Forensic Psychology

by Graham M Davies

  Davies, G. M., & Robertson, N. (2014). The older eyewitness in court: An international perspective. In M. P. Toglia, D. F. Ross, J. Pozzulo , & E. Pica (Eds.), The elderly eyewitness in court (pp. 336–362). New York: Psychology Press.

  Davies, G. M., & Westcott, H. L. (2006). Preventing withdrawal of complaints and psychological support for victims. In M. R. Kebbell , & G. M. Davies (Eds.), Practical psychology for forensic investigations and prosecutions. Chichester: Wiley.

  Davies, G. M., Wilson, C., Mitchell, R., & Milsom, J. (1995). Videotaping children’s evidence: An evaluation. London: Home Office.

  Department of Justice. (2015). Northern Ireland registered intermediaries schemes pilot project: Post- project review. Retrieved from http://www.dojni.gov.uk/index/publications/publication- categories/pubs-criminal-justice/ri-post-project-reviewfeb15.pdf

  Ellison, L. (2007). Witness preparation and the prosecution of rape. Legal Studies. 27, 171–187.

  Ellison, L., & Munro, V. E. (2014). A “special” delivery? Exploring the impact of screens, live-links and video-recorded evidence on mock juror deliberation in rape trials. Social and Legal Studies, 23, 3–29.

  Esam, B. (2002). Young witnesses: Still no justice. In H. L. Westcott, G. M. Davies , & R. H. C. Bull (Eds.), Children’s testimony: A handbook of psychological research and forensic practice (309–324). Chichester: Wiley.

  Flin, R. H., Boon, J. C. W., Knox, A., & Bull, R. H. C. (1992). The effect of a five-month delay on children’s and adults’ eyewitness memory. British Journal of Psychology, 83, 323–336.

  Flin, R. H., Stevenson, Y., & Davies, G. M. (1989). Children’s knowledge of legal proceedings. British Journal of Psychology, 80, 285–297.

  Gentleman, A. (2013, April 13). Prosecuting sexual assault: “Raped all over again”. The Guardian. Retrieved from: http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/apr/13/rape-sexual- assault-frances-andrade-court

  Goodman, G. S., Taub, E. P., Jones, D. P. H., England, P., Port, L. K., & Rudy, L. (1992). Testifying in criminal court: Emotional effects on child sexual assault victims. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 57 (Serial no. 229).

  Goodman, G. S., & Melinder, A. (2007). Child witness research and forensic interviews of young children: A review. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 12, 1–19.

  Gray, D., & Watt, P. (2013). Giving victims a voice: Joint report made into sexual allegations against Jimmy Savile. Retrieved from http://www.nspcc.org.uk/globalassets/documents/research-reports/yewtree-report-giving-victims-voice-jimmy-savile.pdf

  Green, G. (2001), Vulnerability of witnesses with learning disabilities: Preparing to give evidence against a perpetrator of sexual abuse. British Journal of Learning Disabilities. 29, 103–109.

  Hall, M. (2012). Victims of crime. Abingdon: Routledge.

  Hall, S. R., & Sales, B. D. (2008). Courtroom modifications for child witnesses. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

  Hamlyn, B., Phelps, A., Turtle, J., & Sattar, G. (2004). Are special measures working? Evidence from surveys of vulnerable and intimidated witnesses. London: Home Office. Retrieved from http://www.popcenter.org/problems/witness_intimidation/PDFs/Hamlyn_etal_2004.pdf

  Hanna, K., Davies, E., Crothers , C , & Henderson, E. (2012). Questioning child witnesses in New Zealand’s criminal justice system: Is cross-examination fair? Psychiatry, Psychology & Law, 19, 530–546.

  Henderson, E. (2002). Persuading and controlling: The theory of cross-examination in relation to children. In H. L. Westcott, G. M. Davies , & R. H. C. Bull (Eds.), Children’s testimony: A handbook of psychological research and forensic practice (pp. 279–294). Chichester: Wiley.

  Henderson, E. (2012). Alternative routes: Accusatorial jurisdictions on the slow road to best evidence. In J. R. Spencer and M. E. Lamb (Eds.), Children and cross-examination: Time to change the rules? (pp. 43–74). Oxford: Hart Publishing.

  Hester, M. (2013). From report to court: Rape and the criminal justice system in the North East. Bristol: University of Bristol. Retrieved from http://research-information.bristol.ac.uk/files/9852501/From_Report_to_Court.pdf

  Home Office. (1992). The memorandum of good practice on video recorded interviews with child witnesses for criminal proceedings. London: Home Office.

  Home Office. (1998). Speaking up for justice: Report of the interdepartmental working group on the treatment of vulnerable and intimidated witnesses in the criminal justice system. London: Home Office.

  Home Office. (2002). Achieving best evidence in in criminal proceedings: Guidance for vulnerable or intimidated witnesses, including children. London: Home Office.

  Hunter, G., & Kirby , A (2013). Out of the shadows: Victims’ and witnesses’ experiences of attending the Crown Court. London: Victim Support & Birkbeck, University of London.

  Judicial College. (2013). The equal treatment bench book. London: The Judicial College. Retrieved from https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/JCO/Documents/judicial-college/ETBB_all_chapters_final.pdf

  Kebbell, M. R., Deprez, S., & Wagstaff, G. F. (2003). The direct and cross-examination of complaints and defendants in rape trials: A quantitative analysis of question type. Psychology, Crime and Law, 9, 49–59.

  Kelly, L., Lovett, J., & Regan, L. (2005). A gap or a chasm? Attrition in reported rape cases. London: Home Office. Retrieved from http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110218135832/rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs05/hors293.pdf

  Landstrom, S. (2008). CCTV, live and videotapes: How presentation mode affects the evaluation of witnesses. Gothenburg, Sweden: University of Gothenburg.

  Laville, S. (2013, September 30). Witnesses tell of feeling abandoned and uninformed in criminal court cases. The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/law/2013/sep/30/witnesses-abandoned-court-cases

  McClenaghan, M. (2013). Justice delayed: Administrative problems delay serious trials. Report from the Bureau of Investigative Journalism. Retrieved from https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2013-07-31/justice-delayed-administrative-problems-delay-serious-trials

  McClenaghan, M., & Wright, O. (2014). Witness care units hit by cuts: CPS numbers drop by 57%. Report from the Bureau of Investigative Journalism. Retrieved from https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2014-02-24/witness-care-units-hit-by-cuts-cps-numbers-drop-by-57

  Ministry of Justice (2011). Achieving best evidence in criminal proceedings. Guidance on interviewing victims and witnesses, and guidance on using special measures. London: Ministry of Justice. Retrieved from https://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/docs/best_evidence_in_criminal_proceedings.pdf

  Ministry of Justice. (2013a). Court statistics quarterly: April to June 2013. London, UK: Ministry of Justice. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/245095/court-stats-april-june-2013.pdf

  Ministry of Justice. (2013b). Code of practice for victims of crime. Retrieved from https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/assets/uploads/files/OD_000049.pdf

  Ministry of Justice. (2013c). The Witness Charter: Standards of care for witnesses in the criminal justice system. Retrieved from https://www.cps.gov.uk/victims_witnesses/witness_charter.pdf

  Ministry of Justice. (2014). Report on review of ways to reduce distress of victims in trials of sexual violence. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/299341/report-on-review-of-ways-to-reduce-distress-of-victims-in-trials-of- sexual-violence.pdf

  Murray, K. (1995). Live television link: An evaluation of its use by child witnesses in Scottish criminal trials. Edinburgh: HMSO.

  Nathanson, R., & Saywitz, K. J., (2015). Preparing children for court: Effects of a model court education program on children’s anticipatory anxiety. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 33, 459–475.

  NSPCC/ChildLine (1998). The young witness pack. London: NSPCC.

  Office for Criminal Justice Reform. (2009). Young witness support: It’s in your hands. London: Office for Criminal Justice Reform.

  Office for Crimi
nal Justice Reform. (2007). Achieving best evidence in in criminal proceedings: Guidance on interviewing victims and witnesses, and using special measures. London: Office for Criminal Justice Reform.

  Oxburgh, G. E., Myklebust, T., Grant, T., & Milne, R. (Eds.). (2015). Communication in investigative and legal settings: Integrated approaches from forensic psychology, linguistics and law enforcement. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

  Pigot, T. (1989). Report of the advisory group on video evidence. London: Home Office.

  Pidd, H., & Ibbotson, P. (2013, February 8). Sexual abuse victim killed herself after giving evidence at choirmaster trial. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/feb/08/sexual-misconduct-teacher-chetham-school-music

  Plotnikoff, J., & Woolfson, R. (2004). In their own words: The experiences of 50 young witnesses in criminal proceedings. London: NSPCC.

  Plotnikoff, J. and Woolfson, R. (2007a). Evaluation of young witness support: Examining the impact on witnesses and the criminal justice system. London: Home Office. Retrieved from http://lexiconlimited.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Young_Witness_Study_Report.pdf

  Plotnikoff, J. and Woolfson, R. (2007b). The “go between”: Evaluation of intermediary pathfinder projects. London: Home Office. Retrieved from: http://lexiconlimited.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Intermediaries_study_report.pdf

  Plotnikoff, J., & Woolfson, R. (2009). Measuring up? Evaluating implementation of Government commitments to young witnesses in criminal proceedings. London: NSPCC.

  Plotnikoff, J., & Woolfson, R. (2011). Young witnesses in criminal proceedings. A progress report on “Measuring up?”. London: The Nuffield Foundation.

  Plotnikoff, J., & Woolfson, R. (2012). “Kicking and screaming” – The slow road to best evidence. In J. R. Spencer & M. E. Lamb (Eds.), Children and cross-examination: Time to change the rules? (pp. 21–42). Oxford: Hart Publishing.

  Plotnikoff, J., & Woolfson, R. (2013). Registered intermediaries in action: Messages for the CJS from the witness intermediary scheme SmartSite. London: NSPCC and Ministry of Justice.

  Plotnikoff, J., & Woolfson, R. (2015). Intermediaries in the criminal justice system: Improving communication for vulnerable witnesses and defendants. Bristol: Policy Press.

  Powell, M., Wilson, C., & Croft, C. (2000). The effect of uniform and prior knowledge on children’s event reports and disclosure. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 15, 27–40.

  Principe, G., Greenhoot, A. F., & Ceci, S. J. (2014). Young children’s eyewitness memory. In D. S. Lindsay and T. Perfect (Eds.), Sage Handbook on Applied Memory (pp. 633–653). NY: Sage.

  Quas, J., & Fivush, R. (2009). Emotion in memory and development: Biological, cognitive, and social considerations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  Quas, J. A., & Goodman, G. S. (2011). Consequences of criminal court involvement for child victims. Psychology, Public Policy, & Law, 18, 392–414.

  R v Watts (2010). [2010] EWCA Crim 1824

  Ridley, A. M., Gabbert, F., & La Rooy, D. J. (2013). Suggestibility in legal contexts: Psychological research and forensic implications. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

  Rossetti, P. (2015). Waiting for justice: How victims of crime are waiting longer than ever for criminal trials. London: Victim Support. Retrieved from https://www.victimsupport.org.uk/sites/default/files/Victim%20Support%20Waiting%20for%20Justice%20report.pdf

  Sanders, A. Creaton, J., Bird, S., & Weber, L. (1997). Victims with learning disabilities: Negotiating the criminal justice system. Oxford: University of Oxford Centre for Criminological Research.

  Spencer, J. R. (2012). Introduction. In J. R. Spencer & M. E. Lamb (Eds.), Children and cross- examination: Time to change the rules? (pp. 1–20). Oxford: Hart Publishing.

  Spencer, J. R., & Flin, R. H. (1993). The evidence of children: The law and the psychology (2nd ed.). London: Blackstone Press.

  Spencer, J. R., & Lamb, M. E. (2012). Children and cross-examination: Time to change the rules? Oxford: Hart Publishing.

  Stanko, B., & Williams, E. (2009). Reviewing rape and rape allegations in London: What are the vulnerabilities of the victims who report to the police? In M. A. H. Horvath & J. Brown (Eds.), Rape: Challenging contemporary thinking (pp. 207–225). Cullompton, UK: Willan Publishing.

  Stern, V. (2010). The Stern review: A report by Baroness Stern CBE of an independent review into how rape complaints are handled by public authorities in England and Wales. London: Home Office.

  Tickle, L. (2013, May 19). Lawyers’ treatment of gang grooming victims prompts call for reform. The Observer. Retrieved from: http://www.theguardian.com/law/2013/may/19/lawyers- oxford-abuse-ring

  Wade, A. (2002). New measures and new challenges: Children’s experiences of the court process. In H. L. Westcott, G. M. Davies , & R. H. C. Bull (Eds.), Children’s testimony: A handbook of psychological research and forensic practice (pp. 219–232). Chichester: Wiley.

  Wade, A., & Westcott, H. L. (1997). No easy answers: Children’s perspectives on investigative interviews. In H. L. Westcott , & J. Jones (Eds.), Perspectives on the memorandum: Policy, practice and research in investigative interviewing (pp. 51–66). Aldershot: Arena.

  Walker, A. G. (1994). Handbook on questioning children: A linguistic perspective. Washington DC: ABA Center on Children and the Law.

  Daily Mail (2007, December 4). Wigs to stay for barristers as civil court judges abandon the horsehair headgear. Retrieved from: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-499552/Wigs-stay-barristers-civil-court-judges-abandon-horsehair-headgear.html#ixzz3nK0sCQXa

  Zajac, R., & Hayne, H. (2003). The effect of cross-examination on the accuracy of children’s reports. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 9, 187–195.

  Zajac, R., & Hayne, H. (2006). The negative effect of cross-examination style questioning on children’s accuracy: Older children are not immune. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 3–16.

  NOTES

  1 We gratefully acknowledge the helpful comments of Dame Joyce Plotnikoff on an earlier draft of this chapter.

  2 See, for example: Goodman & Melinder (2007); Principe, Greenhoot, & Ceci (2014); Quas & Fivush (2009).

  3 See, for example: Walker (1994); Brennan & Brennan (1988); Oxburgh, Mykelbust, Grant, & Milne (2015).

  4 See, for example: Ceci & Bruck (1995); Ridley, Gabbert, & La Rooy (2013); Sanders, Creaton, Bird, & Weber (1997).

  5 Available to view at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUOc0Sa1WMM

  6 Accessed at http://www.theadvocatesgateway.org/toolkits

  15 Identifying Perpetrators

  TIM VALENTINE

  CHAPTER OUTLINE

  15.1 INTRODUCTION

  15.2 THE PROBLEM OF MISTAKEN IDENTIFICATION

  15.3 EYEWITNESS IDENTIFICATION AND HUMAN MEMORY

  15.4 DESIGN REQUIREMENTS OF IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURES

  15.5 ESTIMATOR VARIABLES 15.5.1 The Turnbull Guidelines

  15.5.2 Laboratory Studies of Estimator Variables

  15.5.3 Archival Studies of Estimator Variables

  15.6 SYSTEM VARIABLES 15.6.1 Presentation Mode

  15.6.2 Fairness of Video Identification

  15.6.3 Instructions Given to Witnesses

  15.6.4 Blind Administration of Lineups

  15.6.5 Repeated Identification Procedures

  15.6.6 Selection of Foils

  15.6.7 Relative and Absolute Judgements: Sequential and Simultaneous Presentation

  15.7 MALLEABILITY OF WITNESS CONFIDENCE

  15.8 OFFICIAL GUIDANCE

  15.9 IDENTIFICATION FROM CCTV

  15.10 CONCLUSIONS

  15.11 SUMMARY

  LEARNING OUTCOMES

  BY THE END OF THIS CHAPTER, YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO:

  Understand why a psychological analysis of the effect of estimator and system variables on eyewitness identification is important in a criminal investigation

  Appreciate the strengths and weaknesses of laboratory and archival studies of eyewitness identification

  Understand th
e limitations and appropriate use of CCTV for identification of offenders in a criminal investigation.

  15.1 INTRODUCTION

  This chapter examines the psychology of memory, and explores reasons for the fallibility of eyewitness identification. Evidence is drawn from both laboratory experiments and analysis of identifications made by real witnesses or victims of crime. Methods used to obtain identification evidence are outlined, and factors that affect eyewitness memory reviewed. The influence of identification procedures on the reliability of eyewitness identification is evaluated. The instructions given to witnesses, the selection of people in a lineup, and the effect of previous identification attempts are considered. How procedures may affect the confidence of an eyewitness is also discussed. Official guidance on identification procedures is critically evaluated in the light of the research literature. The widespread availability of CCTV provides an appealing opportunity to avoid the frailty of human memory, and use video imagery to identify a perpetrator. Psychological science shows that identifying unfamiliar people from CCTV-type images can be surprisingly error-prone, but can guide good practice in identifying criminals from images.

  15.2 THE PROBLEM OF MISTAKEN IDENTIFICATION

  Identification of a perpetrator is frequently disputed in criminal cases. In the absence of forensic evidence, for example DNA or fingerprints, eyewitness identification evidence is often the central issue in a trial. In the USA 350 people who were wrongly convicted have been exonerated by new DNA evidence. Mistaken eyewitness identification was a factor in 72% of cases. Case histories show that mistaken eyewitnesses are often confident in their identification and more than one eyewitness can make the same mistaken identification (Innocence Project, 2015).

  DNA exonerations from the USA have focussed attention on the reliability of eyewitness identification evidence. The considerable challenge in developing policy is to minimise the possibility of mistaken identification, whilst making it as easy as possible for a reliable witness to identify a guilty suspect. The aim is to enhance the probative value of eyewitness identification evidence. A further challenge is to ensure that eyewitness identification evidence is appropriately interpreted in the courts and the limitations of eyewitness identification evidence are properly recognised.