Prosecutors’ Perceptions on Improving Child Witness Interviews About Abuse

  • Kimberlee S. BurrowsEmail author
  • Martine B. Powell


Child sexual abuse cases are often not prosecuted because of poor evidential quality of the child’s investigative interview, the central plank of evidence in these cases. There has been limited research on child testimony from a prosecution (as opposed to developmental memory) focus and most of this prosecution work has been qualitative in nature, focusing on eliciting prosecutors’ perspectives of CSA interviews via surveys, focus groups, and in-depth interviews. Overall, the perspectives of prosecutors have received little airplay in the literature, yet they provide an important foundation for improving interview process and justice outcomes. This chapter provides a review of the prior research regarding the persuasiveness and usefulness of child witness interviews as evidence. Four conclusions are drawn which have implications for interviewer trainers and policy makers. First, prosecutors support the system of electronically recording child witness interviews over the traditional system which involved the taking of written statements. Second, prosecutors perceive that interviewers need to become better attuned to the evidential details required for successful prosecution of CSA cases. Interviewers tend to overestimate the amount of contextual and time-related information that is required. Third, interviewers need to prioritise the elicitation of a cohesive narrative account of the offending from the witness perspective as opposed to using mainly short-answer questions. Finally, while prosecutors support electronic recording of child witness statements as evidence-in-chief at the trial, they believe there needs to be scope to supplement these interviews with additional live witness evidence. This chapter elaborates on these conclusions and describes the research that has underpinned them.


Investigative interviewing Child witness Child sexual assault Child testimony Child abuse prosecution Evidence 


  1. Aldridge, J., & Cameron, S. (1999). Interviewing child witnesses: Questioning techniques and the role of training. Applied Developmental Science, 3, 136–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bala, N., Lindsay, R. C. L., & McNamara, E. (2001). Testimonial aids for children: The Canadian experience with closed circuit television, screens and videotapes. Criminal Law Quarterly, 44, 461–486.Google Scholar
  3. Bouffard, J. A. (2000). Predicting type of sexual assault case closure from victim, suspect, and case characteristics. Journal of Criminal Justice, 28, 527–542. doi:10.1016/S0047-2352(00)00068-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Burrows, K., & Powell, M. (2013). A prosecutor’s guide to improving child witness interviews about alleged sexual abuse: A view from the Australian context. Investigative Interviewing: Research and Practice, 5, 12–22.Google Scholar
  5. Burrows, K., & Powell, M. (in press a). Prosecutors’ recommendations for improving child witness statements about sexual abuse. Policing and Society.Google Scholar
  6. Burrows, K., & Powell, M. (in press b). Prosecutors’ perspectives on using recorded child witness interviews about abuse as evidence in chief. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology.Google Scholar
  7. Burrows, K., & Powell, M. (under review a). Prosecutors’ perspectives on clarifying sexual acts in child abuse interviews.Google Scholar
  8. Burrows, K., & Powell, M. (under review b). Prosecutors’ perspectives on clarifying terms for genitalia in child sexual abuse interviews.Google Scholar
  9. Burton, M., Evans, R., & Sanders, A. (2006). Are special measures for vulnerable and intimidated witnesses working? Evidence from the criminal justice agencies. Home Office Online Report. Accessed 10 Nov 2012.
  10. Cashmore, J., & Trimboli, L. (2005). An evaluation of the NSW child sexual assault specialist jurisdiction pilot. Sydney: NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research.$file/r57.pdf. Accessed 10 Nov 2012.
  11. Corns, C. (2001). Videotaped evidence of child complainants in criminal proceedings: A comparison of alternative models. Criminal Law Journal, 25, 75–89.Google Scholar
  12. Criminal Justice Joint Inspection. (2012). Joint Inspection report on the experience of young victims and witnesses in the criminal justice system. Accessed 11 Nov 2012.
  13. Criminal Procedure Act. (1986) (NSW) s. 306S (Austl.).Google Scholar
  14. Cross, T. P., Whitcomb, D., & De Vos, E. (1995). Criminal justice outcomes of prosecution of child sexual abuse: A case flow analysis. Child Abuse and Neglect, 19, 1431–1442. doi:10.1016/0145-2134(95)00106-2.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Darwinkel, E., Powell, M., & Tidmarsh, P. (in press). Prosecutors’ perceptions of the utility of ‘relationship’ evidence in sexual abuse trials. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology.Google Scholar
  16. Davies, G. (1999). The impact of television on the presentation and reception of children’s testimony. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 22, 241–256.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Davies, G., Wilson, C., Mitchell, R., & Milsom, J. (1995). Videotaping children’s evidence: An evaluation. London: Home Office.Google Scholar
  18. Davis, G., Hoyano, L., Keenan, C., Maitland, L., & Morgan, R. (1999). An assessment of the admissibility and sufficiency of evidence in child abuse prosecutions. Bristol: Home Office.Google Scholar
  19. Dent, H. R., & Stephenson, G. M. (1979). An experimental study of the effectiveness of different techniques of questioning child witnesses. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 18, 41–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Frazier, P., & Haney, B. (1996). Sexual assault cases in the legal system: Police, prosecutor, and victim perspectives. Law & Human Behavior, 20, 607–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Guadagno, B. L., & Hughes-Scholes, P. M. (in press). What themes trigger investigative interviewers to ask specific questions when interviewing children? International Journal of Police Science and Management.Google Scholar
  22. Guadagno, B. L., Powell, M. B., & Wright, R. (2006). Police officers’ and legal professionals’ perceptions regarding how children are, and should be, questioned about repeated abuse. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 13, 251–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hanna, H., Davies, E., Henderson, E., Crothers, C., & Rotherham, C. (2010). Child witnesses in the New Zealand criminal courts: A review of practice and implications for policy [online]. The Law Foundation: New Zealand. Accessed 2 Oct 2012.
  24. Home Office and Department of Health. (1992). The memorandum of good practice on video recorded interviews with child witnesses for criminal proceedings. London, HMSO.Google Scholar
  25. Klettke, B., Graesser, A. C., & Powell, M. B. (2010). Expert testimony in child sexual abuse cases: The effects of evidence, coherence and credentials on juror decision making. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 24, 481–494. doi:10.1002/acp.1565.Google Scholar
  26. Lamb, M. E., Sternberg, K. J., & Esplin, P. W. (2000). Effects of age and delay on the amount of information provided by alleged sex abuse victims in investigative interviews. Child Development, 71, 1586–1596.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. McConachy, D. (2002). Evaluation of the Electronic Recording of Children’s Evidence: Final Report. Accessed 10 Nov 2012.
  28. Mckenzie, D. (1993). Interviewing Children and Recording Evidence (ICARE) Pilot Program: Evaluation report to the ICARE Working Party. Policy & Programs Branch, NSW Police Service.Google Scholar
  29. McLean, R., & Goodman-Delahunty, J. (2008). The influence of relationship and physical evidence on police decision-making in sexual assault cases. Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences, 40, 109–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ministry of Justice. (2011). Achieving Best Evidence in Criminal Proceedings: Guidance on Interviewing Victims and Witnesses, and Guidance on Using Special Measures. London: Criminal Justice System.Google Scholar
  31. Office of Director of Public Prosecutions (ACT) and Australian Federal Police. (2005). Responding to sexual assault: The challenge of change. Canberra: Authors.Google Scholar
  32. Orbach, Y., & Lamb, M. E. (2007). Young children’s references to temporal attributes of allegedly experienced events in the course of forensic interviews. Child Development, 78, 1100–1120. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01055.x.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Powell, M. (2008). Guide to designing effective training programs in the area of investigative interviewing of children. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 20, 189–208.Google Scholar
  34. Powell, M. (2012, May). Improving the quality of child investigative interviews about sexual abuse. Paper presented at the ‘Truth, testimony, relevance: Improving the quality of evidence in sexual offence cases’ (National symposium supported by Australian Institute of Criminology, Australian Institute of Family Studies and Victoria Police), Melbourne.Google Scholar
  35. Powell, M., & Snow, P. C. (2007). Guide to questioning children during the free-narrative phase of an investigative interview. Australian Psychologist, 42, 57–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Powell, M., & Wright, R. (2009). Professionals’ perceptions of electronically recorded interviews with vulnerable witnesses. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 21, 205–218.Google Scholar
  37. Powell, M., Fisher, R. P., & Wright, R. (2005). Investigative interviewing. In N. Brewer & K. Williams (Eds.), Psychology and law: An empirical perspective (pp. 11–42). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  38. Powell, M., Garry, M., & Brewer, N. D. (2009). Eyewitness testimony. In I. Freckelton & H. Selby (Eds.), Expert Evidence (pp. 1–42). Sydney: Thompson Reuters.Google Scholar
  39. Powell, M., Wright, R., & Hughes-Scholes, C. H. (2011). Contrasting the perceptions of child testimony experts, prosecutors and police officers regarding individual child abuse interviews. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 18, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Price-Robertson, R., Bromfield, L., & Vassallo, S., (2010). Resource sheet: The prevalence of child abuse and neglect [online]. National Child Protection Clearinghouse, Australian Institute of Family Studies. Accessed 14 Oct 2011.
  41. Richards, P., Morris, S., Richards, E., & Siddall, K. (2007). On the record: Evaluating the visual recording of joint investigative interviews with children [online]. Scottish Executive Social Research, Edinburgh. Accessed 12 Nov 2012.
  42. Sternberg, K. J., Lamb, M. E., Hershkowitz, I., Esplin, P., Redlich, A., & Sunshine, N. (1996). The relation between investigative utterance types and the informativeness of child witnesses. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 17, 439–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Suarez, E., & Gadalla, T. M. (2010). Stop blaming the victim: A meta-analysis on rape myths. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25, 2010–2035. doi:10.1177/0886260509354503.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Success Works (2011). Sexual assault reform strategy: Final evaluation report. Melbourne: Department of Justice (VIC).Google Scholar
  45. S v. R. (1989). 266 CLR 168.Google Scholar
  46. Taylor, N., & Joudo, J. (2005). The impact of pre-recorded video and closed circuit television testimony by adult sexual assault complainants on jury decision-making: An experimental study. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology. Accessed 10 Nov 2012.
  47. Ullman, S. E. (2010). Talking about sexual assault: Society’s response to survivors. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Washington Association of Prosecuting Attorneys. (2005). DVD recording the forensic child abuse victim interview: Washington state’s pilot project 2003–2005 [online]. Accessed 18 Jan 2013.
  49. World Health Organisation. (1999). WHO recognises child abuse as a major public health problem [online]. Accessed 10 Dec 2011.
  50. Wright, R., & Powell, M. B. (2006). Investigative interviewers’ perceptions of their difficulty in adhering to open-ended questions with child witnesses. International Journal of Police Science and Management, 8, 316–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act. (1999). (UK) s. 27.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Deakin UniversityMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations