Interview process and data collection

The first interview was arranged with participant 1, Paul. As stated above, Paul was now working for an English force but was part of a case linked to the Cardiff SARC. The initial interview was a semi-structured interview and gave a lot of background information regarding the set up and process of gaining evidence from individuals who had experienced traumatic rape or sexual violation. He was particularly concerned about those who had experienced childhood sexual abuse and how they remembered events. As a consequence of this initial interview and the surfeit of data collected from the initial interview and the practicalities of time needed to cover all questions, a more open interview format was implemented for the following interviews. This allowed the themes to emerge without being constrained by the questioning format previously set (Glaser, 1992). However, the same areas emerged without the need for direct questioning. As new themes emerged, further reviews of the literature were made (Bryant and Charmaz, 2007). Box 3.1 provides the initial interview questions. A more open and flexible approach was applied to later interviews whereby only the main question was asked although some prompts were utilised.

Main interview question: What is your experience of interviewing victims of traumatic sexual violation?

Sub-questions: (initial interview)

What is your understanding of PTSD and how this might impact on a victims’ ability to give evidence?

What do you consider to be barriers from a legal perspective?

Are there any victim characteristics that may impact on your decision to take a case forward?

How do you inform victims about these decisions?

What support mechanisms do you have in place when dealing with sexual assault cases?

Box 3.1 – Preliminary Interview schedule

A further interview was undertaken with participant 1, Paul. Initially this included a summary and feed back of some of the key themes drawn from the previous interview. Some elaboration was made as a result of this and some additional themes arose that were included in the findings.

Participant 2, Richard was the next interview to be conducted. Using the open interview format, Richard provided a case as an example of his experience of interviewing victims of traumatic sexual violation. He demonstrated through the use of his case example, a number of the difficulties highlighted by participant 1.

Participant 3, Fiona was the next interview and again she provided an example of a case on going at the time of the interview. She was able to explain some of the potential difficulties she was experiencing and further exemplified the difficulties in meeting the victim’s needs when this clearly caused a problem in gaining evidence.

A further meeting for interview was arranged with participant 3, Fiona to discuss some of the themes that had emerged from the previous interview. This allowed for some validation of the emerging codes and provided some elaboration of some of the issues that had been discussed previously.

Participant 4, Katrina had not completed her SOLO 3 training at the time of interviewing but had completed the basic level and level 2. At this stage of her development, she was unable to undertake interviews but could observe them. Participant 4 was not available for verification of the themes that had emerged or further interview.

As a number of issues had arisen regarding the questioning of victims at court contact was made with the Crown Prosecution Service. An email was sent outlining some of the emerging themes of the police participant interviews. A meeting was arranged and an informal conversation regarding the themes took place with a local Crown Prosecutor. This was not included in the analysis of

data but provided elaboration of some of the legal implications that emerged from the data.

Participant 6, Andy was a first responder police constable and his main job was to gain a first account from the witness or victim. Literature was reviewed regarding ‘first responders’ and gaining statements.

A further interview (7) was arranged with the Crown Prosecutor to discuss and validate the summary of the key points raised in the previous meeting. He had attended a meeting that was relevant to some of the themes discussed and was in agreement to meeting again to consolidate this. No new themes emerged but more emphasis was given to ‘police interviewing’ skills. Literature was reviewed regarding police interviewing models.

Participant 8, Michael was an experienced SOLO 3 trained officer and much of the content of his interview also drew on the interview process with victims and witnesses and the professional nature of this. A summary of the findings was later sent to participant 8 for validation.

Participant 9, Gerald provided a different perspective. Although he was also a SOLO 3 trained officer, his focus was to be conducting the interview with the suspect. He provided a balanced view of the difficulties for suspects and their ‘human rights’. The literature was reviewed looking at the miscarriage of justice cases that led to changes in the way police investigation had changed.

In considering the human rights of the suspect, a local firm of solicitors was contacted. From personal experience (from previous employment), contact was made to a leading criminal barrister and an informal meeting was undertaken. This interview re-iterated the perspective of the previous participant interview and was very much focused on the rights of the individual suspect, the impact on their lives because of the negativity that surrounds this crime and the punitive measures as a consequence. He suggested a number of restorative measures that could be put in place to encourage a suspect to make a guilty plea rather than to go to trial. He suggested a more tiered penal system, as often offenders did not want to be seen

as other groups of sexual offenders. Further literature reviewing examined alternative criminal justice systems and restorative measures.

Interview 11 was more opportunistic as a colleague mentioned that they had recently sat in on a rape case and agreed to be interviewed regarding this. He discussed openly the difficulties that he had experienced as part of the jury in his decision regarding the case. He highlighted the fact that assumptions regarding the behaviour of both victim and suspect and their characteristics were the basis of this process. Literature was reviewed in relation to stereotyping and witness characteristics informing decision-making.