Child interviewing in Scotland Thank you Deirdre Brown, Sonja Brubacher, Ann-Christin Cederborg, Coral Dando, Fiona Gabbert, John Halley, Carmit Katz, Michael Lamb, Amina Memon, Lindsay Malloy, Janice Murray, Annabelle Nicol, Robert O’Shea, Yael Orbach, Mel Pipe, Anne Ridley, Heather Stewart, & Scottish Institute for Policing Research, UK North East Scotland Child Protection Committee Children’s Memory Research Project at Otago University, NZ National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, USA

Scottish Guidelines emphasise using open prompts Open prompts (Invitations) – “Tell me what happened” - “Tell me more about that” – “Tell me everything about that” - “Then what happened” – “What happened next” Open prompts = research based recommendation – Open prompts elicit longer more detailed responses than closed and specific questions – Serve as evidence-in-chief – Information provided to open prompts is the most accurate (irrespective of age & delay) – Open prompts are non-suggestive – Difficult for defence to criticise the use of open prompts

Specific/focused questions are less accurate They cause contradictions Children try to answer questions they don’t understand Specific questions tap cued-recall memory Children have difficulty with some concepts, e.g., – Behind/in front/over/under – Before/after – Times/dates/ages – Size/height/weight – Same/different – Neither/either – He/she/they “My dad puts fast petrol in the car so it goes bigger?” (4yo boy)

Open Prompts (frequency) 22a. Do you begin the main part of the interview by asking the child to provide a full account of what has happened?

Specific Wh. Questions (frequency) 23a. Do you follow-up what is said by the child by asking specific what, when, where type questions? E.g., “where were you when you played this game?”

Specific Wh. questions (effectiveness) 23b. If you do follow-up what is said by the child by asking specific questions, do you find this effective at finding out more about what happened?

Interviews conducted between November 2003 & February 2011 Interviews used as evidence in criminal and civil cases involving alleged abuse between April 2010 and April interviews conducted with 25 children throughout Scotland Children aged 4 to 13 years 19 females & 6 males (2012)

The percentage of each ground rule used in the interviews Demonstrate ‘truth and lies’ “Don’t guess, say, ‘I don’t know’” “Correct me if I make a mistake” “If you don’t understand me say so” “It is important to tell the truth” Percentage Joint Investigative Interviews with children between November 2003 and February 2011 (N=37) Ground rules remove pressure that the interviewee should provide answers if they are not sure about what happened

Recommendation regarding ‘practice interview’ before allegations are discussed – e.g., ‘brain training’ Did interviewers use a practice interview? No practice interviews were conducted or recorded in the 37 interviews Joint Investigative Interviews with children between November 2003 and February 2011 (N=37)

Open-ended prompts Directives (wh.) Option posing & yes/no Suggestive 8% 39% 36% 17% The percentage of interviewer prompts and questions used in the substantive phase of the interviews (similar findings in other jurisdictions) Joint Investigative Interviews with children between November 2003 and February 2011 (N=37)

The percentage of interviewer prompts and questions used in the substantive phase of interviews with children (N=9). Preliminary field research (Tayside) (Nicol, La Rooy & Gabbert)

The NICHD Protocol (2000) Prof Michael Lamb Cambridge

The NICHD Protocol (2000) Using the same standardized approach with all children has advantages – It gives every child an equal opportunity to disclose or not disclose alleged abuse – Personal biases are minimized – Aids in efforts to maintain desirable interview standards over time – reduces skill fade – 3 x number of open prompts compared to non-protocol – Results in 75% to 88% disclosure rate (4 to 13 yo) – 50% increase in chance that charges are filed – 94% guilty verdicts (vs. 46% for non-protocol interviews) – Validated in over 40,000 interviews worldwide – Not currently used in Scotland

Preliminary Results Using the Protocol in Scotland (Nicol, La Rooy & Gabbert) (Database currently has approx. 130 interviews increasing to 160 by March)

Interview quality impacts on legal outcomes PF v. Mark Dunbar 2012 – 2 complainers, good quality interview, conviction, 9yr sentence PF v. S. M – 8 complainers, low quality interviews, case abandoned after approx. 12 months PF v. A. G – 7 complainers, low quality interviews, 4 called in evidence and underwent stressful cross-examination