Verified by 
Law and Crime
Is Interviewing Witnesses and Victims Remotely a Good Idea?
Vulnerable victims can be disadvantaged by remote interviewing.
Posted June 16, 2020
The COVID-19 pandemic lockdown has forced professionals involved in criminal justice systems worldwide to think about how they can carry out day-to-day duties that would usually take place face-to-face. One example is the interviewing of witnesses and victims of crime, which is a day-to-day activity for almost all police officers.
During an interview, witnesses and victims explain what they have seen and heard while guided and supported by a police interviewer who helps them to recall as much accurate information as possible. Interviews with witnesses and victims are vitally important. The information they provide kickstarts the investigation process. As an investigation progresses, witnesses and victims can sometimes be interviewed several times, asked to identify potential perpetrators, objects and places, and provide testimony in court. They are fundamental to criminal justice.
Given the public health challenges of face-to-face interactions, some police forces in the UK have started to conduct remote, computer-mediated interviews with witnesses and victims. On the face of it, this seems like a good idea, particularly in light of the fact that some types of crimes, such as child abuse, domestic abuse, romance scams, and fraud have increased during the lockdown. However, the victims of these types of crime, which typically require an immediate or quick response, are all too often some of the most vulnerable in society, who may also be traumatised by their experiences. And so, police face a real dilemma — whether to interview remotely or not, and if not, how should they proceed.
Currently, this dilemma cannot be solved because there is absolutely no guidance for police when deciding the best course of action in such circumstances. The speed and veracity of the lockdown in the UK have left police with little choice but to develop their own ad-hoc methods for continuing to investigate crime, which necessarily includes managing the costs and benefits associated with remote interviews.
If they do not conduct a remote interview, then an investigation is likely hampered, an offender may escape justice, and so victims of domestic violence and child abuse, for example, remain at risk. If they conduct a face-to-face interview, then there is a risk of catching and passing on COVID-19, which can be life-threatening.
On the other hand, if police decide to interview remotely, it is unclear whether any evidence gained during a remote computer-mediated interview, for which there are no universally agreed-upon protocols or procedures, will stand up in court. Furthermore, one of the most important known unknowns of remote interviewing is centred on the psychological consequences for the victims/witnesses, particularly for those who are vulnerable and/or traumatised.
To date, there is no psychological evidence base for understanding the impact of recounting emotional experiences via a computer in the absence of another human. There is, however, is a significant evidence base concerning how complex and demanding interviews are for all involved — witnesses, victims, and interviewers — and how important it is that police conduct a "good" interview. Inappropriate, poorly conducted interviews result in reduced amounts of information and can increase the number of errors made by witnesses and victims.
Remote interviewing has been researched by some psychologists, and more recently researchers have begun to consider the use of virtual environments for conducting interviews. Generally, the findings are promising, in that they indicate little impact on memory performance. However, this research base is still developing and has not considered vulnerable witnesses and victims nor the impact of emotional experiences.
For the purposes of criminal justice, sometimes psychological vulnerability is clear because it stems from age (e.g., children and older adults) the type of crime witnesses and victims have been exposed too (e.g., sexual offences, psychological abuse, domestic violence) or because of a protected characteristic and/or intellectual or learning disability, for example. In such instances, witnesses and victims are likely to need extra support during an interview, which would be challenging from a distance.
Equally, vulnerability can be silent or unknown. Likewise, trauma. A trauma response can unexpectedly emerge at any point during any interview, triggered by a question or a memory. Even when the experiences of that witness or victim initially appear straightforward and/or minor, and pre-interview trauma was not apparent.
Aside from the well-publicised challenges for many of the most vulnerable in society in accessing the necessary hardware for remote interviewing (phone, tablet, computer, internet), where an officer is not physically present support cannot be provided. In such circumstances, a trauma response may have serious implications for the health and wellbeing of the interviewee and can be distressing for a remote interviewer who would be unable to assist.
Communication is more challenging than just understanding words. There are unwritten social rules and norms that govern and support social interactions, which may be lost in a remote interview. In normal times, highly trained police interviewers conduct interviews with groups of vulnerable and traumatised witnesses and victims, guided by well researched accepted guidance and principles. However, lockdown and COVID-19 has changed everything, for almost everyone for the foreseeable future. Questions must be asked about how to proceed and what risk assessments should be undertaken before deciding the best course of action. Answers need to be provided promptly, otherwise access to justice for many vulnerable and traumatised witnesses and victims may be denied, perpetrators may go unpunished, and the interview process could cause psychological damage.
