e-vivi suspects survey

Investigative interviews with child suspects - survey

This survey is in preparation for an upcoming webinar workshop which will look at the convergence of children's rights, the rights of the defence, and investigative interviews. Your answers will help to jump-start the consultation and streamline discussions.
- Country
- Profession/Role (select all that apply)*
  
  InterviewerPsychologistSocial workerPolice officerProsecutorMedical professionalPolicy / lawmakerLawyerAcademicChildren's rights expertOther (please describe)
- Approximate years of experience in child investigative interviewing
- Your work involves ... (select all that apply)*
  
  Conducting interviewsPreparing children for interviewsCoordinating multidisciplinary processesObserving or reviewing interviewsPolicy / lawmakingCrisis supportOther (please describe)
- Your experience and knowledge is based on child suspects of ... (select all that apply)
  
  Violent crimeProperty crimeSexual abuseOnline offensesOther (please describe)
- Gender (EU data collection requirement):
  
  MaleFemalePrefer not to answerType your own
- In your jurisdiction, does the criminal justice process for child suspects mainly ...*
  
  Default to the usual adult-procedure with minor adjustmentsDefault to a child-friendly approach (e.g. child friendly setting, questions are filtered through a judge or similar, etc)A child friendly approach is available, but must be justified and formally approved.I'm not sureOther (explain)
- In your jurisdiction, if you have to apply for procedural adaptations for child suspects, which justifications are most likely to be accepted? (select all that apply)
  
  Developmental vulnerability - all childrenDevelopmental vulnerability - children with special needsBest interests of the childIndividual assessment resultsFair trial rightsWelfare concernsEfficiency of proceedingsProtection of dignity (e.g. for children in detention)Protection of victims/witnessesI'm not sureOther (please explain)
- Where do interviews with child suspects take place? How is the room / facility set up?
- In practice, do child suspects in your jurisdiction have a chance to meet their lawyer before the interview?*
  
  AlwaysSometimesRarelyNeverDon't knowOther
- In your jurisdiction, can questioning proceed if the child's lawyer is not present (or not yet consulted)?
  
  YesNoI'm not sureIt depends (explain)
- In your jurisdiction, which roles are allowed to be with the child suspect during the interview (select all that apply)
  
  Parent / caregiverGuardian ad litem (if assigned)LawyerInterpreterChild protection / social servicesOther
- Are there any legal barriers to having participants with a non-speaking role? (e.g. parent, who is told they are not allowed to speak or intervene in any way)
- Besides police, prosecutors, and the court, who may watch the recording of the interview with child suspects?
  
  Suspect's parent / caregiverA trusted adultGuardian ad litemPlaintiff and their lawyerChid protection / social servicesIt may be played in court session that is open to the publicOther authority or actor (specify)
- Child suspects often find themselves in a particularly vulnerable position during investigative interviews, due to:
  - Developmental factors,
  - stress,
  - unfamiliar environments,
  - and power imbalances between children and authorities.
  These factors can increase the risk that children may:
  - provide inaccurate information,
  - agree with suggestions,
  - say things to comply with perceived expectations or to please adults,
  - be more likely than older adults to falsely confess to offences they did not commit, particularly in situations involving pressure, authority figures, or a desire to comply with perceived expectations.
  In some cases, children may also lack access to effective legal guidance during the interview.
  
  These factors underline the importance of rapport-building that actively safeguard the child’s rights and minimise pressure.
- How do you explain the right to silence and privilege against self-incrimination to a child in practice? What wording do you recommend that encourages clarity/accuracy without implying an obligation to speak or tell the truth?
- How do you navigate the delicate balance between 1. supporting the child suspect to tell what they want about what has happened, 2. without (accidentally) exploiting their vulnerabilities (listed above), 3. while also respecting their rights to remain silent, and to not incriminate themselves or family.
- Do you experience an conflicts between establishing ground rules and protecting the rights of a suspect (including to withhold the truth and remaining silent)?
- What is the single biggest risk when interviewing child suspects in your jurisdiction?*
- Are there any special considerations for the audio-visual recording of interviews with child suspects?
- With regard to remote hearings with child suspects, what gaps in knowledge and skills in terms of the interview itself would you find helpful to address?
- Is there anything else you would like to add about this topic?
- Explaining ground rules and legal information to children during investigative interviews
  
  This section of the questionnaire aims to explore how professionals in Barnahus or similar multidisciplinary settings explain ground rules and legal information to children during investigative interviews. We are particularly interested in how these practices vary across developmental stages, legal systems, and professional roles.
- In your practice, what “ground rules” are typically explained to the child before the substantive part of the interview begins? (select all that apply)
  
  It’s okay to say “I don’t know”It’s okay to say “I don’t understand” or to ask for clarificationThe child can correct the interviewer if something is wrongThe child should tell only what really happened/ tell the truthThe child can say “I don't want to answer”Information about the child’s rights (for example, that they do not have to testify against a close family member, or that they have a right not to incriminate themselves)Other (please describe)
- Are there any legal or procedural requirements in your country for what must be told to a child witness before or during the interview?
  
  NoNot sureYes - please describe what must be said and, if known, under which regulation or law
- Do you have a written or standardised script for introducing ground rules or required information
  
  Yes, alwaysYes, usuallyNo, I adapt freelyOther (please describe)
- In your experience, what are the most effective ways / tools to explain their rights and for children to demonstrate an understanding of their rights? *
- Do you adjust the explanations depending on the child’s age, developmental level, or other characteristics (e.g cultural background)?n
  
  No, the same explanation is used for all childrenYes (please describe how)
- Can you give an example of how you would explain one rule (e.g., “You have to tell the truth”) to ...
- A young child (under 7 years)
- A school-age child (8–12 years)
- A teenager (13–17 years)
- In your experience, what are the main challenges in helping children understand and follow the ground rules?
- Does the way you explain ground rules or legal information differ depending on the child’s role (for example, victim, witness, suspect, sibling)?
  
  NoYes (please describe how)
- In your opinion, what are the most important principles or goals when introducing ground rules to children?
- What support, training, or resources would help professionals explain ground rules more effectively to children?
- Is there anything else you would like to add about this topic?
Should be Empty:

Investigative interviews with child suspects - survey

Explaining ground rules and legal information to children during investigative interviews

Can you give an example of how you would explain one rule (e.g., “You have to tell the truth”) to ...