Part III Investigative interviewing | Section I Who to interview and how to interview them 4. TELEPHONE INTERVIEWS The advantages of telephone interviews include: • they are cheap, convenient and efficient in places where people have access to phones • the interview can be digitally voice recorded • they are ideal for low-level fact-finding. The disadvantages of telephone interviews include: • the identity of the interviewee may be uncertain and therefore an issue • others may be present on the other end of the phone and they may be influencing, assisting or pressuring the interviewee (it is always advisable to inquire who else is present when interviewing a person who is using a speaker phone) • someone else may be listening to the interview • it is impossible to assess body language • audio quality may be an issue • the interviewee may be recording the interview, which may impact the integrity of the investigation should that person share the recording with other parties to the investigation prior to the investigation being concluded. 5. WRITTEN QUESTIONS Sometimes known as “written interrogatories”, this method is technically a form of interviewing. The investigator prepares a list of questions, sends them to the person from whom they want evidence and request a response. The questions may be sent directly to the person or to an intermediary, such as the person’s lawyer or employer. It is not recommended as a form of interview. It has all the disadvantages of a telephone interview, plus several more, including: • the interviewer loses virtually all control of the process • it can impact on the timelines set out in the investigation plan; for example, even if a deadline for a response is set, it may not be met • there is no certainty as to who actually prepares the responses • the level of detail in the responses may not be sufficient • the responses often create further questions, requiring the process to start again and therefore creating delay. Written interrogatories are generally not an effective way of conducting investigative interviews. They result, in many instances, in self-serving answers that provide little use in furthering an investigation. If someone asks for questions in writing, the first response should be to advise the person that it is not the policy of the NHRI to conduct interview using this method. However, there may be times when there is no choice but to provide written questions. For example, there may not be sufficient resources to obtain the evidence any other way. The person concerned may decline to be interviewed other than by written interrogatory and there may be no way of overcoming that. The legal power to compel the witness to be interviewed by some other means may not be available to the NHRI. Alternatively, if the power to summons is available, it may not be sensible to use it every time someone insists on written questions, particularly if a witness is not a key one. Indeed NHRIs should avoid acquiring a reputation for being heavy-handed with the legal powers at their disposal. Chapter 7: Types of interview | 51