Understanding Suspect Interviewing: A Comprehensive Guide for Enforcement Professionals
Introduction
Interviewing a suspect after caution is a critical component of the investigative process in criminal justice. The manner in which these interviews are conducted can have significant implications for the outcome of a case, making it imperative for law enforcement professionals to be well-versed in both the legal framework and the practical aspects of this task. This article aims to provide an overview of the key considerations when interviewing a suspect after caution, including the purpose of the interview, pre-interview disclosure, the PEACE model, types of questioning, handling “no comment” interviews, and the application of special warnings.
The Purpose of the Interview
The primary purpose of interviewing a suspect is to obtain reliable and admissible evidence that can either corroborate or challenge the existing case evidence. It is an opportunity for the investigator to gather facts, clarify details, and understand the suspect’s account of events. The interview process is not merely about extracting a confession but about uncovering the truth. Understanding the purpose of the interview helps the investigator remain focused and ensures that the process is conducted in a manner that is fair, ethical, and legally sound.
One of the landmark cases that underscore the importance of this principle is R v. Sharp [1988], where the court emphasised that the role of the interviewer is to seek the truth, not just a confession. This case serves as a reminder that interviews must be approached with an open mind, and all lines of inquiry should be explored.
Pre-Interview Disclosure
Pre-interview disclosure refers to the information that must be provided to the suspect before the interview begins. This typically includes the nature of the offense they are suspected of and any relevant evidence that has been gathered. The purpose of pre-interview disclosure is to ensure that the suspect understands the case against them and can respond to the allegations in an informed manner.
However, the extent of disclosure is a balancing act. Too much information could jeopardise the investigation, while too little could lead to claims of unfairness and potential inadmissibility of the interview in court. The case of R v. Saunders [2000] illustrates the delicate balance required in pre-interview disclosure. In this case, the court ruled that withholding significant evidence from the suspect could lead to the interview being deemed unfair, impacting the admissibility of the evidence obtained.
The PEACE Model of Interviewing
The PEACE model is a structured approach to conducting interviews that is widely regarded as best practice within law enforcement. PEACE stands for Planning and Preparation, Engage and Explain, Account, Closure, and Evaluate.
· Planning and Preparation: This stage involves gathering all necessary information, identifying objectives for the interview, and anticipating potential issues. Effective planning sets the foundation for a successful interview.
· Engage and Explain: At the beginning of the interview, the interviewer must establish rapport with the suspect and explain the purpose of the interview, the interview process, and the suspect’s rights. This helps to create a transparent and cooperative environment.
· Account: The interviewer seeks the suspect’s account of events, using open-ended questions to allow them to provide their version of events in their own words. This stage is crucial for gathering information that is both comprehensive and accurate.
· Closure: This involves summarising the information obtained during the interview, addressing any outstanding issues, and ensuring that the suspect has had the opportunity to say everything they wish. Proper closure is essential for maintaining the integrity of the interview.
· Evaluate: After the interview, the interviewer must evaluate the information obtained, assessing its relevance, reliability, and impact on the investigation. This stage is vital for determining the next steps in the investigative process.
The PEACE model is designed to ensure that interviews are conducted in a manner that is fair, ethical, and effective, minimising the risk of false confessions and ensuring that the evidence obtained is reliable.
Types of Questioning
The types of questions used during a suspect interview play a crucial role in the quality of the information obtained. Broadly, questions can be categorised into open, closed, leading, and probing questions.
· Open Questions: These questions encourage the suspect to provide detailed responses in their own words. For example, “Can you tell me what happened on the night of the incident?” Open questions are essential for eliciting comprehensive accounts and reducing the risk of influencing the suspect’s answers.
· Closed Questions: These questions typically require a yes or no answer and are useful for clarifying specific points. For example, “Were you at the location at the time of the incident?”
· Leading Questions: Leading questions suggest a particular answer and can be problematic in suspect interviews as they may introduce bias. For instance, “You were at the scene, weren’t you?” The use of leading questions should be minimised, as highlighted by the case of R v. Ibrahim [1914], where the court emphasised the importance of not leading the suspect during an interview.
· Probing Questions: These questions delve deeper into specific aspects of the suspect’s account, seeking to clarify details or explore inconsistencies. For example, “You mentioned you were with a friend; can you tell me more about that?”
Using a combination of these questioning techniques allows the interviewer to gather detailed, accurate, and reliable information from the suspect.
Handling “No Comment” Interviews
A “no comment” interview occurs when a suspect chooses to remain silent or refuses to answer specific questions. While suspects have the right to remain silent, as enshrined in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE), there are strategic considerations for both the interviewer and the suspect.
From an investigator’s perspective, a “no comment” interview can be challenging but not insurmountable. The key is to ensure that the interview process remains fair and that the suspect is fully aware of the implications of their silence. Under certain circumstances, adverse inferences may be drawn from a suspect’s refusal to answer questions, as established in R v. Condron [1997]. In this case, the court ruled that remaining silent could lead to negative inferences, particularly if the suspect later presents a defence that they did not disclose during the interview.
It is crucial for interviewers to continue to ask questions even during a “no comment” interview, as this demonstrates the attempt to engage the suspect and ensures that the interview process is comprehensive.
Special Warnings
Special warnings are given in situations where there is evidence that directly implicates the suspect, and their response (or lack thereof) could have significant legal implications. These warnings are a formal notification that the suspect’s failure to address specific questions or evidence could lead to adverse inferences being drawn against them.
For example, under Section 34 of PACE, a special warning may be issued if a suspect fails to mention something during an interview that they later rely on in their defence. This is crucial for ensuring that the suspect is fully aware of the potential consequences of their silence.
The case of R v. Argent [1997] provides guidance on the application of special warnings. The court held that for a special warning to be valid, the suspect must have been given a clear opportunity to respond and understand the implications of their silence.
Interviewing a suspect after caution is a complex and nuanced task that requires careful consideration of legal, ethical, and practical factors. By understanding the purpose of the interview, being mindful of pre-interview disclosure, adhering to the PEACE model, using appropriate questioning techniques, and effectively managing “no comment” interviews and special warnings, investigators can conduct interviews that are both effective and compliant with legal standards.
In an ever-evolving legal landscape, staying informed about relevant case law and best practices is essential for law enforcement professionals committed to upholding justice and ensuring that their investigations are both thorough and fair.
Red Snapper Learning providers of all aspects of interview training in conjunction with Police Oracle are hosting a free webinar event in support of this area hosted by Clive Jones who specialises in this delivering training for us in this area:
To find out how Red Snapper Learning can support your professional development goals or to inquire about our training, contact our Head of Practice at dipesh.mistry@rsg.ltd | 0203 119 3373.