![]() You may be taking the statement for the defence of one of the males inside the vehicle who was subsequently arrested. More chance of accurate recall = better evidence. Why is it important? The longer something is observed, the more chance of accurate recall. Question: how long would you say you observed the car for? ADVOKATE raises questions to ask a witness and provokes critical consideration of the ‘facts’. Rather, it should focus your mind on key information that will go directly to the statement’s evidentiary value. It is kind of a tick list, something to go through when taking a statement from a witness, but it is not intended to be exhaustive. Errors between first description and actual appearanceĪlthough a long, long time ago, I believe ADVOKATE remains useful today.Time lapse between first and subsequent description (if applicable).When I joined the police, (a long, long time ago), I was taught an acronym ADVOKATE. The objective here, is to identify the people in the vehicle and ascertain whether or not they may be connected with the offence. There are some important pieces of information that you need to explore further. The above information is a start, but you don't thank the witness at this point and start writing it up. Turn it into a statement that’s not completely shit. (Provided).Ĭar drives south and witness sees police vehicle approaching from opposite direction.Ĥ. Witness notices two males inside the vehicle. ![]() Walking down Smith Street in a northerly direction, alone.Ĭar pulls out of side street on other side of road, turns right (south). For example, the witness has recalled his version of events, and you have made the following notes which you are now arranging into order. ![]() Tell them you’re going to make a chronological list of the events as they recall them happening and check the information as you go. Thank the witness for all of the information. Don’t interrupt, it will inhibit free recall and may cause the witness to forget to say something. Start by asking the witness to describe what happened in their own words. where were you coming from/where were you going/why?) Create an open mind. What is your objective? Think about the offence, what is the statutory definition? What are the points to prove? How can the witness help you do this? List any particular question you don't want to forget to ask (e.g. Asking the right questions will inform you and result in thorough (and hopefully successful) investigations. Whether you’re prosecuting, defending or objectively investigating (as police officers should do) bear this in mind. He or she can be interviewed from either side. You have identified a potential witness who was walking near to the scene of the rape at approximately the same time.Ĥ. The victim has provided a detailed description of one of the suspects and is adamant she could identify him if she sees him again. There has been a rape of a woman during the evening of Tuesday, 6 September 2016 at approximately 19:00 hours. However, I think it’s useful to have a go-to simplified list as a memory jogger or to provide hints and tips to those less experienced. So, you probably already know most of the following I apologise if I’m teaching you to suck eggs. If you’re reading this article, you may be a lawyer or a police officer or an investigator of some description. So please bear in mind, that a ‘fact’, for witness statement purposes, is not a ‘fact’ in the natural meaning of the word it’s actually something that has yet to be proven. To ‘allege’ is to declare something to be true or assert something to be a matter of fact, for example “… a party’s formal statement of a factual matter as being true or provable, without its having yet been proved…” A ‘fact’ is defined (in a legal context) as “… an actual or alleged event or circumstance, as distinguished from its legal effect, consequence, or interpretation…” Īlleged event. I play it a bit wild and lose with that word. Ok, so how to write a witness statement that’s not completely shit.Ĭaveat, I may talk about ‘facts’. If you get nothing else out of this article, I want you to watch that TED Talk. I implore you to watch this 2012 TED Talk by Scott Fraser, a forensic psychologist who interrogates the fallibility of human memory and encourages a more scientific approach to trial evidence. This is because the inherent problem of witness statements is that their evidential value is the sum of how well you are able to record the witness’ recollection of events plus the accuracy of the witness’ recollection of events.Įye witness testimony is almost always inaccurate. ![]() The best you can hope for is one that is not completely shit. You will never be able to write a perfect witness statement.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |