Undertaking Effective Investigations A Guide for National Human Rights Institutions 3. SEGREGATING WITNESSES Witnesses should be segregated as soon as possible after an event, in order to preserve the integrity of their evidence. Segregation minimizes the possibility of collusion and other tainting of evidence, inadvertently or otherwise. In many cases, however, this will be impractical. If the investigation is taking place well after an event has happened, it will likely be impossible. There could be numerous reasons for this, including the number of potential witnesses, available resources, time constraints, lack of cooperation and other practical considerations, such as the time necessary for investigators to physically reach the witnesses. Options that investigators can consider in these circumstances, if feasible, include: • asking everyone to independently write down what they saw and heard in as much detail as possible and as soon as possible • obtaining the contact details of potential witnesses and arranging interviews at a later date. A standard question at many interviews is to ask what information the witness has received from other sources, especially if there was no witness segregation. Witnesses should also be instructed not to discuss anything about the incident with anyone else until the investigation is completed. Even if it is done in good faith, talking about what happened with someone else may leave the witness open to allegations of collusion and possibly improperly modifying their account. THE MULRUNJI CASE FAILURE TO SEGREGATE WITNESSES The Queensland Police Service Operational Procedures Manual provides that: Members directly involved in the incident or who are witnesses to the incident should not discuss the incident amongst themselves prior to being interviewed. In the Mulrunji case, the involved officers later stated that they were unaware of this provision. There were three officers and PLO Benjaroo at the police station when the incident happened. They did not segregate themselves pending the arrival of investigators, nor were they ordered to do so. They did not record any conversation they may have had. They did, however, discuss what had happened. The Coroner found this inappropriate, however the QPS defended the officers on the grounds that they had to wait for the QPS investigation team to arrive. They may have watched the cell video prior to the QPS investigation team arriving. The Coroner also found that S/Sgt. Hurley had been told what a civilian witness, Roy Bramwell, had said after S/Sgt. Hurley had given his first statement. S/Sgt. Hurley then amended his account of what happened when he gave a second statement, apparently to address what Mr Bramwell had said. A similar thing happened with another officer. The Coroner described this as “orchestrated”. 68