Interviewing and gathering evidence
Step 1 / 4·Interview order and why it matters
0/4 steps done
Learning objectives — after this module you will:
- Interview in the right order with the right aim for each role
- Question without leading, and minute to a proper standard
- Assess credibility when accounts conflict
Interview order and why it matters
Don't damage the evidence by meeting the wrong person first.
Interview order isn't procedural nicety — it determines the quality of what you get. Meeting the subject too early gives them time to influence witnesses; meeting witnesses before you understand the allegation means you ask the wrong things and have to go back.
Different aims for each role
| Role | Aim of the meeting | What to avoid |
|---|---|---|
| Complainant | Pin down exactly what, when, where, who saw it, what evidence exists | Don't judge the merits on the spot, and don't promise a specific outcome |
| Witness | Hear what they DIRECTLY witnessed | Don't reveal extra detail about the case — you'll contaminate their memory |
| The subject | Put the full allegation and hear their response, including anything in their favour | Don't hold back part of the allegation to catch them out — findings from such a meeting are very hard to defend |
The subject must know what they're accused of
You can't ask someone to respond to an allegation whose content they've not been told. Set out the conduct, the timing and the context — you may withhold the complainant's identity where there's a retaliation risk, but the substance of the allegation must be clear.
Key takeaway: Order: complainant → witnesses → evidence → subject; and the subject must know the substance of the allegation.