Australian stakeholders’ views on improving investigative interviews with adult sexual assault complainants

Abstract

Investigating sexual assault is one of the most challenging tasks in modern-day policing. Because investigators must rely largely on the account provided by the complainant to establish whether or not a criminal offence has occurred, the way in which these accounts are elicited becomes paramount. Although there is a strong empirical consensus on how to maximise the completeness and accuracy of eyewitness accounts, several researchers have suggested modifying adult sexual assault interview protocols to better satisfy investigative and evidential needs and to provide complainants with a greater level of emotional support. This article explores professional stakeholders’ views on what form these changes might take, and identifies the broad themes that drive these views.

Key words:

• investigative interviewing
• witness
• rape
• evidence
• police
• prosecutors
• victims
• sexual assault

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank the organisations that made this research possible and the stakeholders from those organisations who gave their valuable time to participate in this study. We pay tribute to our co-author, Dr Nina Westera, who passed away on 25 May 2017.

Ethical standards

Declaration of conflicts of interest

Mohammed M. Ali has declared no conflicts of interest.

Nina J. Westera has declared no conflicts of interest.

Rachel Zajac has declared no conflicts of interest.

Martine Powell has declared no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Notes

1 In jurisdictions where adult sexual assault interviews are videotaped for possible use as evidence-in-chief, complainants are informed that their interview might be used as evidence and that, in order to meet legal requirements, they are required to promise to tell the truth at the beginning of the interview. The specific nature of the promise varies according to jurisdiction.

2 All quotations have been de-identified and grammatically corrected to improve readability.