explaining the historic context of legal language and how legalese can be reformed to ensure that the widest possible section of the community can understand it (see, for example, Tiersma, 1999). Finally, forensic linguistics examines interactions associated with the forensic and judicial process. This interest can include mono- and multilingual interactions in both the civil legal processes and the criminal justice process, but there has perhaps, to date, been a greater concentration on the criminal side. Research has been carried out into the caution and explanation of rights (e.g. Rock, 2007), into police interviewing (e.g. Heydon, 2005) and into witnesses and judges in Court (e.g. Heffer, 2005). Today, as demonstrated in this book, one area where psychologists and linguists work very closely together is in the area of police and law enforcement investigations with a particular focus on the investigative interview.

Professionalization of interviewing

In many countries around the world, police interviewing, and police training per se, has undergone a transformation in terms of professionalization due, in large part, to scientific experimentation and analysis. For example, Fisher, Geiselman and Raymond (1987) observed that interviewers’ level of competence directly affected their responses in interviews of adult interviewees. The authors thus recommended formal, scientifically based training of police officers at the institutional level. They also suggested that training programmes would be most successful if they were divided into intensive short, practical sessions, rather than longer sessions, with extended feedback to the individual interviewers (Fisher & Geiselman, 1992; Fisher, Geiselman & Amador, 1989; Fisher et al., 1987).

Moreover, Lamb and his colleagues argued that long-time improvement in the quality of investigative interviews are observed only when the training is distributed over time (Lamb, Sternberg, et al., 2002; Lamb et al., 2000). In their studies, the length of training varied between three to five days of initial training, with follow-up supervision and feedback (Lamb, Sternberg, et al., 2002; Orbach et al., 2000; Sternberg, Lamb, Davies & Westcott, 2001). There has been much research that has shown that complete transferance of training into the workplace is rather elusive (e.g. Myklebust & Bjørklund, 2006; Powell, Fisher & Wright, 2005; Wright & Powell, 2006). Particularly difficult to sustain over time are the more complex skills (e.g. rapport, use of open questions) as opposed to more procedural interviewer behaviours (e.g. outlining persons present in the interview, giving legal rights, etc.; Griffiths, Milne & Cherryman, 2011).

Although we are unable to go into detail from every country that has undergone improvements, we have highlighted below two broad geographical areas that are indicative of such improvements.

The Nordic Countries

The Nordic countries (i.e. Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden) have vastly different systems compared to other European countries, where the police are provided with shorter basic training. Across the Nordic countries, they train their police officers to become so called ‘generalists’ within their work as police officers. They are authorized for a multitude of responsibilities, from crime prevention via operational patrolling police duties, to profound and scientifically based detective work (Birkeland, 2007; Granhag, 2010; Ministry of Justice and the Police, 2005). Focusing on the basic ‘generalist’ training, the central police educational institutions in the Nordic countries are heading towards a system with Police University colleges. Norway was the first and founded the Norwegian Police University College (NPUC) in 1992, receiving their college charter in 2004. They have a three-year basic education that provides all police officers with a bachelor degree in policing. In their education programme, the students are taught about psychology, law and police tactics in communication, investigative interviewing and general policing. Methodically, the theory and practice in NPUC’s interview training is based on structured interview models, such as the English PEACE model and Achieving Best Evidence in Criminal Proceedings guidelines (see Myklebust, 2010). The students also receive theoretical and practical training in the Cognitive Interview and the Self-Administrated Interview. The underlying principle is that all police officers are given basic training in methods to deal with the volume and day-to-day crime, whilst the more specialist and practical training (and evaluations) are provided during further educational programmes during postgraduate studies).

England and Wales

In England and Wales, following Clarke and Milne’s (2001) national evaluation of police interviewing, a tiered structure of interviewing skills was developed, which were categorized as: (i) Tier 1: Probationer training; (ii) Tier 2: Detectives (a prerequisite to attending the Initial Crime Investigators’ Development Programme (ICIDP); (iii) Tier 3: Specialist interviewers (victim/witness/suspect); (iv) Tier 4: Investigative interview supervisor/ assessor; and (v) Tier 5: Specialist interview advisor. In 2005, the Initial Police Learning and Development Programme (IPLDP) was introduced, which was designed to support student officers throughout their two-year probationary period and to meet their individual development. In 2007, investigative interview training (and the five tiers outlined above) was enhanced and incorporated into the Professionalizin...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title page
• Table of Contents
• Notes on Editors
• Notes on Contributors
• Series Preface
• 1 Communication in Investigative and Legal Settings: Introduction and Contexts
• Section I: Communication, Language and Memory
• Section II: Communicating with Victims and Witnesses
• Section III: Communicating with Suspects
• Section IV: Communicating in the Courtroom
• Section V: Specific Communicative Tasks
• Section VI: Conclusions and Future
• Index
• End User License Agreement