Week 2 - Investigation Practice

  • Investigative Practice – ‘information work’ where the collection and interpretation of material equips you to draw inferences and develop a hypothesis (Innes, 2003)

  • Material can include:

    • Statements

    • Documents

    • Reports

    • Images, video, or audio recordings

    • Physical Exhibits

      • Weapons

      • Clothing

      • Stolen goods

      • Biological/ chemical material

      • Etc.

  • Material Attrition – the categorisation of collected material as ir/relevant; as inculpatory or exculpatory evidence

  • Investigative Actions

  1. Interviewing – a communication process between two or more persons in which one person is seeking certain information from the other person

  2. Role Playing - involves a police officer assuming an identity to gather information.

  3. Scientific Analysis - knowledge and skills associated with knowing how evidence can be used, how it is gathered, and how it is processed.

  4. Pattern Analysis - concerned with the structure of crimes; the relationships between crimes, suspects, and criminals; and crime targets.

  5. Monitoring - techniques concerned primarily with two senses, seeing and hearing.

The Investigative Cycle

  • Criminal Investigation – the process of identifying a party guilty of committing crime via the collecting and analysis of evidence; it is an art that draws upon the science of forensics and criminalistics, the skills of reasoning and critical analysis, and elements of chance

    • Charles E. O’Hara (1956, p. 5), Fundamentals of Criminal Investigation

  • Investigative Procedure – prescriptivist models of investigations that provide a series of steps to avoid mistakes; including evidence collection, authentication, analysis, hypothesis testing, and decision-making

  • Steps within the Investigative Cycle:

  1. Plan the investigation – Draft an investigative plan, identify tasks to be completed, the necessary resources, and risks

  2. Understand the sources and material to be examined – Ensure an adequate understanding of any materials (mechanical, biological, digital) relevant to the investigation

  3. Examination of suspects, witnesses, and evidence – Assume nothing, Believe nothing, Challenge everything (ABCs)

  4. Recording and collation – Maintain records of all sources and materials and ensure continuity of evidence is preserved

  5. Evaluation and interpretation of evidence – assess the reliability of individual pieces of evidence; triangulate evidence; and document the justifications for decisions and conclusions.

image.png

AFP Investigative Doctrine

  1. Initiation - The process by which a matter is brought to the AFP for consideration for investigation.

  2. Evaluation - An evaluation is a process of determining whether the AFP will continue to investigate a matter and assigning it a priority.

  3. Planning – The conduct of all investigations needs to be organised around an Investigation Plan. The focus of planning should be on applying critical thinking to develop an investigative strategy that gives all activity a coherent and uniform sense of purpose and direction.

  4. Investigative Activity - This stage is the actual conduct of investigative activity to determine the facts related to the case. The organising logic of this stage should be based on the gathering of admissible evidence against each of the physical elements and fault elements of a criminal offence.

  5. Outcome – The outcome of the investigation. These are not necessarily discrete or mutually exclusive and there may be a number of intermediate and final outcomes from an investigation

Investigative Planning

  • Investigative planning – the process of identifying what questions need to be answered, what information is required to answer those questions, and the best way to obtain that information.

  • Standard Structure (template usually available within your specific organisation)

    1. Introduction

    2. Scope and Purpose

    3. Resources and Timeframe

    4. List of Affected Persons

    5. Activities Table

    6. Risk Management

    7. Information Register

image.png

Investigative Reasoning

  • Investigative thinking/ reasoning – the identification of possible theories or hypotheses, and the search for evidence that will support or eliminate those theories (Palmer, 2021, p. 32)

    • Logic – the study of correct reasoning and good arguments

    • Reasoning – the process of drawing inferences (conclusions) from new or existing information

    • Arguments - “a chain of reasoning in support of a certain conclusion” (Smith, 2003)

Four Ways of Investigative Thinking

  1. Deduction – pure logic; the process of moving from general propositions to specific conclusions

  2. Induction – scientific thinking; moving from observations to general principles about cause-and-effect

  3. Abduction – theory generation; a creative process by which we identify plausible theories of a case (brainstorming possible explanations of events) A surprising fact, X, is observed But if Y were true, X would be a matter of course Therefore, there is reason to suspect that Y is true

  4. Retroduction – retrospective reasoning; the process of moving from observed effects to identify a cause; we identify ‘tests’ that might support or eliminate theories of a case; Investigation – the process of carrying out of these ‘tests’ using investigative practices

Hypothesis Testing in Investigations

  • Criminal Investigation is best characterised as a task of abductive logic (Simon, 2012)

  • Hypothesis Testing – a method of decision-making used to determine whether data (evidence) sufficiently support a particular explanation.

    • Inculpatory Evidence – evidence that can establish guilt of a physical/ fault element.

    • Exculpatory Evidence – Evidence that exonerates or tends to exonerate the defendant of guilt

  • Counters tunnel vision when trying to disprove a working hypothesis (O’Brien, 2009)

    • Something as ostensibly neutral as naming a suspect generates a focal hypothesis to induce bias toward confirming that suspect's guilt

Investigative Decision-Making

  • Investigative Decision-Making - Decisions about the collection, interpretation, and use of evidence during an investigation.

    • Involves gathering and interpreting facts and evaluating their impact in a relevant ethical context (Tong et al., 2009)

    • A process of identifying a problem, evaluating alternatives, and selecting a solution

  • Initial questions upon a report (from victim/ intelligence)

    1. Is the behaviour under consideration an offence?

    2. Who might be a suspect?

    3. What further material needs to be gathered?

  • When investigators are presented with new information, they must make decisions about:

    1. Its significance and where it fits within the investigation?

    2. What steps should be taken next in the investigation?

    3. What additional evidence and lines of inquiry should be pursued? (Ask & Granhag, 2005; Simon, 2012; Stubbins & Stubbins, 2009).

  • This process can be impacted by a number of different variables (Ask & Granhag, 2007; Ask et al., 2011):

    • Time/ resource constraints

    • Pressure to close a case

    • Workloads

    • Group norms

    • Organisational culture

AFP Investigative Decision-Making Guidelines

  1. Defining the Situation. This is the identification of the existing circumstances and the particular problems, threats, risks and/or opportunities.

    • This is undertaken via the gathering of all available relevant information (including evidence and intelligence).

    • This is particularly important as it defines the circumstances under which the decision was made, the information available to the decision maker at the time and the rationale for the decision.

  2. Choice. This is an assessment and ranking of the various options in terms of their potential positive outcomes balanced against their risks. The option with the minimal risk is not necessarily the best, as good investigators will take calculated risks to create an opportunity to achieve the best outcomes. Often a combination of options may achieve the most positive outcomes.

  3. Justification. As investigative decisions are open to challenge and/or review, they must always be recorded and be justifiable (reasonable, necessary, fair and proportionate).

  4. Action and Review. Once the chosen option has been actioned, in line with the Investigative Mindset, good investigators should constantly be questioning, assessing and reviewing their actions and decisions, learning from them and changing them where necessary.

  5. Recording Decisions. In some cases, legislation, governance or standard operating procedures will determine the requirement for specific types of decision to be documented and when and how they are to be recorded.

  6. Communicating the Decision. Communication is a critical component of decision making. Team colleagues, management and partners need to be informed of key decisions in a timely fashion. Complainants and the victims of crime similarly need to be kept advised of progress of an investigation.

Deductive Reasoning

Deductive Reasoning – the process of reasoning from one or more propositions to infer a logical conclusion

  • Uses existing information (propositions) to make natural deductions via ‘rules of inference’

  • Inference - A process by which one proposition is arrived at and affirmed on the basis of some other proposition or propositions.

Logical Validity and Soundness

  • Valid inferences – an argument is valid if the conclusion follows from the premises according to the rules of inference

  • Sound inferences – an argument is sound if the premises are factually true

Deduction is a natural process.

Rules of Inference

  • Rules of Inference – the laws of thought that govern the logical movement from propositions to a conclusion

  • There are nine (9) elementary valid argument forms and ten (10) forms of logical equivalence

  • Together, these forms of logical inference and transformation structure a complete system of natural deduction (Copi, 1979)

  • Elementary Valid Argument Forms – fundamental logical structures that guarantee a true conclusion if the premises are true.

  • Forms of Logical Equivalence – fundamental rules of replacement that allow propositions to be transformed without changing their truth value.