Part III Investigative interviewing | Section III Setting up the interview Care needs to be taken that an interview does not take too long. For example, if an interview lasts more than three hours or so, everyone – including the investigators – will begin to get tired, particularly if it is not the only interview of the day. It can be easy to lose focus if an interview takes too long. It is important to take breaks. If the interview goes over to the following day, so be it. For example, in one case, an interview with the head of a government organization that was being investigated for significant systemic issues took three days in total, with five hours of actual interview each day. In a second case, a tape-recorded interview of a police officer who had shot a fleeing unarmed suspect took four hours, with two 15-minute breaks. The length of an interview is one indicator of its thoroughness. A short interview may indicate it was cursory and that important issues were not explored in sufficient depth. That may indicate bias, incompetence, a deliberate cover-up, a failure to identify key points or a combination of all of the above. Of course, there may be a perfectly reasonable explanation, but it is usually worth inquiring why an interview was relatively brief. THE MULRUNJI CASE LENGTH OF INTERVIEWS The interviews done by the QPS investigators immediately after Mulrunji’s death were, on the face of it, quite short, given the seriousness of what happened and the amount of ground to be covered. S/Sgt. Hurley’s first interview lasted 32 minutes, his second – a re-enactment – took 14 minutes and the third lasted 12 minutes, according to the CMC. Sgt Leafe’s interview was 22 minutes long and Roy Bramwell’s took ten minutes. By comparison, an interview with an officer involved in a fatal police shooting in Canada took nearly four hours. The transcript of that interview was 18,000 words long. 8. THE USE OF VIDEO RECORDINGS AND NOTES DURING INTERVIEWS Video is playing an increasingly important role in investigations, particularly investigations related to specific events. Many people have smartphones that can record video. CCTV is becoming more widespread. There is even “trophy video”, made by those responsible for an atrocity. The question often arises as to whether a witness should be allowed to watch a video of an incident prior to being interviewed. Generally, the answer is no. It is usually bad investigative practice. There is a danger – real or perceived – that a witness may consciously or subconsciously amend their evidence based on what is shown on the video and not what they actually recollect. An investigator may wish to show the witness the video after an initial statement has been taken, particularly if there are discrepancies between what the witness has said and what is shown on the video. Give the witness an opportunity to explain any such discrepancy. Similarly, there should usually be no problem with a witness referring to notes they made at the time of or immediately after an event, to refresh their memory, provided that the provenance of those notes is satisfactory. Chapter 13: Organizing the interview | 81