Helping Witnesses Make an Informed Choice in England and Wales.

The author is one of an increasingly rare number of 'Life on Mars Detectives' who practised in the era of 'quick statements', 'Judges Rules', and Common Law rules of investigation and has no desire to return to the 'Dark Ages'!

 As many UK readers will recognise, the interviewing of suspects in criminal proceedings in England and Wales became heavily regulated from 1985 onwards following several high profile miscarriages of justice which were increasingly and seriously damaging the reputation of Law and Order, policing in particular, and undermining public confidence. The tool of regulation was the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) and 30 years on, revised and amended, it continues to be a pillar of criminal investigation governance.

Little comparable regulation has been forthcoming to professionally govern the conduct of engagement and interviewing of witnesses. Perhaps the exceptions might be elements of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act (YJCA) 1999 and Coroners Act, and Serious and Organised Crime and Policing Act which goes someway to regulating engagement with 'super grasses' (and not before time some would say!). The former (YJCA) introduced a range of 'special measures' aimed primarily at giving access to justice to the more vulnerable of society and securing 'best evidence'.

It can be rightly argued that 'Achieving Best Evidence' (ABE), revised in 2011, added some 'guidance' and good practice for all interviewing though not statutorily enforceable of course.

Unlike PACE however, whilst rules governing suspect interviewing were welcomed, embraced unreservedly, and applied consistently, those for interviewing of witnesses were, at best, permitted an occasional 'nod' of acknowledgement but excused with comments such as "just go and get a quick statement". 

The statement falls out of the interview, it should be the product of a minimum standard of interviewing, not a 'quick' process that does little for justice or reputation. 

There can be little doubt that the contemporary miscarriages of justice will stem from the interviewing of witnesses, NOT suspects.

The author would make it absolutely clear that miscarriages of justice include those investigations that fail to bring offenders to justice as much as those that lead to the innocent being convicted.

During 38yrs of professional practice the author would often hear the phrase (to the witness): "don't worry, it'll be going nowhere, you'll never have to go to court". 

Guess what....! What impact on reputation or wellbeing of the witness?

The attached publication was prepared in an effort to improve the education of already hard pressed front-line police officers, expected to be the masters of so many trades nowadays, and it is reproduced here should it be of any value to those practitioners, recognising that the professional and competent interviewing of witnesses and the internal and/or external verification of their accounts is what truly adds value to the criminal justice system, turns a witness into a victim (or suspect and vice versa of course), and preserves and improves engagement and reputation.

The team at Intersol Global have a wealth of experience of Extraordinary Case Management (ECM), placing the importance and value of competent forensic quality investigative interviewing, at its very centre, and unreservedly promote robust ethical investigation that is of the highest quality and integrity. Don't hesitate to contact if any of our world leading experts can support in any way.