Part III Investigative interviewing | Section II Initial preparation THE MULRUNJI CASE ABSENCE OF A CULTURAL SUPPORT PERSON FOR INITIAL INTERVIEWS The submission by the Australian Human Rights Commission to the Coroner in the Mulrunji case noted the importance of cultural issues in conducting a fair and thorough investigation: Difficulties in cross cultural communication between police and Aboriginal witnesses may have impaired the effectiveness of the investigation of this matter by police. Significant attention should be given by the Police Commissioner to the training of officers, particularly those who are working in or near large Indigenous communities such as Palm Island in relation to communication with Indigenous people and the use of support persons and interpreters. This is a matter that is fundamental to the effective and fair administration of justice in Queensland.36 3. OTHER FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT36 Gender In considering who should conduct an interview, assess whether the gender of the investigator is an issue, either for the witness or the cultural environment in which the interview is taking place. Chapter 31 discusses this more fully. Literacy Literacy is another issue that the investigator must consider. It should never be assumed that the witness can read or write. It can be embarrassing for everyone involved if that assumption is made and the witness is then unable to review and sign a statement that has been prepared for them. This is a delicate area. If it is suspected that literacy may be an issue, attempt to address it ahead of time. Experience shows that the best solution is to avoid written statements altogether and digitally voice record interviews, as discussed in Chapter 18. Intimidated witnesses The likelihood of witnesses feeling intimidated should be carefully assessed. Anyone in detention, in a war zone or in the custody of or under the influence of someone who has authority of some kind over them is likely to feel intimated. The person will, quite reasonably, be reluctant to provide evidence. They may choose not to talk at all, fail to provide a full and complete account or skew the evidence so that it is not accurate. Witnesses may say something that they think you want to hear, as opposed to what they really know. In those situations all that an investigator can realistically do is to emphasize, as often as possible, that all that they are interested in is the truth. That may not work of course. The investigator’s presence is not necessarily permanent. The person who may be the subject of retaliation, however, probably has no choice but to stay. They may quite reasonably feel that the personal risks and the risks to their family from telling the truth far outweigh any benefits. Investigators should not forget that witnesses may also feel intimidated by them. Those tasked with conducting interviews should make sure that they clearly explain who they are and the purpose of their investigation. This ensures that witnesses who may feel threatened can make an informed decision as to whether or not they will cooperate. Be empathetic. Explain how the interview will be conducted and how the information will be used. 36 See Recommendation C39; www.humanrights.gov.au/commission-submissions-mulrunji-1. Chapter 10: Special factors regarding witnesses | 63