Increasing flexibility for sexual violation cases

As discussed in previous chapters, the emphasis of the cognitive interview is to allow the witness to provide an account of the experience using his or her own words by using an open questioning style without leading the recollection in any way (Milne and Bull, 1999). Initially a number of problems in applying these methods and approach were identified and the need to achieve best evidence was not always actualised (Kebbell et al. 1999). Some of these issues have been highlighted in previous research and evaluation of police interviewing standards (Fisher et al. 1987; ACPO, 2010).

In some cases, recovery may be adaptive and good recall of the event can be obtained. The PEACE model discussed in chapter 2 emphasises the physical environment for interviewing such as the need for a comfortable and safe space, away from distractions to put the witness at ease. For a traumatised witness, other grounding techniques may be required to ensure the physiological arousal is within the ‘window of tolerance’ (Ogden et al. 2006) or at the right frequency for temporal and contextual binding to take place so that a cohesive narrative can be given for the event (Bergmann, 2012). This is unlikely to happen within one interview and would probably benefit from being completed over a number of interviews or with prior engagement before the formal interview. At present this

might be at odds with the CJS because of fears of the contamination of memory (Savage and Milne, 2007).

In addition, it may be necessary for interviewers to have some idea as to the trauma related ‘emotional hot-spots’ to ensure particular care and attention when retrieving these highly significant elements of the memory (Ehlers and Clark, 2000). It would be important to keep the level of engagement within the ‘window of tolerance’ (Ogden et al. 2006) to enable a synchronisation or thalamocortical- binding as highlighted in chapter 4, to take place enabling a coherent narrative to occur naturally (Ehlers and Clark, 2000; Bergmann, 2012).

6.2.1 Applying a flexible approach for traumatised witnesses

For police to be able to recognise how best to address the witness’s needs to gain evidence in the most thorough and efficient way. Using some flexibility when there are difficult relational issues involved, particularly with regard to childhood familial abuse. Understanding of some of the issues related to abuse such as emotional regulation skills, substance misuse and difficulty communicating their needs should not automatically discount engagement with the CJS. For cases of rape or sexual assault police need to understand the adverse trauma effects that might impact on the investigation and interviewing of victims so that they can adapt their protocols accordingly. Highly traumatised individuals require more time for memory to be processed and to elaborate on their trauma narrative. A specialist intermediary could help support this assessment and appropriate procedures. The Advocates Toolkit is developing a protocol for guidance on working with traumatised individuals. Individuals would need to understand the type of offence that has occurred as being raped by a stranger is often experienced differently from a rape by an acquaintance. The developmental age of the individual when the abuse occurred could have consequences for the way that memory is accessed and what memory cues may be useful. Developing a comprehensive conceptual plan, although time consuming would be beneficial in the planning of investigation and interviewing procedures that would facilitate optimum memory recall and appropriate evidence gathering.

In investigating cases of childhood abuse, corroborating evidence can be sought to ensure the validity of the memory. The first police participant highlighted this fact and suggested that when he was investigating adult experiences of childhood abuse, it was essential to get other evidence from school reports, medical records and other family members. This can also increase the witness’s confidence in the memory and allow for consolidation. It is likely that an individual will recall events by levels of importance and this may not be chronological (Ehlers and Clark, 2000). This would be difficult to present at trial and although there is a need for open recall, some structure as provided by the timeline enables the individual to hold a narrative that makes sense to them and is less likely to become confused by cross examination.

By undertaking this preliminary work, the witness interviewer (whether police or intermediary) is also able to gage any risk to the individual or likelihood that they will become re-traumatised from re-activating the trauma memory or of any dissociative responses the individual may have. If the witness is highly traumatised or distressed by developing the timeline and talking about events in this objective way, they are not ready to proceed with an in-depth subjective interview of their experience using some of the memory enhancing techniques. If witnesses still exhibit a high level of distress, it may be useful to develop a factual written narrative rather than accessing the memory by open recall. This could be read over a number of times and the witness could add any additional information as it arises naturally from their memory of the events. Specific nightmares or trauma related intrusions indicate the most significant element of the trauma although these are more likely to be representations of the event rather than an exact replicate (Brewin et al, 2010; Bergmann, 2012; Lanius et al. 2014).

Using these preliminary resources may also be beneficial if an individual is displaying a dissociative response or appears emotionally numb at the time of reporting. Again a good assessment of the individual’s psychological presentation is essential at this time to reduce risk and to inform memory interventions. When a victim has lost consciousness and there are no other external witnesses to concur the crime scenario, victims may be particularly vulnerable to post event information or confabulation (Loftus and Pickrell, 1995). Gaps in the memory

appear to prevent adequate processing of the trauma event (Bergmann, 2012). The emphasis here might be the need for additional skills and resources in gaining a true and accurate account and eliminating the risk of contamination (Westera et al. 2016). As discussed earlier, corroborating evidence and research informed interview methods reduce the risk of this process. With specific techniques, these memories can become synthesised into a coherent narrative (Ehlers and Clark, 2000). If the individual becomes distressed during the interview process, distancing techniques and grounding techniques can be utilised in order to maintain the optimal window for memory recall (Paulsen and Lanius, 2014).

6.3 Adaptations in applying the cognitive interview for traumatised