Free Narrative Account Initiating a Free-Narrative Account
3.24 In this phase of the interview the interviewer should initiate an
uninterrupted free narrative account of the incident/event(s) from the
witness by means of an open-ended invitation.
3.25 Interviewers should not usually try to initiate an account by focusing on
the witness’s background or the general background to the incident. In
the most instances interviewers should initiate a free narrative account by
simply asking the witness to concentrate on the matter in issue; the
incident that is the subject of the investigation.
3.26 It is essential not to interrupt the witness during their narration to ask
questions; these should be kept for later.
3.27 In the free narrative phase, the interviewer should encourage witnesses to
provide an account in their own words by the use of non-specific prompts
such as ‘did anything else happen?’, ‘is there more you can tell me?’ and
‘can you put it another way to help me understand better?’ Verbs like ‘tell’
and ‘explain’ are likely to be useful. The prompts used at this stage should
not include information known to the interviewer concerning relevant
events that have not yet been communicated by the witness.
Supporting a Free-Narrative Account
3.28 Some form of active listening is necessary, letting the witness know that
what they have communicated has been received by the interviewer. This
can be achieved by reflecting back to the witness what they have just
communicated; for example, ‘I didn’t like it when he did that’ (witness)
then ‘You didn’t like it’ (interviewer). The interviewer should be aware
of the danger of subconsciously or consciously indicating approval or
disapproval of the information just given.
Compliance
3.29 Some vulnerable witnesses may be particularly compliant in that they will try
to be helpful by going along with much of what they believe the interviewer
‘wants to hear’ and/or is suggesting to them. This is particularly so for
witnesses who believe the interviewer to be an authority figure. Some
witnesses may also be frightened of authority figures. The interviewer
should, therefore, try not to appear too authoritative, but should be confident
and competent as a means of reassuring the witness that they can be relied
on.
3.30 Many vulnerable people are very concerned to present themselves in the
best possible light, and many might try to appear as ‘normal’ as possible
by, for example, pretending to understand when they do not. This is
something we all do. Even though they may not understand a question,
vulnerable witnesses may prefer to answer it than to say that they don’t
understand. Saying that one doesn’t understand a question can be taken to
be implying that the interviewer or witness is at fault.
3.31 An emerging finding is that witnesses who feel empowered may well have
less of a need to demonstrate compliance. This is one reason why allowing
the witness some control of the interview is likely to be beneficial.
Acquiescence
3.32 Research has consistently found that many vulnerable witnesses acquiesce to
‘yes/no’ questions. That is, they answer such questions affirmatively with
‘Yes’ regardless of content. This can occur even when an almost identical
‘yes/no’ question is asked subsequently but this time with the opposite
meaning. This tendency to respond positively to every question occurs
particularly frequently with some people with a learning disability.
However, it is not solely due to witness vulnerability. The way that the
interview is conducted (e.g. in an overly authoritative way) and the nature
of the questions asked (e.g. suggestive or too complex) will also influence
the extent of unconditional positive responding.
Reticence
3.33 In many interviews, particularly those relating to allegations of child sexual
abuse, witnesses may be reluctant to talk openly and freely about incidents.
This can sometimes be overcome by the interviewer offering reassurance,
for example: ‘I know this must be difficult for you. Is there anything I can
do to make it easier?’ It is quite in order for the interviewer to refer to a
witness by their first or preferred name, but the use of terms of endearment,
verbal reinforcement and physical contact between the interviewer and the
witness are inappropriate. However, this should not preclude physical
reassurance being offered by an interview supporter to a distressed witness.
3.34 If the witness has communicated something that the interviewer feels needs
to be clarified, but the witness at present seems reluctant or unable to do so,
it may be better that the interviewer return to the point later in the interview
rather than be insistent.
Questioning
General Approach
3.35 During the free narrative phase of an interview most witnesses will not be
able to recall everything relevant that is in their memory. Their accounts
could, therefore, greatly benefit from the interviewer asking appropriate
questions that assist further recall.
3.36 Before asking the witness any questions it may be beneficial to outline for
them what is expected of them in this phase of the interview. It is helpful
for the interviewer to tell the witness that they will now be asking them
some questions, based on what they have already communicated in the free
narrative phase, in order to expand and clarify upon what they have said. It
can also beneficial to reiterate a number of the ground rules outlined in the
rapport phase of the interview, for example to explain to the witness that
detail is required, to explain that this is a difficult task which requires a lot
of concentration and to point out that it is acceptable to say ‘I don’t know’
or ‘I don’t understand’ to a question.
3.37 When being questioned some witnesses may become distressed. If this
occurs, the interviewer should consider moving away from the topic for a
while and, if necessary, reverting to an earlier phase of the interview (e.g.
the rapport phase). Shifting away from and then back to a topic the
witness finds distressing and/or difficult may need to occur several times
within an interview.
Interview Structure
3.38 Having elicited an account from the witness during the free narrative phase
of an interview, the interviewer should divide it into manageable topics.
Each relevant topic not adequately covered in the witness’s account should
then be:
• Introduced by means of an appropriate technique (e.g. an open-ended
invitation to the witness to focus on and recall the subject matter of the
topic-area in detail or one of the techniques that make up the Enhanced
Cognitive Interview [see Appendix H]); and
• Systematically probed using open-ended and specific-closed questions
until all the relevant material relating to it has been obtained.
3.39 Interviewers should try to avoid topic-hopping (i.e. rapidly moving from one
topic to another and back again) as this is not helpful for the witness’s
remembering processes and may confuse them.
3.40 After the witness’s account of the incident has been probed, the interviewer
should move on to deal with any case-specific information that was
identified as important to the investigation when planning and preparing for
the interview. Such case-specific information should be organised into
topic-areas; each topic-area should then be systematically probed in a
similar way to the witness’s account of the incident(s). Overall the structure
of the interview recommended by this guidance should be as follows:
Figure 3.2: Summary of Interview Structure
Phase One Rapport
Phase Two Witness’s free-narrative account of incident(s)
Phase Three
a) Topic division and probing of witness’s account of incident(s)
b) Topic division and probing of case-specific information
important to the investigation
Phase Four Closure
3.41 Interviewers should try to keep the case-specific information that is
important to the investigation as separate as possible from the witness’s
account of the incident(s) because:
• While case-specific information that is important to the investigation
could certainly help to bring the enquiry to a successful conclusion, it is
not usually evidence relevant to a trial;
• The inclusion of case-specific information that is important to the
investigation at an earlier point in the interview might serve to distract
the witness while they focus on their recollection of the incident.
For both these reasons, interviewers should not attempt to elicit the kind of
background material that constitutes case-specific information important at
the same time as covering the witness’s account. If background material
amounting to case-specific information important to the investigation is
mentioned spontaneously by the witness when they are talking about the
incident it should be acknowledged but not discussed in any depth until
coverage of the incident is complete.
3.42 Keeping the account of the incident separate from the case-specific
information important to the investigation should have the added benefit of
making it easier to edit the recording should this become necessary.
3.43 In complex cases it may be appropriate to have a break in the interview for
refreshments after the witness’s account and before the case-specific
information is covered. If there is a break consideration should be given to
inserting a fresh tape or disk into the recording equipment since doing so
might prevent a situation arising in which it is necessary to interrupt the
interview later on to do so and could reduce the need for editing.
Types of Questions
3.44 Interviewers need fully to appreciate that there are various types of question
which vary in how directive they are. Questioning should, whenever
possible, commence with open-ended questions and then proceed, if
necessary, to specific-closed questions. Forced-choice questions and leading
questions should only be used as a last resort.
Open-Ended Questions
3.45 An open-ended question is the best kind of question from the point of view
of information gathering (i.e. gaining good quality information).
Therefore, this type of question should be used predominantly during the
interview. Open-ended questions are framed in such a way that the witness
is able to give an unrestricted answer, which in turn enables the witness to
control the flow of information in the interview. This questioning style
also minimises the risk that the interviewer will impose their view of what
happened on the witness.
3.46 Questions beginning with the phrase ‘Tell me’ or the word ‘Describe’ are
useful examples of this type of question, e.g. ‘You said you were in the
shopping centre this morning when something happened, tell me
everything that you can remember.’
Specific-Closed Questions
3.47 A specific-closed question is one that allows only a relatively narrow range
of responses. Specific-closed questions are the second-best type of question
and should be used to obtain information not provided by the witness in the
free narrative account and not elicited through the use of open-ended
questions. This is because the use of specific-closed questions allows the
interviewer to control the interview and minimise irrelevant information
being provided. However, they may cause witnesses to be passive and
decrease their concentration, and can, therefore, result in less recall.
3.48 An interview is a learning experience, especially if the witness has limited or
no knowledge of the interview situation. As a consequence any interviewer
behaviour is likely to have an immediate effect on the interview process (e.g.
on an answer given). The witness will also learn from this behaviour what is
to be expected and will try to adjust their behaviour accordingly. Thus, if an
interviewer opens an interview by using a succession of specific-closed
questions, which do not allow the witness to give full answers, the witness
will expect this to occur throughout the interview. As a result, the witness
will give short answers, even if the interviewer may request long responses
from the witness later in the interview, using open-ended questions. This is
the reason why open-ended questions should be used first, with specific-
closed questions as a back-up option.
3.49 Some authors define open-ended questions by their opening word: ‘Who’,
‘What’, ‘Where’, ‘When’ and ‘Why’. Although these questions can be
framed as open-ended questions, they are much more commonly used as
specific-closed questions.
3.50 A question beginning with ‘why’, although it may produce a response, can
create more problems than it solves, particularly if the question seeks an
explanation of behaviour. This is because people often do not know, with
any degree of accuracy, what their own motivation is, let alone what
motivates others. ‘Why did he do that?’ may well be a closed question but
it is also a question that the witness cannot possibly answer with
100 per cent accuracy. In addition, ‘why’ questions also tend to promote
the feeling of blame. Victims often partly blame themselves for what
happened and so ‘why’ questions may strengthen this belief. This will not
help the witness or the remembering process.
Wording of Specific-Closed Questions
3.51 The interviewer needs to tailor the language of each individual question to
each witness and should avoid using grammatically complex questions.
Interviewers should also avoid using questions that include double
negatives. The key is to keep questions as short and simple as possible,
including only one point per question.
3.52 If the interviewer is seeking elaboration on what the witness mentioned in
their free narrative account, the interviewer should as far as possible try to
use the same words that the witness used. Negative phrasing should also be
avoided as this suggests a negative response, which it often receives (for
example ‘You can’t remember any more, can you?’).
3.53 In addition, jargon and technical terminology should not be used as these
reduce the witness’s confidence and may alienate them. Moreover, a
witness may just respond in the affirmative, to avoid embarrassment, if
they do not understand.
3.54 Specific-closed questions should not be repeated ‘word for word’ because
the witness may feel that their first answer was incorrect and change their
response accordingly. When a question is not answered or the answer is not
understood it should be reworded instead of repeated. Also, if the witness
has been unable to answer a number of questions in succession, the
interviewer should explicitly change to an easier line of questioning, with a
short break in the interim; otherwise the witness may lose self-confidence.
Forced-Choice Questions
3.55 This and the following are further types of question that should be avoided if
at all possible and only be used as a last resort.
3.56 This type of question can also be termed a selection question: it gives
witnesses only a small number of alternatives from which they must choose
and which may, in fact, not include the correct option (e.g. ‘would you like
tea or coffee?’). The result of asking this type of question is that witnesses
may guess the answer by selecting one of the options given. People may
also answer in the affirmative, and the interviewer must then either assume
to which part of the question this reply corresponds (which may be an
incorrect assumption) or rephrase the question.
3.57 Some vulnerable witnesses may only be able to respond to forced-choice
questions that contain two alternatives. Such interviews are likely to
require the expertise of an interview adviser (see National Investigative
Interviewing Strategy, Association of Chief Police Officers 2009) and
extensive planning, especially regarding the questions to be asked.
3.58 If forced-choice questions are to be used, it is particularly important to
remind the witness that ‘don’t know’ or ‘don’t understand’ or ‘don’t
remember’ responses are welcome and that the interviewer does not know
what happened. If a witness replies ‘I don’t know’ to an ‘either/or’ question
(e.g. ‘was the car large or small?’), interviewers should try to avoid then
offering a compromise ‘yes/no’ question (e.g. ‘If it wasn’t large or small,
would you say it was medium size?’) that the witness may merely acquiesce
to.
Multiple Questions
3.59 A multiple question is one that asks about several things at once. For
example: ‘Did you see him? Where was he? What was he wearing?’ The
main problem with this type of question is that people do not know which
part of it to answer. The witness has to remember all the sub-questions
asked while trying to retrieve the information required to answer each sub-
question. Moreover, when a witness responds to such a question,
misunderstandings can occur as the interviewer may wrongly assume that
the witness is responding to sub-question one, when actually they are
responding to sub-question two.
3.60 Less obvious examples of this type of question include those questions that
refer to multiple concepts, for example ‘What did they look like?’ This
question asks the witness to describe two or more people, and thus may
not only limit the amount of retrieval per person but also may confuse the
interviewer as to who the witness is currently describing.
Misunderstandings could therefore occur.
Leading Questions
3.61 A leading question is one that implies the answer or assumes facts that are
likely to be in dispute. For a question to be construed as leading will
depend not only on the nature of the question but also on what the witness
has already said in the interview. When a leading question is put
improperly to a witness giving evidence at court, opposing counsel can
make an objection before the witness replies. This, of course, does not
apply during recorded interviews, but it is likely that, should the interview
be submitted as evidence in court proceedings, portions might be edited out
or, in the worst case, the whole recording ruled inadmissible.
3.62 In addition to legal objections, research indicates that witnesses’ responses to
leading questions tend to be determined more by the manner of questioning
than by valid remembering. Leading questions can serve not merely to
influence the answer given, but may also significantly distort the witness’s
memory in the direction implied by the leading question. For these reasons,
leading questions should only be used as a last resort, where all other
questioning strategies have failed to elicit any kind of response. On
occasion, a leading question can produce relevant information which has not
been led by the question. If this does occur, interviewers should take care not
to follow up this question with further leading questions. Rather, they should
revert to open-ended questions in the first instance or specific-closed
questions.
3.63 Leading questions come in a number of different forms, some being more
suggestive than others. The leading questions thought to be the most
suggestive are tag questions such as ‘You did see the gun, didn’t you? ’ It
has also been found that questions worded using ‘the’ compared with ‘a’
result in greater levels of erroneous responses. This is because ‘the’
presupposes the existence of an item.
3.64 A leading question that succeeds in prompting a witness into
spontaneously providing information beyond that led by the question may
sometimes be acceptable. However, unless there is absolutely no
alternative, the interviewer should never be the first to suggest to the
witness that a particular offence was committed, or that a particular person
was responsible. Once such a step has been taken, it will be extremely
difficult to counter the argument that the interviewer ‘put the idea into the
witness’s head’ and that their account is, therefore, tainted.
Summaries
3.65 Interviewers should only summarise what the witness has said at the end of
each topic if it is appropriate to do so (i.e. if what the witness has said
appears somewhat disjointed or it may be open to ambiguous
interpretation). Interviewers should not simply summarise as a matter of
routine.
3.66 Where a summary is appropriate the words and phrases used by the
witness should be used as far as possible.
Inconsistencies
3.67 Witnesses can on occasion provide misleading accounts of events; these
are often the result of misunderstandings or misremembering rather than
deliberate fabrication. The most common cause of these
misunderstandings is the interviewer failing to ask appropriate types of
question or reaching a premature conclusion that the interviewer then
presses the witness to confirm.
3.68 Where there are significant inconsistencies in the witness’s account
interviewers should explore them after they have probed their basic
account. Witnesses should only be challenged directly over an
inconsistency in exceptional circumstances and even then only when it is
essential to do so. Rather, such inconsistencies should be presented in the
context of puzzlement by the interviewer and the need to be quite clear
what the witness has said. On no account should the interviewer voice their
suspicions to the witness or label a witness as a liar: there may be a
perfectly innocuous explanation for any inconsistency.
Special Considerations: Children and Vulnerable Adult
Witnesses
3.69 It is important that the interviewer asks only one question at a time, and
allows the witness enough time to complete their answer before asking a
further question. Patience is always required when asking questions,
particularly with developmentally younger children and some vulnerable
adult witnesses; they will need time to respond. Interviewers should not be
tempted to fill pauses by asking additional questions or making irrelevant
comments. Sometimes, silence is the best cue for eliciting further
information; but it can also be oppressive and care needs to be taken in the
use of this technique. It is important also that the interviewer does not
interrupt the witness when they are still speaking. Interrupting the witness
may suggest to them that only short answers are required.
3.70 When posing questions, interviewers should try to make use of information
that the witness has already provided and words/concepts that the witness
is familiar with (e.g. for time, location, persons). Some vulnerable witnesses
have difficulty understanding pronouns (e.g. he, she, and they); in these
circumstances it is better for interviewers to use people’s names wherever
possible.
3.71 Some children and vulnerable adult witnesses will experience difficulty if,
without warning, the interviewer switches the questioning to a new topic.
To help witnesses, interviewers should indicate a topic change by saying,
for example, ‘I’d now like to ask you about something else.’
3.72 Many children and vulnerable witnesses will have difficulty with questions
unless they are simple, contain only one point per question, do not contain
abstract words or double negatives, and lack suggestion and jargon. Some
vulnerable witnesses may well misinterpret terms that the interviewer is
familiar with. For example, they may think that someone ‘being charged’
involves payment or that ‘defendant’ means a person who defended
themselves against an assault.
3.73 It is important that interviewers check that witnesses understand what has
just been said to them by asking the witness to convey back to the
interviewer (where this is possible) what they understand the interviewer to
have just said. Merely asking the witness ‘do you understand?’ may result
simply in an automatic positive response. If they do not understand a
question some children and vulnerable adult witnesses will nevertheless
attempt to answer it to the best of their ability by guessing at what is meant,
possibly producing an inappropriate reply.
3.74 The information requested in questions should always take account of a
child’s stage of development. Many concepts that are taken for granted
in adult conversation are only acquired gradually as children develop.
Therefore, questions that rely upon the grasp of such concepts may
produce misleading and unreliable responses from children, which can
damage the overall credibility of their statements in the interview.
Concepts with which children have difficulty include:
• Dates and times;
• Length and frequency of events; and
• Weight, height and age estimates.
Such concepts are only gradually mastered. For the concept of time, for
instance, telling the time is learned by the average child at around seven
years of age, but an awareness of the days of the week and the seasons does
not occur until at least a year later. Age norms are only a guide and it should
be anticipated in the planning phase whether a particular child is likely to
perform above or below such norms. There are a number of techniques for
overcoming difficulties of measurement. Height, weight and age can be
specified relative to another person known to the child (e.g. the interviewer
or a member of the child’s family). Time and date estimates can also be
made by reference to markers in the child’s life (e.g. festive seasons,
holidays, birthday celebrations, or their class at school). Time of day and the
duration of events can sometimes be assisted by questions that refer to
television programmes watched by the child or to home or school routine.
3.75 Some vulnerable witnesses will respond to a question from, or a comment
made by, an interviewer by repeating the last few words in the utterance
(echolalia). Appropriate methods for managing this depend on the
individual. Interviewers should take appropriate advice (e.g. from a carer)
on how to manage it while planning the interview.
3.76 If, for the sake of clarity, interviewers decide to repeat one or more questions
later on in the interview, even with changed wording, they should explain
that it does not indicate that they were unhappy with the witness’s initial
responses but that they just want to check their understanding of what the
witness said (for example, ‘I just want to make sure that I’ve understood
what you said about the man’s jacket. What colour did you say it was?’).
Otherwise, some children and vulnerable adult witnesses may believe that
the questions are being repeated solely because their earlier responses were
incorrect or inappropriate or that they were not believed.
3.77 Some vulnerable witnesses may also have a limited understanding of
the relationship between negative events, their causation, and who is
responsible.
3.78 Even if an event was an unforeseeable accident or ‘an act of God’, some
younger children and vulnerable adults will believe that someone must
be held responsible. Some may even take the blame, thinking that the
interviewer (an authority figure) will like them more if they do.
3.79 The questioning of children and vulnerable adult witnesses requires
extensive skill and understanding on the part of interviewers. Incompetent
interviewers can cause children and vulnerable adult witnesses to provide
unreliable accounts. However, interviewers who are able to put into practice
the guidance on questioning contained in this document will provide
witnesses with much better opportunities to present their own accounts of
what really happened.
