Interviewing witnesses: do investigative and evidential requirements concur?

Abstract

Purpose

Legislation in many developed nations allows for the video‐recorded interview of a witness made during the investigation to be used as his or her evidence‐in‐chief at trial. The purpose of this paper is to discuss the challenges for the criminal justice system of trying to make one interview meet both investigative and evidential purposes.

Design/methodology/approach

Advances in effective police interviewing strategies are outlined and evaluated with regards the implications of presenting evidence elicited in this manner in court.

Findings

As with any significant change, the move towards this method of evidence presents challenges. However, using this video record as evidence will ensure that the best evidence is preserved and the jury has access to a transparent record that is more accurate and complete than previously experienced.

Originality/value

The paper acknowledges that concerns over any extra time taken by using video recording must be taken into account, but also balanced against the likely long‐term benefits, not only in fairness to the proceedings but also by easing the process for victims and witnesses.

Citation

Westera, N.J., Kebbell, M.R. and Milne, B. (2011), "Interviewing witnesses: do investigative and evidential requirements concur?", The British Journal of Forensic Practice, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 103-113. https://doi.org/10.1108/14636641111134341