Conducting an interview is not as simple as just asking a bunch of questions. Your interview needs structure, purpose and direction. You need to draw on evidence, clarify facts and elicit enough information to arrive at an informed opinon. To do this, you need to understand the basic framework for an investigation interview.

When conducting an investigation, you must interview all persons who you reasonably consider to have any connection with, or information about, the matter under investigation. There are primarily two types of interviews, the witness/complainant and the subject/respondent. Essentially the framework for both types of interviews is identical. The only significant difference is that a respondent, although required to provide information about their duties and job, is not required to provide any information that may incriminate them.

Interviewees may be confused, anxious or behave irrationally at times. You must remain calm, professional and polite. An explanation of the process, roles and responsibilities will remove any ambiguity about the interview process and provide direction and confidence to the interviewee about the process.

The interview must not be perceived as being unfair, deceptive or intimidating in any way. The formal questioning must be aimed at addressing the elements surrounding the facts of the issue. Do not use ambiguous or trick questions. Most importantly do not assume anything, especially guilt. Your task as the investigator is to consider the facts in an impartial and professional manner.

Before commencing the interview make sure you have all the required evidence, documents, diagrams, reports etc that you wish to discuss with the interviewee. Review your investigation plan to ensure you are across the issues to be raised at interview. Prepare the interview room. Make sure there is water, glasses, tissues if necessary and that your recording equipment is primed and ready.

Best practice is to record all interviews. This provides both you and the interviewee protection in that there is a true account of what is discussed. Additionally when compiling the report, direct quotes can be included as opposed to your interpretation of what is said. Recordings should never be conducted covertly as there is legislation against this type of activity.

When conducting formal interviews it is a best practice to use a template that ensures you have provided all the required information about the interview. This preamble template should be read into the record in order to satisfy procedural fairness. Information that should be included in this template include the names of all parties involved in the interview, date, time, place, details of the allegation, the decision making process and the expectation of involvement by the interviewee.

Next, ask interviewees to check and confirm their authorship of any previously completed reports related to the allegations.

When conducting the interview use open and non leading questions and allow the interviewee to talk without interruption. This enables you to obtain as much information as possible, not about you. Be aware of using negative questions and questions that have multiple answers or parts to them. You are just making it difficult for the interviewee to cooperate.

A good rule of thumb when interviewing is the ADVOCATE method. By directing open, non threatening questions around this methodology should provide you a significant amount of detail around the incident/allegation.

A mount of time under observation

D istance from subject

V isibility

O bstructions

K nown or seen before

A ny reason to notice

T ime since observation

E rrors and discrepancies

Information gathering can also be more effective by using techniques other than just questioning. The use of re-enactments, walk throughs and sketches can provide more descriptive information than talking alone. Remember to have the interviewee adopt this evidence by signing any documentation created.

When concluding an interview always ask if the version of events provided is true and accurate and provide the interviewee the opportunity to make any complaints about the interview process.

Generally, if you have conducted the interview by adhering to procedural fairness and in a professional and transparent manner, there will be no complaints. However, if complaints are received well after the interview, which can happen with adverse findings, this recorded part of the interview can be used to evidence the appropriateness of the interview.

When conducting an investigation, you must interview all persons who you reasonably consider to have any connection with, or information about, the matter under investigation. There are primarily two types of interviews, the witness/complainant and the subject/respondent. Essentially the framework for both types of interviews is identical. The only significant difference is that a respondent, although required to provide information about their duties and job, is not required to provide any information that may incriminate them.

Interviewees may be confused, anxious or behave irrationally at times. You must remain calm, professional and polite. An explanation of the process, roles and responsibilities will remove any ambiguity about the interview process and provide direction and confidence to the interviewee about the process.

The interview must not be perceived as being unfair, deceptive or intimidating in any way. The formal questioning must be aimed at addressing the elements surrounding the facts of the issue. Do not use ambiguous or trick questions. Most importantly do not assume anything, especially guilt. Your task as the investigator is to consider the facts in an impartial and professional manner.

Before commencing the interview make sure you have all the required evidence, documents, diagrams, reports etc that you wish to discuss with the interviewee. Review your investigation plan to ensure you are across the issues to be raised at interview. Prepare the interview room. Make sure there is water, glasses, tissues if necessary and that your recording equipment is primed and ready.

Best practice is to record all interviews. This provides both you and the interviewee protection in that there is a true account of what is discussed. Additionally when compiling the report, direct quotes can be included as opposed to your ‘interpretation’ of what is said. Recordings should never be conducted covertly as there is legislation against this type of activity.

When conducting formal interviews it is a best practice to use a template that ensures you have provided all the required information about the interview. This preamble template should be read into the record in order to satisfy procedural fairness. Information that should be included in this template include the names of all parties involved in the interview, date, time, place, details of the allegation, the decision making process and the expectation of involvement by the interviewee.

Next, ask interviewees to check and confirm their authorship of any previously completed reports related to the allegations.

When conducting the interview use open and non leading questions and allow the interviewee to talk without interruption. This enables you to obtain as much information as possible, not about you. Be aware of using negative questions and questions that have multiple answers or parts to them. You are just making it difficult for the interviewee to cooperate.

A good rule of thumb when interviewing is the ADVOCATE method. By directing open, non threatening questions around this methodology should provide you a significant amount of detail around the incident/allegation.

A mount of time under observation

D istance from subject

V isibility

O bstructions

K nown or seen before

A ny reason to notice

T ime since observation

E rrors and discrepancies

Information gathering can also be more effective by using techniques other than just questioning. The use of re-enactments, walk throughs and sketches can provide more descriptive information than talking alone. Remember to have the interviewee adopt this evidence by signing any documentation created.

When concluding an interview always ask if the version of events provided is true and accurate and provide the interviewee the opportunity to make any complaints about the interview process.

Generally, if you have conducted the interview by adhering to procedural fairness and in a professional and transparent manner, there will be no complaints. However, if complaints are received well after the interview, which can happen with adverse findings, this recorded part of the interview can be used to evidence the appropriateness of the interview.

An investigation is a fact finding process. It requires an Investigator/reviewer to search for, gather and examine information to establish the facts of the allegation, issue or complaint.

The circumstances that surround each alleged incident or complaint make all investigations unique, however, despite variables such as location, the people involved and complexity of each case, all investigations do have similarities. This means that the basic framework for conducting any investigation should be the same. There are two types of investigations, administrative and criminal. The two are different in that an administrative investigation can be conducted by a delegated authority and is usually employment based i.e.: an employer seeking explanation from an employee. A criminal investigation is conducted by a member of a law enforcement agency and considers breaches of the Criminal code and associated legislation and laws.

Administrative is based on the balance of probabilities.
An example of the balance of probabilities is the Boy Who Cried Wolf. The townfolk had heard the boy cry Wolf so many times without the wolf appearing, the balance of probabilities were if the boy cried Wolf again, there would be no wolf.

 Criminal is based on the burden of proof.
Using the same scenario, the towns folk would have required proof beyond reasonable doubt that the wolf was present. They would not have come to the boys assistance on his cry alone. E.g.: a photograph taken with the wolf, with the boy holding a current newspaper showing the date, plus a DNA report on wolf hair.

In criminal cases, allegations against a Respondent must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
When dealing administrative investigations the civil standard of proof applies – which is lower than that required in criminal matters
The test becomes a question as to whether or not, on balance, a reasonable person would conclude that based on the evidence presented the Respondent did commit a breach.
The more serious the consequences of an adverse finding, the more onerous must be the standard of proof. Briginshaw Standard
Within Australian in order to conduct Administrative Investigations, an investigator needs to hold an Investigators license as provided by the Police and Licensing Services of that State. This license is provided in accordance with the Security and other Related Activities Act.
If an investigator wishes to work for themselves they must also hold an Inquiry Agents License. This license is obtained after providing assorted documentation to the Licensing Centre including a business plan, financial statements and successfully sitting an examination.

As an Agent, the Investigator must adhere to the Act and uphold the Code of Conduct.
An investigator working for an Agent also has obligations under the Act with regards to documentation, breaches and notifications. Ignorance is not an excuse, so review and study of this legislation is a necessity.

Administrative Investigations usually revolve around the alleged breach of a policy, process or procedure. To substantiate any allegation, an instrument needs to have been breached or violated. For example, if an allegation states that an employee has acted inappropriately, the breached instrument needs to be identified, such as the Code of Conduct. I.e.: It is alleged that the staff member has acted inappropriately in disrespecting a superior which is a breach as laid out in the code of conduct.
One of the main elements of any investigation is the adherence to Procedural Fairness. This term is used often but few people understand its application and true meaning.

What is procedural fairness?
Procedural fairness is the procedures used by the investigator rather than the actual outcome reached.
Also known as Natural Justice, the principles have been developed to ensure decision-making is fair and reasonable.
Natural justice is designed to ensure that people are informed about the case against them or their interests and given the right to respond, as soon as practicable.

In Australia, an investigator must be licensed, adhere to the Act and Code of Conduct and ensure they follow procedural fairness when conducting investigations.