Facilitating child witness interviews' understanding of evidential requirements through prosecutor instruction

Prosecutors report that the evidential usefulness of child witness statements about abuse is often limited by unnecessary interview content and excessive length. Prior research indicates that this limitation may be attributed to a mismatch between interviewers' and prosecutors' understandings of the legal requirements of an interview. The aim of this study is to examine whether differences in the evidential qualities that are perceived as important by prosecutors and interviewers can be reduced through simple instruction. Five prosecutors and 33 interviewers completed a written exercise wherein participants were required to identify what aspects of information required follow-up in five hypothetical narrative accounts of abuse. Twenty of the interviewers had (prior to completing the exercise) received prosecutor instruction on the requirements of interviews in terms of the elements and particulars of sexual offences, and the manner in which necessary information is best elicited in an interview (from a legal perspective). The responses to the exercise of interviewers who had and had not received prosecutor instruction were compared. The results indicated that interviewers who had received instruction were more consistent with prosecutors in their responses to the exercise. The importance of these findings, and directions for future research, are discussed.