‘Yes I understand’: Language Choice, Question Formation and Code-switching in

Interpreter-mediated Police Interviews with Victim-survivors of Domestic Abuse

Rebecca Tipton, PhD

Centre for Translation and Intercultural Studies, University of Manchester

AbstractThis article presents the findings of the analysis of authentic interpreter-mediated police

interviews with victim-survivors of domestic abuse with a focus on question formation and

delivery, language choice and code-switching. It is set against the backdrop of the forces wide

inspection of police response to domestic abuse in England and Wales (HMIC 2014) and

implementation of EU Directive EU/2012/29 establishing minimum standards on the rights,

support and protection of victims. Drawing on conversation analysis and available police

interview guidelines, I show how the voice of the victim-survivor can remain obscured even

when professional language support provisions are in place, and shed light on interpreting

practices that can limit an interviewing officer’s ability to assess risk. I suggest that, while it

may not be appropriate for interpreters to be present for the duration of the pre-interview

planning phase, it offers a dynamic forum for negotiating approaches to challenges in victim-

survivor interviews.

Key words

best language, code-switching, domestic abuse, victim-witness police interviews, interpreting

Introduction

For victim-survivors1 of domestic abuse, contact with the criminal justice system is a daunting

prospect, all the more so if communication is impacted by limited proficiency in the majority

language. Potential lacunae in cultural knowledge about whether domestic abuse is taken

seriously within a particular police system or how victim-survivors are supported in society

1 This term reflects victimologists’ preference for ‘victim’ and feminists’ preference for survivor (Hoyle 2007: 148); I use the term victim-witness when referring to the interview extracts.

more broadly present additional barriers to help seeking. The particular sensitivities involved

in gaining access to authentic interview data in this type of case2 to some extent explain why

much extant research focuses on post-hoc surveys of victim-survivor experience of the

criminal justice system and not on police interviews, whether mono- or multilingual. Yet, the

police interview plays a pivotal role in the victim-survivor’s experience and life outcomes

and, given the paucity of research on multilingual interviewing, it merits attention within and

beyond Translation and Interpreting Studies.

The analysis presented in what follows forms part of a wider project investigating

spoken language access provisions for victim-survivors in statutory and non-statutory

services. The project is qualitative in orientation, drawing on a multi-methods approach that

has led to the creation of a data set that includes perceptual accounts of interpreted victim-

survivor encounters in police and voluntary sector victim support services gathered through

one-to-one interviews, and focus groups, observations at a charity drop-in service and two

joint interpreter-police training events, and video recordings of authentic interpreted victim-

survivor police interviews. Its timeliness is underscored by the implementation of the

European Directive EU/2012/29 establishing minimum standards on the rights, support and

protection of victims of crime in 2015, and the Strategy to end violence against women and

girls 2016-20203. The police-related elements of the project are anchored around several

goals: to improve organisational understanding of the macro level organisation of language

access provisions and how these are experienced by interpreters (see Tipton 2017), and to

examine the interplay between national interview guidelines and interpreter-mediated

interactions, which is the focus here.

2 Suspect interviews are routinely recorded under PACE, but no such requirements apply to victim-witness interviews unless the individual is deemed ‘vulnerable’ or ‘intimidated’. The release of interview materials for research purposes is also subject to different requirements.3 Strategy to end violence against women and girls, progress update (March 2019): https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/783190/VAWG_Progress_Update_Web_Accessible.pdf [Accessed 1 July 2019]

Drawing on conversation analysis and police interview guidelines in England and

Wales, this article examines interpreter mediation in phases of the PEACE4 interview and

analyses features of two interviews that are interactionally and potentially evidentially salient:

question formation and delivery, choice of language, and code-switching. The findings,

though preliminary due to the sample size, have some significance for the handling of victim-

survivor interviews, showing that even when professional language support provisions are in

place the voice of the victim can remain obscured. In what follows, I shed light for the first

time on features of interpreted victim-survivor interviews that are not reflected in available

police guidelines, and on interpreting practices that can limit an interviewing officer’s ability

to assess risk. I argue that pre-interview planning phases are an under-used resource in

relation to interpreted interviews, generally speaking, and provide particular scope for

strategising the management of features specific to victim-survivor interviews.

1. Victim-survivors and Police Services

Academic research has long furnished evidence of the challenges faced by victim-survivors of

domestic abuse in making initial contact with and giving a statement to the police. Many

provide a statement, only to withdraw it shortly afterwards for complex reasons (Hoyle 1998).

Victims with limited proficiency in the majority language and uncertain immigration status

face additional barriers to seeking support that have been well documented in different

national contexts (Bhuyan and Senturia 2005; Bui 2003). Even in cases where contact is made

with the criminal justice system, community alliances have been known to impede the

availability of interpreters in some cases for fear of repercussions or desire to maintain social

harmony (Tipton 2018).

The decision to contact the police is motivated by many different reasons. For

example, Hoyle and Sanders (2000) interviewed 65 women in the Thames Valley area of

England about their experiences, and of those respondents who wanted the perpetrator to be

4 PEACE is a five-phase interview framework: Preparation and Planning, Engage and Explain; Account, Clarification and Challenge, Closure, Evaluation.

arrested, most did not seek any further criminal justice intervention; the desire for

intervention to temporarily resolve the situation or teach the perpetrator a lesson was cited as

the main driver behind the initial contact. These findings echo interpreters’ reported

experiences of police interviews with limited English proficient (LEP) victims in which most

victims thought it was a matter for families only and no further action would be taken by the

police (Tipton 2017). This raises the prospect of the problem of ‘legal consciousness’ -

defined as an individual’s understanding and use of the law (Angermeyer 2015: 17) –

impacting on initial interactions with police services among LEP service users.

Other research examines the reasons why an individual may withdraw a statement or

limit disclosure. For example, some victim-survivors report feeling that their cases were not

taken seriously (Shoham 2000), or that an officer’s demeanour impacted on their willingness

to disclose information (Stephens and Sinden 2000). By contrast, Elliot, Thomas and Ogloff’s

(2012) study in Australia highlights positive perceptions resulting from the efficiency and

professionalism of officers; however, victims also reported feeling alienated if these attributes

were accompanied by a lack of affect. These findings suggest that outcomes can hinge on

perceptions of others that are difficult to predict in interview planning phases and manage

during interaction, especially where an interpreter is involved. Affect may be impacted for

instance if an empathic tone used by the interviewing officer is ‘neutralised’ by an interpreter

seeking to emphasise her impartiality. In other interview events (e.g. in child welfare cases),

the deliberate lack of affect shown by the interviewer to give the interviewee time and space

may be misconstrued as cold, leading to a more empathic approach by the interpreter

believing it will mitigate the situation and lead to a better outcome (Tipton and Furmanek

2016). Both cases highlight the need for inter-professional understanding of the norms

governing specialist interactional events.

The twin concerns of care and protection for victims are therefore entangled in

complex power relations in multilingual interviews. The risk of double marginalisation for

victim-survivors from immigrant backgrounds needs to be stressed, especially since the

operational exigencies of satisfying statutory requirements to provide language access are

more complex than current guidelines suggest. As the examples later show, even where

requirements have been satisfied, interviews may be procedurally and materially impacted by

practices that pass under the interviewing officer’s radar, reflecting the illusion of inclusion

that language provisions can generate if they are not recognised as complex and managed

accordingly. The potential for structural violence within established systems of language

provisions therefore has to be acknowledged. While it is of concern for all interpreter-

mediated interactions, it has particular resonance for LEP victim-survivors and was recently

highlighted following an inspection of all 43 police forces in England and Wales in 2014 by

Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC)5. The inspection focused on:

• the effectiveness of the police approach to domestic violence and abuse, focusing on

the outcomes for victims;

• whether risks to victims of domestic violence and abuse are adequately managed;

• identifying lessons learnt from how the police approach domestic violence and

abuse; and

• making any necessary recommendations in relation to these findings when

considered alongside current practice.

The inspection included focus groups with Limited English Proficient (LEP) victim-survivors

and analysis of each of the 43 constabularies’ use of interpreting and translation in domestic

abuse cases. It found that language access provisions are at best uneven and, at worst, absent

or untimely. However, the analysis did not encompass wider contextual factors, such as the

adequacy of police interview guidelines, or the (lack of) specialist training available to

interpreters. Nor did it elicit interpreter experiences of working on such cases, either in the

planning phase or the actual interview. The research reported on here is designed to show the

potential benefits of a more holistic approach to the analysis of the police response for LEP

victims. It is posited that by investigating available training, guidelines and interview

samples, a more targeted response to improving police response can be accomplished.

5 Since July 2017, Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary, Fire and Rescue Services.

2. Developments in Police Interviewing

2.1 Cognitive Interviewing

Research on witness interviews has been shaped by the focus on recall and eyewitness

testimony in monolingual interaction, leading to the development of various interview

protocols such as the cognitive interview (CI) (Fisher and Geiselman 1992) and, later, the

enhanced cognitive interview (ECI), which combined the emphasis on sequencing and

mnemonics with interpersonal communication skills, and conversation management

(Shepherd 1998). The more scientific and evidence-based approach to interviewing

cooperative witnesses developed as a result of observations in the field of over-reliance on

intuition-led practices and limited training (Fisher, Milne and Bull 2011). This led to

avoidable errors and the elicitation of less information than is potentially available,

particularly due to over-emphasis on closed questions (Fisher 2010).

Fisher, Milne and Bull (2011) provide a thumbnail description of CI, stressing the

importance of rapport creation and management and the active participation of the witness.

The evidence-based approach to CI shows that specific techniques support the witness’s

cognitive processing, which include restating the environmental and psychological context of

the original event and encouraging the witness to search through the memory repeatedly and

from different perspectives. CI has been extensively tested in the lab and the field, and has

been found to support the recall of information more reliably than in so-called standard

interview techniques (Dando et al. 2008). However, as Snook et al. (2012) assert, officers

trained at the most advanced levels can struggle to consistently apply the full range of

techniques.

2.1 Care-oriented Police Interviewing

Holmberg (2004: 155) asserts that ‘[t]he primary purpose of the police interview is to glean

information from the crime victim, although the interview may have healing potential’.

Despite the fact that the therapeutic potential of criminal justice interventions has been

contested (e.g. Arigo 2004), the psychological wellbeing of interviewees has garnered

attention by scholars seeking to develop care-oriented interviewing practices, albeit with a

focus on monolingual interviews.

In a study that explores the consequences of the evidence-driven interview on the

process of eliciting information, Fisher and Geiselman (2010) found that interviewing officers

sometimes dominated and employed practices liable to exacerbate victim concerns, such as

interrupting frequently to ask questions. These findings led to an approach in which victims

are viewed as individuals ‘with emotions and needs’, and given scope to relate their

experiences in the order that makes sense to them (Fisher and Geiselman 2010: 322).

Witness-compatible questioning has been incorporated into cognitive interviews based on a

principle of personalisation and acknowledgement that an individual’s mental representation

of an event is unique. While previous practice tended to focus on a set of pre-designed

questions that were used as a standard check-list (Fisher, Geiselman and Raymond 1987),

witness-compatible questioning is aimed at giving the witness control over the testimony,

allowing a focus on issues most relevant to their mental representation at that particular time

in the interview (Fisher 2010).

2.2 Cross-cultural and Multilingual police interviews

In Interpreting Studies, descriptively oriented studies have started to yield important insight

into what happens in interpreter-mediated police interviews, often drawing attention to the

limited access to training for interpreters in this setting. Theoretical developments have led to

a shift away from interpreters being viewed as uninvolved language conduits who perform

monologically, to agents operating on several axes along which the presentation of self

(which can include interventions to clarify and maintain turn-taking patterns) varies at the

interpreter’s discretion (see Llewellyn-Jones and Lee 2014). This shift presupposes a dialogic

view of language and language use (Wadensjö 1998). The dialogical framework helps to

emphasise that utterances rendered by the interpreter are as much a product of the translation

of propositional meaning and an interpretation of intended meaning, shaped by the knowledge

of prior turns at talk, non-verbal communication and interactional pragmatics.

In one of the few studies on the free-recall phase of the PEACE interview, Böser

(2013) uses an experimental approach involving six interviews (with an experienced police

interviewer and student interpreters) about a car theft. The analysis focuses on the transition

between the opening phases of the interview and the information-gathering phase, a phase

described as important in terms of its influence on participants’ commitment to interacting in

ways that support information retrieval. The data reveal that the transition between phases is

likely to entail the setting of ground rules through directives given to the interviewee by the

police officer, e.g. to ‘try to make [interventions] nice and short’. These actions, Böser

observes, are not conducive to free recall and have been observed in other research, as in the

example ‘I would ask you not to talk too fast, so that we can keep up’ taken from Gallai

(2013: 63).

Studies on interpreter-mediated police interviews – although still relatively few - are

starting to provide insight into the broad range of issues that can have interactional,

procedural and evidential salience, from the handling of culture specific information

(Krouglov 1999), the role of silence (Nakane 2011) to the way in which a witness statement is

taken (Mayfield 2016). Yet, to date the findings appear to have had very limited impact on

interview training and police guidelines. The guidelines accessed as part of this research are a

case in point. The Code of Practice for Victims of Crime (revised 2015), the NPCC (2008)

Guidance on Investigating Domestic Abuse, Achieving Best Evidence (2011), and the NPCC

Practice Advice on European Cross-border Investigations (2012) make no reference to

underpinning academic research on interpreting.

The lack of evidence base is particularly evident in the NPCC Guidance from 2008

which consists of general guidance on likely issues facing victims from different cultural

backgrounds and includes two checklists: one (checklist 12) on conducting the victim

interview and a second (checklist 16) on conducting interviews through interpreters. Analysis

of the guidelines reveals an emphasis on macro level factors (such as administrative matters

relating to the hiring of interpreters) and inattention to specific features of the police interview

itself (see Tipton 2017). Recent developments in Belgium through the CO-Minor-IN/quest

project (Balogh and Salaets 2015) and in the UK through the AVIDICUS (Braun and Taylor

2012) project shows progress is being made in developing an evidence-based approach to

interviews involving interpreters. However, aside from the SOS-VICS project in Spain

(Toledano Buendía and del Pozo Triviño 2015), police interviews with victim-survivors of

domestic abuse are a neglected area in England and Wales.

3. Features for Analysis

Three prominent issues emerged out of the preliminary data analysis, namely approach to

question formation and delivery, choice of language and code-switching. In the section that

follows, I provide brief contextual insight based on a review of extant literature on these

topics to support the presentation of data, findings and discussion in section 4.

3.1 Question Types and the Police Interview

Field research on witness interviewing commonly focuses on question types and their use in

the coding of data. Although crucial to the analytical process, examples are seldom provided

of what form the questions actually took and what issues arose as a consequence; in other

words, sequential analysis of the type used in conversation analysis is not often invoked to

complement the broad brush approach to question categorisation. One exception can be found

in Griffiths (2008) whose field study involving 35 advanced interviewing officers reveals that

the approach to questioning in the scenarios was generally appropriate, even though the full

range of techniques of the enhanced cognitive interview were not consistently employed. An

example is given from the free recall section concerning a paramedic who had arrived at the

scene of a murder, which was followed by a series of questions about his training and

qualifications. Griffiths observes that these questions ‘seemed to be asked as part of

completing the criminal justice statement that would be required as part of the trial process,

rather than a witness-oriented approach to obtain the most reliable account’ (2008: 81). The

findings highlight the procedural impact of particular approaches to questioning, drawing

attention to the tensions between investigative and evidential processes in interviews (see also

Westera, Kebbell and Milne 2011).

In a later study, Griffiths, working with Milne and Cherryman (2011) investigates

witness interviewing from the perspective of question formation using an experimental

approach: advanced interviewers were asked to engage in simulated interviews with witnesses

and suspects, followed by an interview with researchers. The findings reveal a high level of

consistency regarding deliberate and conscious decision-making with regard to the

interviewers’ chosen question strategy in the suspect interviews, but less consistency among

the witness interviewers. The training of the interviewers emphasises the giving of narrative

control to the interviewee; however, what was observed in this study suggested a much more

controlled and directed approach on the part of the interviewer, with the authors observing

that ‘comments made by the participants indicated an excessive degree of control applied to

compliant witnesses’ (p. 261).

Of note in Griffith’s et al.’s (2011) study, however, are the participants’ reflections on

the interview process itself. For example, participants across the sample draw attention to the

complexity of interviewing and the cognitive burden of thinking of the next question while

trying to process incoming information, and relating new information to known information

in the case file. In one case, the interviewer admitted to using too many closed questions as a

result of this cognitive burden. There was a widely reported perception that listening skills

declined over the course of the interview. The extent to which interpreter mediation supports

or exacerbates listening and attention is therefore of potential significance. For example,

although it may be assumed that the fact of the interpreter taking every other turn allows the

officer time to reflect on the next question, in practice turns-at-talk are often highly

fragmented (especially if the interpreter cannot cope with long stretches of information),

leading to additional cognitive effort. Although such questions are beyond the scope of the

analysis presented here (the researcher did not have access to the interviewing officers in both

cases), in one of the interviews the interpreter’s preference for the simultaneous mode of

interpreting has significant implications for question formation and exemplifies the problem

of fragmentation.

3.2 Code-switching in Interpreter-mediated Encounters

There is ample evidence of limited English language proficient individuals using more than

one language in interpreted encounters, even if their proficiency levels in English are very

low. Such language shifts and mixes have been extensively investigated in studies on

bilingualism and, while there is some variability in the use of labels, code-switching is

understood here, following Angermeyer (2015: 143), to denote a speaker’s decision to change

language ‘for the current stretch of talk’, and code-mixing as a speaker’s decision to ‘combine

elements from both languages in a single utterance’.

Angermeyer’s study of interpreter-mediated interaction in a New York small claims

court finds that code switching and mixing is interactionally salient because in some cases it

disrupts the usual interaction order of every second utterance being interpreted (commonly

understood as interpreting in the consecutive mode). Why individuals with limited language

proficiency opt to effectively bypass the interpreter, Angermeyer argues, hinges on a complex

series of decisions, ranging from an individual not wishing to tolerate the level of

fragmentation occasioned by consecutive interpreting, to an ‘act of convergence’ that shows a

desire to accommodate to the language of the court. This serves in some cases as a direct

‘appeal for understanding’ (2015: 152). In Angermeyer’s and others’ research (e.g. Anderson

2012), code-switching and code-mixing is found to occur at crucial points of interaction and

especially during moments of conflict. Mayfield’s (2016) survey, which focuses on practice

in England and Wales, also highlights the frequency of code-switching/code-mixing in

relation specifically to victim-witness police interviews, in an interpreter’s account:

When victims are distressed, they may switch to a different language learned when they

were small, which may not be the language you were called in for. British police

officers accuse the interpreter if the witness is incomprehensible for that reason,

because British police officers do not comprehend the mind of a multicultural,

multilingual persons (sic). (Mayfield 2016: 32).

3.3 Best or Preferred Language

The choice of language in the interpreter-mediated interview emerges as salient in the two

interviews analysed here, albeit for different reasons. In accordance with available guidance

Practice Advice on European Cross-border Investigations (2012) interviewees are asked to

select their ‘best’ or ‘preferred’ language for the police interview:

Asking where a person comes from by encouraging them to point at a map may not

always identify the language they speak. Investigators should use language

identification charts to determine the person’s best or preferred language as skills may

vary across several different languages. (para. 20.1.9, p. 227).

Mayfield’s (2016) study on interpreter-mediated witness statement-taking again suggests that

the choice of best or preferred language for the interview, however, is not always

straightforward:

Some witnesses with different languages, e.g. Somalian (sic), ask for a European

language interpreter, - Dutch if they have lived in the Netherlands - rather than their

native language, to preserve their privacy within their own community, or because

European languages command more respect than African or other languages. This can

cause language problems. (Mayfield 2016: 32).

The level of proficiency in the ‘best’ language can therefore be hugely variable and not

something that interviewing officers necessarily think to factor into the preparatory interview

phase. Both interviews analysed in this study present language issues as the descriptions

below attest; however, the language issue concerns the victim-witness (Interview A) and the

interpreter (Interview B). Interpreters are typically only be recruited for those languages in

which they have been examined at the relevant level, but some lesser spoken languages are

not currently covered within the available examinations.6 Furthermore, in Britain, the

outsourcing of language support services by the Ministry of Justice has come under

considerable criticism, most recently in January 2019, as unqualified interpreters have been

supplied to some police forces7.

4. Data and Methodology

Two interviews8 were made available to the researcher on the basis of a data processing

agreement between the researcher’s institution and the participating constabulary, and subject

to the ethical approval of the University of Manchester. All parties gave consent for the

materials to be accessed. Transcripts of the two interviews were prepared by qualified

translators, and all identifying information redacted.

Interview A is a video recording of 1 hour 33 minutes in length. It involves three

parties: a female police officer (PO), a female interpreter (INT) and a female victim-survivor

(V) of a physical assault by her husband. Italian and English are the languages of the

interview, but the analysis shows that the victim-witness is not fully proficient in Italian. The

recording shows the opening, free narrative recall and narrative probing phases of the

interview; although the parties stop for a break which marks the end of the material available

for analysis, it is made clear that the narrative probing phase will continue afterwards. The

interpreter’s hands and note-pad are visible on the video, strongly indicative of preference for

the consecutive mode of interpreting. Participants sit in a triangular format with the victim-

witness and police officer directly facing one another and the interpreter off to one side.

6 Application for Membership of the National Register of Public Service Interpreters requires proof of relevant qualification for each language an individual wishes to interpret: http://www.nrpsi.org.uk/downloads/First_Language_Application_Form_June_2014.pdf 7 The findings of an investigation by Phillippa Goymer for BBC Newcastle and Inside Out are available: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-46838858?ns_linkname=english_regions&ns_campaign=bbc_news_north_east&ns_source=twitter&ns_mchannel=social [accessed 15 January 2019]8 A larger data sample was sought, but the complex process of obtaining consent and police operational priorities limited it to two.

In Interview A, the total floor time breaks down approximately as victim-witness

37%; police officer 15%; interpreter: 48%, showing the officer to have the lowest amount of

floor time. Further breakdown of the distinct interview phases shows that in the rapport phase

which lasts 2 minutes 38 seconds: victim-witness (19%); police officer (39%); interpreter

(35%). In the free account phase which lasts approximately 25 minutes 21 seconds, victim-

witness (47.6%); police officer (3.2%); interpreter (41.1%). In the final account-probing

phase, which lasts for 1 hour five minutes, the breakdown is: victim-witness (34.9%); police

officer (18.9%); interpreter (50%). These figures show – at least superficially – that the

interview can be characterised as victim-witness centred.

Interview B also concerns a video-recorded interview. Four parties are involved: two

interviewing officers (one male PO1, one female PO2), a female interpreter (INT) and the

female victim-survivor (V) of a serious physical assault by her boyfriend. The interview

involves Russian and English and lasts for 1 hour 32 minutes; although it is clear by the final

interventions in the recording that the interview is over, the parties stop for a break before

reconvening.

The interview differs from Interview A in that the principal interviewing officer and

victim-witness have clearly met before. However, in line with the PEACE interview protocol

there is a discernible engagement and rapport-building phase (6 minutes 13 seconds), a free

recall phase (34 minutes 42 seconds) and a narrative probing phase (53 minutes 5 seconds).

The amount of overlapping speech (between the interpreter and victim-witness, the

interpreter and the interviewing officer) in Interview B is striking. The interpreter does not

have a note-pad and is seated rather awkwardly on the same couch as the victim-witness. The

seating arrangement may have influenced the decision of the interpreter to use the

simultaneous mode of interpreting, but the absence of the note-pad is noteworthy in a context

of professional interpreting. The choice of mode presents problems for the transcriber of the

interview, as some interventions/parts of interventions are inaudible.

As a guide to floor time, two approaches were taken: firstly, the number and

distribution of interventions (including tokens such as ‘uhu’ and notes by the transcriber to

denote inaudibility) were examined across the different interview phases: in the rapport-

building phase, of the 94 interventions, 27 (28.7%) were made by the victim-witness, 29

(30.8%) by the interpreter, 32 (34%) by PO1, and 6 (6.3%) by PO2. In the free-narrative

recall section, of the 660 interventions, 273 (41.3%) were by the victim-witness, 290 (43.9%)

by the interpreter, 84 (12.7%) by PO1, and 13 (1.9%) by PO2. In the narrative-probing phase,

of the 1,044 interventions 392 (37.5%) are by the victim-witness, 393 (37.6%) by the

interpreter, 120 (11.49%) by PO1, and 139 (13.3%) by PO2. Secondly, the general timings of

overall floor time across the interview were calculated: PO1 spoke for approximately 8

minutes (8% of total floor time); the interpreter spoke for approximately 28 minutes (30% of

total floor time), the victim-witness spoke for approximately 36 minutes (39% of total floor

time) and PO2 spoke for approximately 5 minutes (5% of total floor time). The degree of

overlapping speech, especially between the interpreter and victim-witness, makes it difficult

to calculate the overall floor time for each participant: in this interview the victim-witness

very seldom has a clear individual turn at talk.

At first glance, the numbers appear indicative of a victim-witness-centred interview,

but the decision of the interpreter to use the simultaneous mode on multiple occasions is an

important consideration in concluding its overall orientation as such. Although examined as

part of one of the main qualifications for police interpreters in Britain 9, the use of

simultaneous interpreting is not generally advocated in such significant interactions due to the

impact of overlapping talk on participants’ ability to focus on their own train of thought and

that of others, and the potential for information to be lost due to the cognitive burden on the

interpreter10. One may argue that the interpreter’s decision (unchallenged by the interviewing

officers in this case) to use this mode undermines the victim-witness-centredness of the event

since her voice is literally obscured in much of the process; it is clear that the other parties to

9 The Diploma in Public Service Interpreting in English and Scottish Law offered by the Chartered Institute of Linguists is one of the most widely recognised qualifications in police interpreting.10 Note also that simultaneous interpreting is performed without the aid of an interpreter’s booth in this case.

the interview find it difficult to (re-)establish the order of conversation in places and gauge

the amount of content per turn-at-talk, leading to fragmentation.

The analysis was supported by a conversation analytical approach due to its emphasis

on sequential analysis and all aspects of talk such as false starts (Richards and Seedhouse

2005; Wooffitt 2001); however, following Wadensjö (1998), the approach is broadened to

include context beyond what is explicit in the data and consider the rules and customs of the

institution in which the data is collected (i.e. current police interview guidelines).

6. Findings

6.1 Question Types and Question Formation

In Interview A the interviewing officer asks a total of 120 questions: 4 are open (33.3%), 5

are clarifications (4.1%) and 75 are closed (62.5%). The high proportion of closed questions

suggests that the interview is being tightly controlled by the interviewer, challenging the

perception victim-witness-centred nature of the interview generated by the quantitative

analysis above. It is also important to consider that only part of the narrative probing phase

was available for scrutiny; it is therefore possible (though unlikely) that the ratio of questions

altered in the remaining part of the probing phase. The sequence of questions also needs to be

taken into account: closed questions about the alleged assault focused on obtaining specific

pieces of evidential information and involved a few yes/no closed questions but others

focused on temporal issues, specifics about body position (on the floor), which part of the

body was hit and how. In some sequences several closed questions build up to an open

question, as in the following extract in which the interpreted responses are only visible for

illustrative purposes:

Extract 1

1 PO1 Ok. And, erm (.) you mentioned that he stood up, erm (.) where was he

coming from?

2 I He was, erm (.) sat a bit far away from us.

3 PO1 Ok. Still in the living room?

4 I Yes.

5 PO1 And describe for me how he came over to you.

The point here is not to evaluate the interviewing officer’s performance since this is beyond

the scope of this article and expertise of the researcher, but it highlights the value of

sequential analysis in obtaining a more holistic picture of the interview process than reliance

on quantitative information alone.

Contrary to the findings of Lai and Mulayim (2013) which show a marked tendency

for interpreters in police interviews to change questions involving directions to ‘tell’ or

‘describe’ into ‘why’ questions, the interpreter in Interview A retains the original

formulations in the majority of cases. There are several exceptions that concern questions in

which an unspecified agent is seen to lead to the action (a formulation that is not possible in

some languages): ‘what made him stop [strangling you]’, ‘what stopped him strangling you’,

‘what is the difficulty for him accepting a divorce’. In all three cases the interpreter changes

‘what’ to ‘why’. In the first two examples, this has limited impact because the interpreter

phrases the question in a way that the emphasis intended by the officer is retained:

(1) Interviewing officer: What made him stop

[strangling you]?

Back translation of interpreted question:

And why did he then stop?

(2) Interviewing officer: What stopped him

strangling you?

Back translation of interpreted question:

But when he was strangling you, then why did

he stop?

In (3) ‘what is the difficulty for him accepting a divorce?’, the shift to ‘why’ takes on a more

accusatory tone. The back translation of the question is: ‘Why isn’t he capable of accepting

divorce?’ Although the number of shifts in question form across the interview is minimal, the

fact that they are observed suggests that interviews in which changes are more widespread

could have greater impact on a person’s confidence in telling their story, potentially leading to

secondary victimisation.

In Interview B, 152 questions are asked of which 13 are open (8.5%), 132 are closed

(86.8%), 6 concern clarifications (3.9%) and 1 is categorised as an instruction (0.6%). Such a

large number of closed questions again suggests that the officer(s), rather than the victim-

witness, controls the interaction. However, the approach needs to be seen in context: the

officer (PO1) and victim-witness have met before and have shared knowledge about the

events under discussion; the officer may therefore have strategically used a high number of

closed questions to maximise the evidential value of the responses. The examples below are

indicative of PO1’s approach and involve some form of recapping and re-expression of

context in line with the principles of cognitive interviewing. The interpreter tends to omit the

narrative devices ‘ok’ and ‘so’ prior to the questions, but the question type remains

unchanged by the interpreter throughout the interview.

Ok, so he’s kicked you to the head first, what foot did he use?

Ok, so you think he got scared [(that you got unconscious)]?

Ok, just describe to me a bit this movement, so he’s what, he’s used this (hand)?

Several questions in Interview B, however, are not articulated in full. This is due to the

interpreter starting to interpret very promptly on grasping a ‘unit of meaning’ (Lederer 1981),

which is then often rendered in simultaneous mode. In the following extract the officer is

building to a set of instructions, but the desired action (describe, tell…) remains unarticulated.

The interpreter omits the framing device ‘what I’d like you to do’ and the interviewing officer

appears to assume that the interpreter has filled in the blanks, as indicated by ‘OK’ in the final

line:

Extract 2

1 PO1 what I'd like you to, {name removed}, is from the moment that you walked into the

park

2 INT хочу поговорить {name - removed} с момента того когда вы вошли вошли в

парк.

I want to talk {name - removed} from the moment when you entered the park

3 PO1 OK? Cos what we need to is just get as much detail as possible [now I understand]

37 minutes into the free narrative account, the interviewing officer seeks a clarification. On

this occasion the interpreter again opts to interpret simultaneously cutting the officer’s final

instruction off:

Extract 4

1 PO1 Ok. So I just wanna clarify as well

2 INT хочу прояснить кое-что

I'd like to clarify something

3 PO1 (inaudible) gives you the beer and says this is the last beer [that you]

4 V [this was er:r]

5 INT [(inaudible) сказал последнее пиво]

[(inaudible) said the last beer]

After several exchanges with the victim-witness in which the conversation is oriented towards

a clarification of when the beer was handed over in the belief that this was the information

being sought, the interviewing officer manages a full intervention (in Extract 5) that makes

the question explicit:

Extract 5

1 PO1 at any point when he was assaulting you?

2 INT [(inaudible due to overlap with officer’s question)]

3 V [пиво было всё время с ним ] но у меня была вот эта баночка, это было

возле кооператива он мне дал эту банку

[he had beer with him at all times] but I had this very can, it was next to the Co-

operative he gave me the can

4 INT that can of beer he gave me by the co-op

5 V Co-op where I was show you this [(co-op)]

6 PO1 [yeah] sure. What {PO2's first name - removed} was asking and I was, at any

time during this assault on you, when he punched kicked you, stamped on you,

tried to strangle you, did at any point during that assault, did he stop and pause?

Given the extent of the overlapping talk and difficulty in absorbing the content of the

responses, it seems very striking that neither officer encouraged the consecutive mode of

interpreting in this interview especially given that a courtroom would not find the material

easy to follow. The only plausible explanation for the lack of intervention by the interviewing

officer is due to the previous contact with the victim-witness; nevertheless, interviewing

efficiency and its evidential clarity is clearly compromised by the interpreter’s choice of mode

in this case.

6.2 Best Language

Extract 6 is taken from Interview A and occurs quite near to the start of the interview when

the interviewee is narrating the events on the afternoon when the alleged assault took place.

The choice of ‘best’ language is revealed as one that the interviewee is not proficient in and

we can only speculate as to whether the emotional stress of building up to a key moment in

the narrative leads to the victim-witness’s loss of control over target language grammar. The

interpreter adopts an inclusive approach by making an attempt to explain the clarification to

the interviewing officer; however, she does not flag the issue as being one of potential

language competence. The interviewing officer is therefore not necessarily aware at this early

phase of the interviewee’s choice of language and its potential impact on the free recall

process:

Extract 6

1 INT As he wa:s… entering… the house, mh… (.) coming back, my husband, he

received a call from e:rm his dau:ghter.

2 PO [Mhm.

3 V E: non lo so cosa (.) ch- (.) cosa hanno detto perche’ io: io non ho chiesto

lui cosa=ha detto, lui mi ha detto che: mi ha chiesto solo pe:r (.) per la sua

salute e basta.

[A:nd I don’t know what (.) wh- (.) what they said because I: I didn’t ask

him what he has said, he told me tha:t he asked me only abou:t (.) about

his/her health and that’s it.]

4 INT Erm, the interpreter is gonna ask for=a=repetition (.) Chiedo scusa signora,

(.) l’ultima cosa che ha detto:? Erm… Mi ha chiesto per la sua: …?=

[I’m sorry Madam, (.)

the last thing you said:? Erm… He asked me about his/her…?]

5 V =Per sua salute.

[For his/her health.]

6 INT Lei [s-?=

[You s-?]

7 V =[No no io. La sua fi:glia [ ] gli ha chiesto a lu:i: per la sua salute.

[No not me. His daug:ther asked him about his /her health.]

8 INT [Ah… ]

9 INT La salute di lei signora..?=

[The health of you madam…?]

10 V =[No no la salute suo…

[No no the health of his…

11 INT [Ok.

12 INT Erm... I didn’t ask any details erm… erm... of the conversation (.) what it

was about erm… I just know that: at one point she a:s- ((throat clearing))

asked my husband about his health.

13 PO Ok.

Extract 7 below also highlights a problem of source language command that is not flagged by

the interpreter to the officer. Given the nature of the claim (a threat to kill), it merits further

scrutiny. The issue hinges on the conjugation of the verb to die. The hesitation around the

conjugation concerns the part of the rendition ‘tu… muoi… e’ meglio morire’: the

interviewee makes an attempt to say ‘you die’ but fails to find the correct form of the verb in

the second person (i.e. muori). Instead, the interviewee falls back on an infinitive construction

that literally translates as ‘it is better to die’. The interpreter picks up on the difficulty with the

faltering ‘I might as well’ … ‘that you’… and makes the logical inference that the victim-

witness meant ‘it might as well be that you die’; however, this is not actually what was said.

The interviewing officer is still none the wiser at this point that there may be a problem in

language command, or if she is, it is not made explicit:

Extract 7

1 V Mi ha messo per terra e mi e’ salito sopra di… sopra di me e mi prendeva la

testa e mi dava... mi… Mi… mi… mi da li botte, mi prende la testa e mi sbatte la

testa sul (.) sul pavimento.

[He put me on the floor and he got onto:… onto me and he got my head and

gave me… he… he.. he… he hit me, he takes my head and bangs my head on.. on

the floor.]

2 INT Erm… So he dragged me along and then he climbed on top of me and he got

hold of my head and he: banged my head against the floor.

3 V E poi ha cominciato a strangolarmi… con (.) mi ha detto io vado comunque, io

sto andando in galera (.) e’ meglio vado… vado in galera… e tu… muoi… e’

meglio morire.

[And then he started strangling me… with he told me I go anyway, I am going to

jail it is better I go… I go to jail… and you… die… it is better to die.]

4 INT Erm…and then he started strangling me. He said: well, I’m already erm…

bound for prison so I mis- … I might as well… erm… that you… erm… it might

as well be that you die.

Extract 8 is taken from a phase in the interview in which details of a physical assault are

elicited and the interpreter and victim-witness navigate understanding of a key verb. The

interjection of ‘the interpreter needs to’ shows an attempt of the interpreter to keep the officer

involved in the discussion but the additional burden of this side negotiation leads to the

interjection remaining incomplete:

Extract 8

1 PO And, can you describe how he.. he got hold of your hair?

2 INT Puo’ descrivere come le ha afferrato i capelli?

[Can you describe how did he grab your hair?]

3 V Come afferrato? Aperto? Afferrato?

[what do you mean ‘grab’? Opened? Grabbed?

4 INT Erm… the interpreter needs to... No- non sa cosa significa afferrato in

italiano?

[You do- you don’t know what ‘grab’ means

in Italian?]

5 V No.

6 INT Erm.. X is not sure what: the word (.) the Italian word for ‘drag’ means.

‘Afferrare:’ e’… prendere con la mano cosi’…Quindi, come- come le ha preso

i capelli?

[‘To grab’ is… take with your hand like this…

So, how- how did he grab your hair?]

6.3 Code-switching

Interview B shows extensive code-switching by the victim-witness (196 instances), ostensibly

to directly appeal to the unknown audience of the video recording (i.e. the courtroom) as to

her reliability as a witness. Extract 9 is taken from the opening phase of the interview when

police officer 1 (PO1) is establishing rapport and setting out the interview expectations. The

extract is noteworthy because of the victim-witness’s decision to speak in English directly to

the officer in several instances. The utterances show for example that the word ‘truthful’ has

been understood as in line 8: ‘everything what I remember, everything what I not remember I

do not remember’. However, the officer seeks to quickly establish the optimum interaction

order by asserting the preference for interpreter mediation:

Extract 9

1 PO1 Although we are not going to write anything down, this is still a police statement in a

way

2 INT хотя мы даже ничего не записываем но вообще оно является вообще как

показания

even though we do not write anything but in general it is in general like an evidence

3 V Yes I understand

4 PO1 which means that with that it can go to the court it's important that you understand

5 V Yes I understand, I understand

6 PO1 What's important is that it's completely truthful, ok?

7 INT это чтоб вы должны понимать это всё пойдёт тоже в суд и это очень важно что

это должно быть

this is so that you must understand that all will go also to the court and it is very

important that this should [be]

8 V [Everything] what I remember, everything what I not

remember I do not remember

9 PO1 That is exactly what I was gonna say

10 PO1 If there anything you do not remember

11 V I saw you I saw this was last week I remember it

12 PO1 That is important, ok? What's important as well obviously there’s some time past

since that happened

13 V hmm

14 INT тоже важно что какие прошло какое-то время с момента как это произошло

also is important that which went some time from the moment as this happened

15 V (угу)

(uhu)

16 PO1 So it’s important that we do not include anything that (…) last time you've told me

that

17 V just two person me and him

18 INT ничего не надо включать что может вам кто-то сказал уже после этого

nothing need to be included that maybe somebody said to you already after this

19 V так там было только две персоны он и я

there were only two persons him and me

20 INT It’s not possible there were two people there just me and him

21 PO1 Absolutely brilliant

22 V I (.) nothing

23 PO1 Also, also I understand your English is reasonably good

24 V Thank you

25 PO1 But if you could just

26 V [э]

[err]

27 PO1 speak in your own language it will be easier

The pattern of every other utterance being interpreted is established for the next 11 turns, until

mention of the option of drawing / writing things down as necessary. The victim-witness does

not allow the interpreter time to interpret line 4 of Extract 10, preferring instead to stress the

limits of her memory and, hence, her approach to the truth directly in English. On this

occasion PO1 does not seek to reassert the interaction order:

Extract 10

1 PO1 If at any point you need anything to write down just say we’ve got paper

and pencils here if you want to draw anything write anything down

2 INT Если в какой-то момент вы хотите пока мы будем разговаривать вы

что-то захотите написать или нарисовать нам как было что-то

пожалуйста у нас есть листок бумаги

If at any time you want while we are talking you would want to write

anything or draw for us as it was something, please we have a sheet of

paper

3 V по сути я показала где это было в парке больше я ничего просто не

помню

in essence I showed where it was in the park and I simply do not

remember nothing more

4 V I showed you where in the park it was so I do not remember anything and

I've already told you this

In the short Extract 11 that follows directly from Extract 10 above there is a further trigger for

the victim-witness to break out of the desired participation framework: line 5 in the form of

modal verb ‘can’t’. The victim-witness seeks to prove immediately that she is able to recall

by by-passing the interpreter:

Extract 11

1 PO1 So what I'd like you to do {name removed} if you could just go back to that day

2 V uhu

3 PO to all the events till before you left the house

4 INT хочу вернуться чтоб вы вернулись в тот день нанана прежде этих событий

перед тем как вы ушли из дома

I want to come back that you come back to that day blah, blah, blah before the

events before that when you left the house

5 PO but please remember if you can't { name removed}

6 V я могу сейчас объяснить что случилось

I can explain now what happened

7 INT I can tell you now what has happened

8 V I remember this I remember

9 V {suspect's name removed} come from jail he was arrested

10 PO stop stop stop

11 INT по русски говорите

speak in Russian

The victim-witness settles into an interpreter-mediated routine for the next section of the

interview in which a detailed description is given of how the assault took place. In the lengthy

series of exchanges, the victim-witness is prompted to recall how she was almost strangled. It

is noteworthy that in line 7 of Extract 12 the narrative switches to English to recount the

threat to kill. This threat, however, ignored by the officer who pursues a line of questioning

on the physical experience of the assault:

Extract 12

1 V [ a он меня то в одну сторону ] крутил эту голову

[but he (threw) me to one side to the other side] twisting this head

2 INT and he was moving my head to side to side

3 V ну сначала в одну сторону потом в другую сторону там я не [знаю

(inaudible)]

like in the beginning to one side then to the other side there I do not know

[know]

4 INT [at first to one side] and then to the other

5 V это было где-то раз 6-7

it was about 6-7 times

6 INT It happened for about 6-7 times

7 V He told I was killed before people and I will kill you as well

8 PO1 OK and this movement from side to side was it gentle or (what)?

A final instance of code-switching occurs towards the end of the recording concerning the

impact of events on the victim-witness:

Extract 13

1 V [ну не то что только такая боль физическая [ у меня и душевная ]

[well not only kind of a physical pain [I have also soul (pain)]

2 INT [it's not just physical] pai- err pain I just have psychological pain

3 V (inaudible) yes I'm broken really (.) I'm broken err for all for emotion

for physical for everything I'm broken… err I am very strong woman.

I'm yes…I have two child I'm very strong woman but sometimes can

problems (inaudible)

Analysing all instances of code-switching in Interview B, a pattern emerges according to

which the majority of instances relate to truth-telling and the desire of the victim-witness to

convey her honesty in relation to what she can and cannot recall. In many instances the

interviewing officers do not seek to re-establish the interaction order explicitly and often the

sequence of interpreter-mediation automatically re-establishes itself. Interview B shows how

the individual was struggling to come to terms with being translated for and the loss of

autonomy, with all of the potential implications of a jury not believing her testimony. Code-

switching for this individual could be described as an attempt to establish a regime of truth in

the interview and appeal directly to the future audience of the video recording.

Conclusion

One of the goals of the research presented here was to highlight the potential benefits of

adopting a holistic approach to understanding the LEP victim-survivor experience in police

settings, an approach that is designed to develop the methodology and build on the findings of

the HMIC 2014 report. Despite drawing timely and valuable attention to the issues facing

LEP victim-survivors of domestic abuse, arguably the 2014 report did not go far enough in

investigating the interactional and wider structural issues that impact on LEP victim

experience, limiting the range of actions that can be taken to improve police service response.

Analysis of authentic video-recordings of interpreted police interviews and interviews with

interpreters who have experience in these cases therefore yields important additional insights.

The findings presented here help to corroborate Angermeyer’s (2015) and Anderson’s

(2012) studies in relation to the tendency of service users to code-switch at points of conflict.

It also shows that quantitative analysis of question types and floor time, even on a small

sample, can benefit from supplementary analysis in the form of conversation analysis,

especially as in the case of Interview B the sequential analysis of interaction challenged the

perception that the overall orientation of the interview as victim-centred. The findings also

confirm Mayfield’s (2016) challenge to the assumption that language choice equals language

proficiency, by illustrating the ways in which a ‘best’ language may not be the optimum

choice for police interviews. We can only speculate about how the interviewing officer would

have responded in Interview A had she known that the victim-witness was not fully proficient

in Italian, or whether this would have impacted on the directions she gave to the interpreter in

the pre-interview planning phase. However, the problems experienced by the interviewee in

relation to expressing a threat to kill have implications for the quality of evidence obtained

and, crucially, the interviewing officer’s ability to assess and categorise immediate and on-

going risk (an issue highlighted in the HMIC 2014 report).

Although based on a small sample, there are several implications of the findings of

this study for pre-interview planning. Firstly, although there is clear scope to improve the

detail in the guidelines for interviewing officers about the interview process, there are limits

on the time available to read them and too much detail is difficult to assimilate quickly. The

pre-interview phase may therefore be the most time-efficient means to address gaps and

enhance inter-professional understanding in ways that support the best outcomes for the

victim-witness. Interactions in this phase, based on the findings presented here, could usefully

include directives to interpreters not to gloss over or directly attempt to mitigate matters of

limited language proficiency displayed by an interviewee; to confirm preference for the short

consecutive mode at all times; to develop a strategy for handling instances of code-switching

or code-mixing if they arise. Secondly, although some officers and interpreters do not wish to

be involved in joint pre-interview planning for fears it may create bias, the study suggests that

a distinction is perhaps warranted between pre-interview planning for disclosure-related

issues and planning for interview protocol-specific issues, which can include language and

cultural matters. This would allow for some discretion about the former, but leaves scope to

embed the latter more consistently as good practice.

Finally, the study suggests several fruitful avenues for further research. The first

concerns what might be termed ‘cultural scaffolding’. In Interview A one of the questions was

prefaced by ‘I know this might seem a little strange’, which showed some awareness of the

issue of legal consciousness and the space given in the rapport building phase to managing

expectations about 1. the nature of the crime and how it is dealt with, and 2. the type of

questions that are likely to be asked. It raises the question about how much of this type of

‘cultural scaffolding’ is provided by officers in this and another types of police interview,

and, crucially, whether it makes any difference to the willingness to continue with the case in

subsequent phases of the criminal justice process.

Secondly, both witnesses in the interviews can be described as highly cooperative. In

line with the findings of Griffiths et al. (2011) this may explain why so many closed questions

are used, but the added participation of the interpreter may also be a factor that shaped the

officers’ approach to questions in both cases. Replicating Griffiths et al.’s (2011) study with

interpreter-mediated interviews would therefore help to shed light on the impact of the

interpreter’s presence (e.g. in pre-interview planning phases and interviews themselves) on

officers’ approach to questioning and interview outcomes.

Acknowledgements

I gratefully acknowledge the financial support of ESRC-IAA grant R118571 in this research.

My sincere thanks to the interviewing officers, interpreters and the victim-witnesses for

granting consent for the materials to be used in this research.

Declaration of interests: none

References

Anderson, L. (2012). Code-switching and coordination in interpreter-mediated interaction. In

C. Baraldi & L. Gavioli (Eds.) Coordinating participation in dialogue interpreting (pp. 115-

148). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Angermeyer, P. S. (2015). Speak English or what? Codeswitching and interpreter use in New

York City courts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Arigo, B. A. (2004). The Ethics of Therapeutic Jurisprudence: A Critical and Theoretical

Enquiry of Law, Psychology and Crime. Psychiatry, Psychology & Law, 11(1): 23-43.

Balogh, K., & Salaets, H. (Eds). (2015). Children and justice. Overcoming language barriers:

Cooperation in interpreter-mediated questioning of minors. Cambridge, Antwerp, Portland:

Intersentia.

Böser, U. (2013). So tell me what happened!: Interpreting the free recall segment of the

investigative interview. Translation and Interpreting Studies, 8(1): 112-136.

Braun, S., & Taylor, J. L. (Eds). (2012). Videoconference and remote interpreting in criminal

proceedings. Antwerp & Cambridge: Intersentia.

Bui, H. N. (2003). Help seeking behavior among abused immigrant women: A case of

Vietnamese American women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 9(2): 207-239.

Dando, C., Wilcock, R., & Milne, R. (2008). The Cognitive Interview: Inexperienced police

officers’ perceptions of their witness/victim interviewing practices. Legal & Criminal

Psychology, 13(1): 59-70.

Fisher, R. P. (2010). Interviewing cooperative witnesses. Legal and Criminal Psychology, 15,

25-38.

Fisher, R. P., Geiselman, R. E., & Raymond, D. S. (1987). Critical analysis of police

interviewing techniques. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 15, 177-185.

Fisher, R. P., & Geiselman, R. E. (1992). Memory-enhancing techniques for investigative

interviewing: The cognitive interview. Springfield, IL: Charles Thomas.

Fisher, R. P., & Geiselman, R. E. (2010). The Cognitive Interview method of conducting

police interviews: Eliciting extensive information and promoting therapeutic jurisprudence.

International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 33(5): 321-328.

Fisher, R. P., Milne, R., & Bull, R. (2011). Interviewing cooperative witnesses. Current

Directions in Psychological Science, 20(1): 16-19.

Elliott, I., Thomas, S. D. M., & Ogloff, J.R.P. (2012). Procedural justice in contacts with the

police: The perspective of victims of crime. Police Practice & Research, 13(5): 437-449.

Gallai, F. (2013). “I’ll just intervene whenever he finds it a bit difficult to answer”: Exploding

the myth of literalism in interpreted interviews. Investigative Interviewing: Research and

Practice (II-RP), 5(1): 57-78.

Griffiths, A. (2008). An examination into the efficacy of police advanced investigative

interview training. Unpublished PhD thesis. University of Portsmouth.

Griffiths, A., Milne, R., & Cherryman, J. (2011). A question of control? The formulation of

suspect and witness interview question strategies by advanced interviewers. International

Journal of Police Science and Management, 13(3): 255-267.

Holmberg, U. (2004). Crime victims’ experiences of police interviews and their inclination to

provide or omit information. International Journal of Police Science and Management, 6(3):

155-170.

Hoyle, C. (1998). Negotiating domestic violence: Police, criminal justice and victims.

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hoyle, C. (2007). Feminism, victimology and domestic violence. In S. Walklate (Ed.)

Handbook of victims and victimology (pp. 146-174). London & New York: Routledge.

Hoyle, C., & Sanders, A. (2000). Police response to domestic violence: From victim choice

to victim empowerment?. British Journal of Criminology, 40(1):14-36.

Krouglov, A. (1999). Police interpreting: Politeness and sociocultural context. The

Translator, 5(2): 285-302.

Lai, M., & Mulayim, S. (2013). Interpreter linguistic intervention in the strategies employed

by police in investigative interviews. Police Practice and Research: An International Journal,

15(4): 307-321.

Lederer, M. (1981). La traduction simultanée : Expérience et théorie. Paris Minard: Lettres

modernes.

Llewellyn-Jones, P., & Lee, R. G. (2014). Redefining the role of the community interpreter:

The concept of role-space. Lincoln: SLI.

Mayfield, K. (2016). The issues and challenges surrounding interpreter-assisted investigative

interviews of victims and witnesses. Unpublished MA Dissertation. London Metropolitan

University.

Menjivar, C., & Salcido, O. (2016). Immigrant women and domestic violence: Common

experiences in different countries. Gender and Society, 16(6): 898-920.

Nakane, I. (2011). The role of silence in police interviews. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(9):

2317-2330.

Richards, K., & Seedhouse, P. (2005). Applying conversation analysis. Basingstoke & New

York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Shepherd, E. (1988). Developing interview skills. New directions in police training. P.

Southgate (Ed.) (pp. 170–88). London: HMSO.

Shepherd, E., Mortimer, A., Turner, V., & Watson, J. (1999). Spaced cognitive interviewing:

Facilitating therapeutic and forensic narration of trauma memories. Psychology, Crime &

Law, 5, 117-143.

Shoham, E. (2000). The battered wife’s perception of the characteristics of her encounter with

the police. International Journal of Offender Therapy & Comparative Criminology, 44(2):

242-257.

Snook, B., Luther, K., Quinlan, H., & Milne, R. (2012). Let ‘em talk! A field study of police

questioning practices of suspects and accused persons. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 39,

1328-1339.

Stephens, B. J., & Sinden, P. G. (2000). Victims’ voices: Domestic assault victims’

perceptions of police demeanor. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 15(5): 534 – 547.

Tipton, R. (2017). ‘You are foreign, you are nothing in this country’: Managing risk in

interpreter-mediated police interviews with victims of domestic abuse. Revista Canaria de

Estudios Ingleses, 75, 119-138. Special Issue on Practices in Intercultural Mediation: PSI in

Perspective.

Tipton, R. (2018). Translating/ed selves and voices: Language support provisions for victims

of domestic violence a British third sector organization. Translation and Interpreting Studies,

13(2): 163-184.

Tipton, R., & Furmanek, O. (2016). Dialogue interpreting: A guide to interpreting in public

services and the community. London & New York: Routledge.

Toldedano Buendía, C., & del Pozo Triviño, M. (Eds.) (2015) Interpretación en contextos de

violencia de género [Interpreting in contexts of gender-based violence]. Valencia: Tirant

Humanidades.

Wadensjö, C. (1998). Interpreting as interaction. London: Longman.

Westera, N. J., Kebbell, M. R., & Milne, R. (2011). Interviewing witnesses: Do investigative

and evidential requirements concur?. The British Journal of Forensic Practice, 13(2):103-

113, doi.org/10.1108/14636641111134341

Wooffitt, R. (2001). Researching pyschic practitioners: Conversation analysis. In M.

Wetherell, S. Taylor & S.J. Yates (Eds.) Discourse as data: A guide for analysis (pp. 49-92).

London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: Sage.

Guidelines consulted

Association of Chief Police Officers (now NPCC) (2008). Guidance on investigating

domestic abuse. London: National Policing Improvement Agency.

Association of Chief Police Officers (now NPCC) (2012). Practice guidance on European

cross-border investigations. London: National Policing Improvement Agency.

College of Policing, Authorised Professional Practice, Major investigation and public

protection. Understanding risk and vulnerability in the context of domestic abuse. Available

at: https://www.app.college.police.uk/app-content/major-investigation-and-public-

protection/domestic-abuse/ Accessed 23 January 2019.

Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (2014). Everybody’s business: Improving the

police response to domestic abuse. London: HMSO.

Ministry of Justice (2011). Achieving best evidence in criminal proceedings. Guidance on

interviewing victims and witnesses, and guidance on using special measures . London:

HMSO.

Ministry of Justice (2015). Code of practice for victims of crime. London: HMSO.