Part III Investigative interviewing | Section III Setting up the interview There may be things that can be done to promote confidentiality, such as setting up channels of communication that are less likely to be compromised or choosing an appropriately private location for a face-to-face interview. However, it is unlikely that complete control can be maintained over the entire process. The fact that the interview is taking place may also be difficult or impossible to conceal, such as when interviewing people in detention. 4. REQUESTS TO HAVE SOMEONE PRESENT AT THE INTERVIEW A potential interviewee may ask – or demand – that someone else be present at the interview, such as a lawyer or family member. The investigator should use common sense as to whether or not this request is met. The key consideration is whether or not it will have a negative impact on the integrity of the investigation. Some questions to consider in such cases are: • Is the person being coerced to have that person present? • Is there a clear and genuine need for a support person? • Is the person also likely to be a witness in the investigation? • Does a lawyer represent other people involved in the investigation or just this witness? • Will the presence of that person potentially have a “chilling” effect on what the witness might say? • Does the person have a statutory or other right to have someone present? In many circumstances, having a support person present is a very reasonable request, particularly with vulnerable witnesses. However, it can pose difficulties if the only support person available is also a witness or someone whom the interviewer would rather not have present. A judgment call may have to be made as to whether or not to allow that person to be present. If another person is allowed to attend the interview, it should be made clear that the person is there to support the interviewee and not to interject or give evidence on behalf of the witness. If a lawyer is allowed to attend, it should be made clear to everyone that: • the lawyer should represent that witness only • the lawyer should not interrupt during the course of the interview. • the investigator decides what is and what is not relevant, not the lawyer. THE MULRUNJI CASE ATTENDANCE OF THE POLICE UNION LAWYER IN ALL INTERVIEWS The Coroner commented on the fact that all the involved officers, including S/Sgt. Hurley, were represented by the same police union lawyer. He noted this was wrong and that: … [f]rom the point of view of the administration of justice, Hurley and the other police officers should have been represented separately to ensure ... that the integrity of independent versions of members directly involved and members who are witnesses to a police-related incident is preserved as far as practical. The result [of co-representation] is that the public is left with the perception that the effectiveness of the investigation of such a serious matter was fundamentally flawed. Chapter 12: Setting up the interview | 75