817065

research-article2018
JIVXXX10.1177/0886260518817065Journal of Interpersonal ViolenceWalton et al.

Original Research
Journal of Interpersonal Violence
1­–19
The Use of Victim Video © The Author(s) 2018
Article reuse guidelines:
Statements in Family sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0886260518817065
https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260518817065
Violence Cases Increases journals.sagepub.com/home/jiv

the Rate of Early Guilty

Pleas

Darren Walton,1,2 Robert Brooks,3,4 and Judy Li3

Abstract
A natural experiment is used to determine the effect of victim video
statements (VVS) on the rate of early guilty pleas in cases of domestic violence.
Participants were part of a trial conducted in 2017-2018 by New Zealand
Police, in Counties Manukau District, South Auckland. Cases that met the
eligibility criteria but did not result in a VVS formed the control group with
written statements taken. Analyses were restricted to cases that proceeded
to a court hearing (VVS group: n = 168, control group: n = 108). The key
question was whether taking a VVS would increase the rate of early guilty
pleas. A logistic regression model controlled two additional factors: (a) being
bailed or remanded and (b) the seriousness of charges. VVS cases resulted in
44% early guilty pleas compared with 30% for those with written statements.
VVS have a statistically significant increase in the odds of making a guilty plea,
adjusted odds ratio (AOR) =1.77, 95% confidence interval (CI) = [1.02, 3.06],
when controlling for the other factors. The results indicate that VVS can be
used to reduce demand pressure on the criminal justice system. The findings
are considered in terms of the complex relationship between offenders and
victims that commonly results in the retraction of written statements.

1University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand

2Crow’s Nest Research, Wellington, New Zealand
3New Zealand Police’s Safer Whānau, Wellington, New Zealand
4University of Oxford, UK

Corresponding Author:
Darren Walton, Department of Psychology, University of Canterbury, Private Bag 2400,
Christchurch, New Zealand.
Email: d.walton@cnr.co.nz
2 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 00(0)

Keywords
video statement, family violence, victim statement, evidence-in-chief, statement
retraction

The opportunity to electronically record a victim’s statement at the scene of a

domestic violence event arises through the widespread deployment of technol-
ogy to support modern policing. This article addresses the application of video
capture to record statements taken from adult victims of domestic violence,1
referred to here as victim video statements (VVS). At the introduction of the
New Zealand trial of VVS, the Minister of Police stated, “The benefits of good
quality video statements include less likelihood of recanted statements, earlier
guilty pleas and reduced court time.” The Minister of Justice pitched that VVS
will “provide better support to victims and hold offenders to account” (“Police
to Trial Family Violence Victim Video Statements,” 2015). Strong political
support aside, it was acknowledged that formal empirical support for such
statements would be required if New Zealand was to radically improve its
process for prosecuting offenders of domestic violence.
In 2005, New Zealand had the highest prevalence rate of partner physical
or sexual assault within the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD), as reported in the International Crime and Victim
Survey (2004-2005) (Van Dijk, Van Kesteren, & Smit, 2005). This statistic
has been echoed in media releases. However, 2014 data from the OECD
ranked New Zealand fifth in the OECD for lifetime prevalence of violence
against women (33%). Still, New Zealand’s rate is one third higher than our
nearest neighbor Australia (25%), who ranked 13th in the OECD, and more
than 5 times the rate for Canada (6%), who had the lowest prevalence rate
(OECD, 2014).
Following the Essex Body Worn Video Trial (Owens, Mann, & Mckenna,
2014), 15 officers were interviewed to gauge their perception of using VVS in
domestic violence cases. Many stated that VVS offered an advantage over
traditional statement collection techniques, particularly for capturing injury or
damage at an incident, as well as the emotional state of the subject being inter-
viewed. Although some limitations were associated with this study (e.g., low
usage of body-worn cameras (BWC) by officers in the intervention group and
equipment failure), the findings provided some indications that VVS may be
an effective tool for capturing victim statements, and subsequently increasing
the likelihood of a charge being laid in a domestic violence incident.
New Zealand has some context-specific jurisdictional differences with the
rest of the world. New Zealand Police and judiciary refer to “domestic vio-
lence” as family violence or family harm. This is an intentional shift away
Walton et al. 3

from a terminology viewed as reinforcing a stereotyped set of encounters, a

narrowed focus of males physically assaulting females, and overlooks the
harm to children as witnesses of events (for an early review, see Edleson,
1999, or Wolfe, Crooks, Lee, McIntyre-Smith, & Jaffe, 2003, for the effects
of domestic violence on children). The new terminology was introduced to
broaden consideration to include psychological harms consequent to any type
of violence within families.
Since the early 1990s, New Zealand has been utilizing legislation that
allows children to give evidence-in-chief via a video interview. This was
extended to adult sexual assaults in 2010. The idea of using a statement as
evidence-in-chief is a major alteration to the practice of law (Ellison, 2002),
and in New Zealand it required a change to the Evidence Regulations by a
decision of the Parliamentary Council. Evidence-in-chief is defined as “The
questioning of one’s own witness to adduce evidence to prove one’s own case
and disprove the opponent’s case” (Law & Martin, 2013). To be clear, the
usual written statement is not evidence per se, but serves to remind a witness
of their account of events, especially when appearing in court giving evi-
dence. What the witness says may be subject to cross-examination, including
comparing what they say to their statement of events as recorded. A video
statement operates similarly, with the witness being required to attend court
and be available for cross-examination. However, a statement made at the
time of the event and recorded by video is evidence on its own, or evidence-
in-chief, as to what the witness said at the time of reporting the incident.
A specific benefit of VVS is the ability to accurately record (as close to the
time of the incident, see Kebbell & Westera, 2011) an account of events that
is less likely to be recanted. Early studies from the United Kingdom report
46% of cases led to a retraction of the statement or withdrawal of support by
the victim (Ellison, 2002). Other research reports the majority of victims in
cases of intimate partner domestic violence retract their statements, adding
that the reasons and factors influencing such withdrawal as extremely com-
plex (Hoyle & Sanders, 2000). Any mechanism that improves the opportu-
nity to secure evidence that is difficult to contest or serves as evidence-in-chief
independent of the victim’s commitment to trial is likely to have a significant
impact reducing cases in which charges are laid but ultimately withdrawn.
Hester (2006) identified police and criminal justice agencies tended to
view those who were victimized as being key to “attrition” as cases proceeded
to prosecution. The view identified was that “women experiencing domestic
violence who decided, usually for relationship or other family reasons, to drop
out of their engagement with the criminal justice system” (p. 83). Ellison
(2002) recorded that prosecutors in her research “would rarely proceed with-
out a co-operative complainant and domestic violence victims were generally
4 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 00(0)

viewed as undependable and even hostile” (p. 840), the effect being to dis-
courage attending officers to secure the evidence required for the case.
Against common stereotypes, there are often multiple complex reasons for
victims’ retractions (Hoyle & Sanders, 2000). Researchers observing the pro-
cess of cases proceeding to trial acknowledge some rare cases of pressures by
the offender being directly placed on the victim (Hester, 2006). Fear of retali-
ation is the most frequent concern expressed within a well-documented rea-
soning of a victim manipulated into believing they are dependent on the
offender for their own or their children’s well-being. As well as logical con-
cerns for their personal safety, some women simply did not want to end their
relationship with a violent partner (Hoyle & Sanders, 2000). Such is the com-
plexity of these relationships, recent findings show 40% of women report
they would not have sought help knowing a mandatory reporting for domes-
tic violence would occur (Jordan & Pritchard, 2018).
The specific potential benefits of VVS can be contrasted to problems com-
monly associated with traditional written statements such as their accuracy
and completeness. Research has found that even if a police report is written
immediately after the interview, the report may contain only two thirds of the
relevant information reported by the interviewee (Koehnken, Thurer, &
Zoberbier, 1994). Lamb, Orbach, Sternberg, Hershkowitz, and Horowitz
(2000) found that even when investigators took notes within an interview,
25% of the forensically relevant details provided by child interviewees were
not included (many of these details were central to the investigation). They
concluded, “interviewers cannot be expected to provide complete accounts of
their interviews without electronic assistance” (p. 705).
A written statement has the limitation that there is no record of the ques-
tions asked to elicit the information. In contrast, the video recording of victim
interviews provides a mechanism to capture how information was elicited,
such as use of open-ended/close-ended questions and leading questions
(Westera, Kebbell, & Milne, 2013). Milne and Bull (2006) suggested that dur-
ing an interview, what the interviewee communicates both verbally and non-
verbally must be encoded by the interviewer when taking a written statement.
However, the many tasks required in transcribing an interview put significant
cognitive demand on the interviewer, especially when there is no other record-
ing of the interview. Milne and Bull found police interviewers may rewrite
what the interviewee actually reports, using more “standard” legal language.
Police interviewers were found to put events in a chronological order, remove
contradictory evidence or information they deems to be irrelevant, and address
only specific points to prove the offense in question (Ainsworth, 1995; Rock,
2001). Witnesses therefore often sign a statement that is dissimilar to what
they originally said (Ede & Shepherd, 1997; Milne & Bull, 1999).
Walton et al. 5

Apart from the ability to provide a more accurate and complete informa-
tion collection from the victim, Westera (2016) and Westera, Kebbell, and
Milne (2011) highlighted several other theoretical benefits of VVS which
could potentially improve case outcomes, as well as victims’ interactions and
experiences with police. These potential benefits include (a) a transparent
and reliable interview process allowing for improved decision making, (b)
more effective and efficient interviewing practices, (c) being less intimidat-
ing for victims, and (d) the ability to demonstrate the trauma, distress, and
other nonverbal cues displayed by the victims. It is also acknowledged that
few studies record the perspective of the victim (Katz, Choate, Ready, &
Nuño, 2014). Westera et al. (2013) provided some consideration into how
videos are processed and used during the criminal justice process. Their study
on VVS accuracy in sexual assault cases found that over two thirds of details
present in VVS that were central to establishing whether the alleged offend-
ing had occurred were omitted from live evidence.
There are studies that have acknowledged potential disadvantages of
video interviews. Westera (2016) and Westera et al. (2011) noted that poor
practical implementation can undermine process and lead to poorer quality
police interviewing. It is also likely to take longer for interviewers to review
a video recording interview than a written statement, and more difficult for
jurors to digest the information as VVS footage may contain irrelevant or
peripheral information. Murphy (2015) highlighted further potential prob-
lems with camera use in family harm and sexual assault investigations. She
stated that there are unanswered questions around several key issues: privacy
and confidentiality (of both victims and suspects), access a victim has to
filmed footage and the subsequent potential of footage being made public, as
well as other evidentiary challenges such as security and evidentiary stan-
dards of recording. Finally, Moore and Singh (2017) observed that using
VVS as evidence-in-chief during a prosecution removed the ability of vic-
tims to change or alter their accounts of victimization incidents. Their study
found “the reliance on visual evidence often serves to facilitate the silencing
of domestic violence victims and the further removal of their agency within
the prosecution of their assaults” (p. 128). Such potential pitfalls must be
considered and addressed for the VVS concept to operate successfully.
New Zealand Police first introduced VVS as a trial between November 30,
2015, and March 31, 2016. A pilot study of VVS was conducted in a small
town with a population of approximately 85,000. During that trial, 55 front-
line general duties officers used mobile phones to capture video statements at
the scene of certain family violence incidents. The trial was terminated before
it could be completed when the use of VVS as evidence in chief was ruled
unlawful by a District Court Judge (Flahive, 2017).
6 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 00(0)

There is reason to consider that a video being played in court can import
emotional content that can impact on the fairness of the judicial process.
There is considerable debate in the context of victim impact statements, pre-
sented at sentencing (Blume, 2003; Myers & Greene, 2004). Research into
victim impact statements establishes the influence of emotion-invoking mes-
saging on juror decision making (Myers, Lynn, & Arbuthnot, 2002), and the
influence of video as a medium for conveying information (Landström, Ask,
& Sommar, 2015).
Victim Impact statements are quite different in purpose and function from
video statements giving evidence (see Lens et al., 2015). For example,
Ellison and Munro (2014) found no support that live-linked evidence, evi-
dence by video and evidence given behind a protective screen influenced
mock jurors assessing a highly emotive context of rape cases. Highly emo-
tive images of victims are routinely used in evidence (Matsuo & Itoh, 2016).
In addition, the present research has “no jury element” to consider because
the guilty pleas are made ahead of the opportunity of the video being played
in a judge-only trial. However, it remains reasonable to suppose that the
defendant may perceive a VVS has emotional content that might influence
the outcome of their own case. It is also conceivable that they may not want
to confront that perceived emotional content in court. Concurrently, how-
ever, it is also the defendant who is the primary decision maker in the pro-
cess of making a guilty plea.
New Zealand Police requested changes to regulations related to the use of
video statements as evidence-in-chief. A report by the New Zealand Police’s
Chief Privacy Officer details the purpose of these changes (Flahive, 2017).
The Evidence Regulations (New Zealand Government, 2007) were amended
to accommodate iPhone video capture and thus provide a lawful basis for
acquiring VVS that can be safely and appropriately included in evidence. The
amendments to the Evidence Regulations require strict controls on acquisi-
tion, storage, and use of VVS and support Privacy Act considerations while
not overriding the Privacy Act (New Zealand Government, 1993).
Following regulatory changes, a second trial was started in July 2017.
New Zealand Police considered VVS would (a) provide a less stressful and
time-consuming process for the victim to make a statement and allow the
victim to remain at the scene to have a statement taken (rather than having
to go to a police station), (b) allow a more complete and accurate record of
the incident due to the interview being video-recorded immediately, (c)
decrease the officer time taken to response to a family violence incident, (d)
reduce the likelihood of a victim recanting their statement in court, and (e)
increase efficiency in the criminal justice system by improving the rate of
obtaining an early guilty plea.
Walton et al. 7

Table 1. Inclusion Criteria for Utilizing VVS.

Offense-Related Criteria Victim-Related Criteria

• Offenses anticipated to be as
follows: male assaults female,
crimes act assault, summary act
assault up to assaults with intent
to injure, and breach of Protection
Order (if there are no other
complicating factors such as medical
assistance required and is approved
by the noncommissioned officer).
• It is a single offense, not part of
multiple/historic offenses.
• The offense is to have occurred in
the last 3 weeks (approximately)
and must be related to the family
violence episode being attended.
• The victim is in a fit state for an
interview.
• The victim should not have injuries
requiring immediate medical
attention.
• The victim has English as his or her
first language.
• The victim is or above 18 years old.
• The suspect must be removed or
absent from the scene prior to
video being taken.

Note. VVS = victim video statements.

This article specifically examines whether the availability of VVS as the

evidence-in-chief during criminal proceedings would affect the probability of
having an early guilty plea. In the New Zealand Judicial system, an early
guilty plea means that an offender pleads guilty at their first appearance in
court. The main benefit of an early guilty plea is a reduction in the number of
cases proceeding through the court system, saving time and resources. In
addition, a witness does not have to appear in court, reducing the chance of
additional retraumatization.

Method
Research Design
This research study uses a natural experimental design. Police officers in
Counties Manukau (one of 12 Police Districts in New Zealand) were trained
to deliver VVS to victims of family violence incidents. VVS is only offered to
a victim if certain criteria around the nature of the offense and the physical and
emotional state of the victim are met, as well as other conditions such as age,
language, the safety of officer, and whereabouts of the suspect (see Table 1).
Training was provided to the officers but there is a reported “officer effect”
with some managing the added complexity of requesting the VVS better than
others. Consequently, variation in officers’ abilities contributed to the natural
8 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 00(0)

Table 2. Demographic Characteristics of the Offenders in VVS (n = 168) and

Written Statement Groups (n = 108).

VVS Group Written Statement

% males 90 82
Mean age 33 years 31 years
Ethnicity (%)
Māori 41 41
Pacific Island 36 40
Others 23 19
Relationship to victim (%)
Parent 28 26
Child 10 10
Intimate partner 36 41
Other 24 23

Note. VVS = victim video statements.

experiment, as some cases that were eligible for a VVS were handled with a
traditional written statement.
If the criteria for use of VVS are met and the victim consents to a video state-
ment instead of a written statement, the video statement is captured, and steps
are taken to ensure the legislative requirements of the evidence regulations are
met. If the criteria for VVS are not met or the victim refuses a video statement,
the usual process for obtaining a formal statement in writing is followed.
This research design creates a natural control group, consisting of cases
that meet the eligibility criteria but where a traditional written statement was
taken from the victims. The intervention group included those who had con-
ducted and used the VVS throughout the court process.
The offenders in the study were mostly males (89%). There is a large over-
representation of minority ethnicities in New Zealand (Māori, for example,
represent 15.1% of the New Zealand population). The demographics are rep-
resented in Table 2. Pacific Island people (people representing an ethnicity
derived from Tonga, Samoa, Niue, and Cook Island Māori, although around
62% are born in New Zealand) represent around 6% of the population.
However, Pacific Island peoples live in a higher concentration (23%), in South
Auckland, and within the Counties Manukau Police District. According to the
2013 New Zealand Census, 36% of the Counties Manukau population were
living in areas classed as the most socioeconomically deprived.
Officers followed a strict protocol to gain the consent of the victims,
including the assurances around privacy and security of the statement, the
ability to have the statement reviewed, the ability to clarify any aspect of the
recording in writing, and the intention to use the material in court (this was
Walton et al. 9

repeated in three occasions at the outset, at the beginning of the recording and
at the end). Participants were made aware of the trial and gave their verbal
(recorded) consent as part of the process of engaging in the recording.

Materials and Procedure

All Police officers assigned to the intervention group had their mobility
device upgraded to an iPhone 6+ which had improved capability for captur-
ing videos via a mobile application (app) called Axon Capture. This app facil-
itates a secure way to transfer and store evidence into a cloud-based storage
facility. It also has the function of deleting the footage from the mobile
phones once the files are uploaded. Police officers were also issued with a
small grip stand to hold the iPhone during recording.
On completion of the video statement and return to the station, the video
was uploaded on to a cloud-based repository for secure storage. The officer
then notified the Criminal Justice Support Unit (CJSU) of the event and the
video ID number and copied the URL link into the National Intelligence
Application (NIA) police database. This process ensures that prosecutors,
defense lawyers, and courts can easily access the recording and reliably cap-
ture the metadata required to use the recording in a legal setting.
As part of their duties around preparing a file for court, the CJSU are
responsible for disclosing evidence to the defense lawyer. An email with a link
to the cloud repository is sent to the defense lawyer (providing them view-
only access for a specified period) to complete disclosure. The CJSU also
produces a written transcript of the video if the suspect enters a not guilty plea.
As part of their role in prosecuting a charge through the court process, the
Police Prosecutions Service are responsible for viewing the video before first
appearance at court, arranging with CJSU for defense counsel to view the
video, and processing a “mode of evidence application” if defense counsel
disputed the use of video as evidence-in-chief.
A mode of evidence application is required to alter the usual form of giv-
ing evidence orally, in court. In New Zealand (and elsewhere), the long-
standing traditional practice requires that the evidence be given by the
witness in court and be subject to cross-examination. The evidence is the
oral account, read by the witness and is only entered as “evidence-in-chief”
if and only and when it is given orally (District Court Rules, s (9.14)).
However, Section 103 of the Evidence Act 2006 provides the opportunity to
present evidence from witnesses in different ways, through the use of video.
Consideration must be given to such issues as “trauma suffered by the wit-
ness,” “fear of intimidation,” and “the relationship of the witness to any
other party in the proceeding.” The use of an alternative requires a mode of
evidence application be presented and for the Judge at a pretrial hearing,
10 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 00(0)

who must consider all factors that might influence a fair trial, while having
a duty to minimize stress on the witness.
Police Prosecution Services redact the video as required by the Judge’s
direction from the pretrial admissibility hearing that hears the mode of evi-
dence application (i.e., redacting any part of the statement that is prejudicial
or not relevant). A DVD copy of the video is then sent to the court. Police
Prosecution Services present the case at a Judge Alone Trial: A trial which is
presided over by a judge with no jury present.

Analyses
The analyses were undertaken using R 3.5.0 and R Studio. The base sample
for this analysis are family violence cases where a victim interview occurred
between July 1 and November 9, 2017 (n = 745). Of these cases, 240 have
had a VVS recorded and the remaining had a written statement taken from the
victims. Descriptive statistics for event characteristics were calculated.
The outcome variable for this analysis is whether the alleged offender
made a plea of “guilty” (an “early guilty plea”). This variable is only relevant
to cases which had been proceeded to a court hearing, and therefore reduced
to sample available for analysis to 276 cases (VVS: n = 168 and written state-
ment: n = 108). Descriptive statistics are calculated to provide some insights
around these cases.
A univariate logistic regression model was first used to compare the rate
of making an early guilty plea by whether or not the cases involved the use of
VVS. Additional predictive factors were then included in a multivariate
logistic regression model to consider the odds of making an early guilty plea,
taking into consideration the impact of the type of statement taken (video or
written), the type of remand (e.g., whether the offender is held in custody),
and event seriousness.
Event seriousness was approximated using an accumulated Crime Harm
Index (CHI) score (Curtis-Ham & Walton, 2017). The New Zealand CHI quanti-
fies event seriousness based on sentencing data. In this study, offense codes from
all charges laid to the same alleged offender were converted into a score using the
New Zealand CHI. The New Zealand CHI indexes all offense types into an
equalized number of prison days and aggregates charges into a single metric.

Results
Descriptive Statistics of Cases Included in the Study
In a large majority of cases (743 out of 745), more than a single charge had
been laid against the alleged offender. Among the charges laid, the most serious
Walton et al. 11

Table 3. Most Common Charges Laid Against an Offender (n = 745).

Charge Filed (New Zealand Police Offense Code) n CHI Value

Male assaults female (manually) (1543) 178 10.00
Willful damage (5127) 129 5.00
Failure to comply with a police safety order (not a criminal 92 10.00
prosecution) (3857)
Common assault (domestic) (manually) (1643) 87 5.00
Common assault (manually) (1653) 38 4.10

Note. CHI = Crime Harm Index.

Table 4. Reported Reasons for Not Having a VVS Taken (n = 108).

Reason for Not Undertaking a VVS n %

Police discretion/warning 31 28.7
Victim refused VVS 25 23.1
Victim reported to Police District or staff not equipped to conduct VVS 14 13.0
Victim could not provide a statement 7 6.5
Technical issues with video-capture device 4 3.7
Officer oversight 2 1.9
Other reasons 4 3.7
Reason not given/recorded 21 19.4

Note. VVS = victim video statements.

charge was “1412: Wounds Intent to Grievous Bodily Harm (Other Weapon)”
based on the CHI values. The five most common charges laid are represented
in Table 3, with “1543: Male Assaults Female (Manually)” being the most
common in this sample.
At the time of the analysis, 276 alleged offenders had been taken into cus-
tody and had proceeded to a court hearing. This subgroup forms the sample
for the analysis. Among them, 168 cases had a VVS taken, while the remain-
ing 108 cases met the eligibility criteria for VVS but instead had a written
statement taken from the victim.
Reasons for not obtaining a video statement from these victims were
recorded by the attending police officer, and the findings are summarized in
Table 4. At 23% of time, the victim refused to have VVS taken (despite being
eligible), and the reason for not recording a VVS is missing roughly 20% of
time. The length of the VVS footages varies with an average of 8.5 min long
(see Table 5). The link to the electronic copy of the VVS was shared with the
defense counsel in at least 74% of cases (information missing at 20% of cases).
12 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 00(0)

Table 5. Characteristics of VVS Footage (n = 168).

Characteristics of Cases Involving a VVS n % Mean and Range

Link sent to defense
Yes 124 73.8 —
No 11 6.5
Not recorded 33 19.6
Length of footage
Information recorded 110 65.5 Mean = 8.5 min
Not recorded 58 34.5 Range = 2.3-23.3 min

Note. VVS = victim video statements.

Table 6. Descriptive Statistics for the Treatment (Victim Video Statement) and
Control Groups (Written Statement) Formed From the Natural Experiment (n = 276).

Remanded in Number of Average

n Custody (%) Charges Faced Aggregated CHI
Video statement taken 168 29.7 1.6 21.0
Written statement taken 108 11.1 1.4 31.1

Note. CHI = Crime Harm Index.

Table 6 shows that the natural experiment did not evenly assign related
covariates across the main independent variable. There is a tendency for
those involved in cases that have a VVS to (a) be remanded in custody, (b)
face more charges, and (c) have a lower aggregated score in offense serious-
ness. Those with written statements are more likely to be bailed and face
fewer charges. However, these tend to be more serious charges than those in
the treatment condition.

Impact of Video Victim Interviewing on a Guilty Plea

The rates of family violence cases resulting in an early guilty plea are pre-
sented in Table 7. It is found that 44% of cases involving VVS resulted in an
early guilty plea, compared with only 30% of cases that had a written state-
ment from the victim. The proportions were compared using univariate
regression model: Cases with VVS had an 87% increase in odds of resulting
in an early guilty plea. The differences in the covariates are accounted for
within the multivariate logistic regression. After taking into account type of
remand and seriousness of offense, the difference was still statistically sig-
nificant that VVS is shown to increase the odds of a guilty plea by 77%
(adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 1.77, 95% confidence interval = [1.02, 3.06]).
Walton et al. 13

Table 7. Generalized Linear Models With Crude Odds Ratios and Adjusted Odds
Ratio Accounting for the Influence of Type of Remand and Seriousness of Charges
as Measured by the New Zealand CHI.
Early Guilty
n Pleas (%) Crude Odds Ratio Adjusted Odds Ratio

Type of victim statement

Video statement 168 44.0 1.87 [1.12, 3.12]* 1.77 [1.02, 3.06]**
Written statement 108 29.6 Ref Ref
Type of remand
Remanded in custody 62 51.6 2.02 [1.14, 3.58]** 2.68 [1.38, 5.20]***
Not in custody 214 34.6 Ref Ref
Aggregated CHI Harm — — 0.99 [0.97, 1.00] 0.97[0.94, 0.99]**

Note. CHI = Crime Harm Index.

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Discussion
This study finds that VVS, where they are used as evidence-in-chief in family
violence cases, increase the odds of obtaining an early guilty plea compared
with cases where a written statement is recorded. It is important to acknowl-
edge that the VVS is not simply an electronic version of a usual written state-
ment. If the VVS were transcribed, it might serve as an equivalent to the
written statement (and they are routinely transcribed) but it would not func-
tion as intended within the regulatory changes that brought about VVS in
New Zealand. Changes to the regulations introduced a relatively unique (but
not unprecedented in New Zealand) and significant adjustment to the process
of law, by allowing the use of VVS as evidence-in-chief. The merits of the
adjustment to the process of law is worth independent consideration in the
well-formed research context that recognizes the barriers that must be over-
come by a witness in an intimate relationship with the offender (Jordan,
2004). However, the prerequisite to that effort is an observed difference in
outcomes. Here, our finding is simply restricted to the observation that VVS
induce an increase in early guilty pleas.
Our study considers the influences of other factors on the likelihood of
obtaining an early guilty plea, such as type of remand and seriousness of
charges. These factors are statistically controlled for as they independently
influence the likelihood of a guilty plea (with those in remand more likely to
plead guilty and those facing more serious charges less likely to do so). In the
multivariate logistic regression model, the significant difference between
those with VVS and those with written statements for their rates of early
guilty plea remains, providing confidence that the utilization of VVS has a
positive impact on the likelihood of an early guilty plea.
14 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 00(0)

Although a previous trial in Phoenix (Katz et al., 2014) and the current
study both provide evidence on the impact of utilizing VVS on obtaining an
early guilty plea, questions around VVS remain unanswered. First, no
research has attempted to establish the mechanism in which utilization of
VVS as evidence-in-chief influences the decision made around pleas. It is
possible that VVS are perceived by alleged offenders as more convincing
evidence, and therefore, more difficult to challenge in court. It is also pos-
sible that a simple novelty effect exists, where the uncertainly around the
impact and influence of VVS on criminal justice outcomes leads to an
increased rate of early guilty pleas. Second, little is known about the victims’
perspective and whether the use of VVS has any unintended consequences
experienced by those who had a VVS taken.
Given the finding that VVS is associated with a significant change in
the criminal justice process, and in New Zealand leading directly to poten-
tial changes to the Evidence Act, it becomes important to understand why
some family violence victims did not want their interviews video-recorded.
It is possible that some victims perceive VVS to be more intrusive and
made them more identifiable. It is also reasonable that victims may gain
better outcomes (real and perceived) with alternative resolutions (Hoyle &
Sanders, 2000). A more complete understanding of victims’ perspective
would help with the development of an appropriate protocol to manage the
victim interviewing, investigation, and prosecution process. It is important
to acknowledge that establishing that VVS leads to a higher rate of early
guilty pleas is a prerequisite for a more complete analysis of the benefits
and costs of the development.
Deployment of technology to enhance police mobility has been a strong
focus for New Zealand Police. It aims to improve the efficiency and effec-
tiveness of policing activities and improving the safety of police officers and
people in the community. Mobile Apps have been developed to support
frontline activities, for example, an App that allows officers to arrange and
view referrals to other support services such as alcohol and drug support
services. In this research trial, police officers used an App on their mobile
phones to capture VVS on-site, and this video-capture method is different
from most previous studies that used BWC (Katz et al., 2014; Owens et al.,
2014). As noted by Owens et al. (2014), the effectiveness of a videoed evi-
dential statement is impacted by the quality of equipment. Previous trials
that used BWC as means for conducting VVS demonstrated problems with
their devices, they were easy to break, difficult to use, and produced poor
quality videos. The current study suggests that mobile phones are a success-
ful alternative.
Walton et al. 15

Strengths and Limitations

As noted by Owens et al. (2014), sample size has been a common method-
ological limitation in previous research trials on VVS when determining the
impact on criminal justice outcomes. The sample size of this study is large
enough to compare the rate of obtaining an early guilty plea and add to the
limited empirical evidence available to date. At the time of the analysis, only
a modest portion (70%) of VVS cases have had the opportunity to proceed to
a hearing and for a plea to be entered. There is an opportunity to replicate this
analysis using a larger data set in future.
Due to implementation difficulties, we were unable to adopt a randomized
controlled trial (RCT) design to remove bias within the sample (also noted by
Owens et al., 2014, as a limitation of previous research). However, a natural
comparison group is present in this study, and attempts were made to statisti-
cally control for covariates that may have an impact on the rate of having an
early guilty plea, namely, type of remand and event seriousness. There is also
an opportunity to examine the influence of the number of charges faced on
the outcome variable. However, this factor is highly correlated with event
seriousness (presented by the aggregated CHI value), and therefore, the cur-
rent analytical method is considered more appropriate.
This article only focuses on one outcome variable, with many other ques-
tions remaining unanswered. A more comprehensive evaluation is required to
establish the wider benefits (if any) among the other criminal justice out-
comes and perspectives from victims, offenders, defense lawyer, and coun-
sels. It is observed that one feature of VVS is that it saves considerable
amounts of time in taking a statement. However, the process of having a VVS
prepared for court, its review by lawyer and judges, and so on may add sig-
nificantly to the costs of using this technology. Some studies have gathered
police officers’ perspective on use of VVS in general, but feedback on spe-
cific video-capture devices and processes around storing/retrieving the video
footage would provide help with process development.
Although recent technological advances are allowing implementation of
BWC and other video-capture methods to become cheaper and easier, use of
on-site video capture to record victim statement raises issues and questions
around police practice, confidentiality, offender and victim interaction, as
well as public policy implications (IACP National Law Enforcement Policy
Center, 2014; Lum, Koper, Merola, Scherer, & Reioux, 2015).
We also note an amount of missing data (e.g., reasons for not obtaining a
VVS from eligible victims) in the current data set. Future studies should
develop a protocol to ensure that all information is adequately captured for
quality check and research purposes.
16 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 00(0)

Conclusion
This study finds that VVS in family violence cases have a significant effect
on increasing the odds of obtaining an early guilty plea, when comparing
with cases involving a traditional written statement from the victim. The
finding holds when accounting for differences in type of remand and event
seriousness. Some questions around VVS remain unanswered, for example,
the mechanism in which VVS exerts influence on an offender’s decision
making. Future research should gather perspectives from victims, offenders,
defense lawyers, and counsels to help developing a robust and fair process
when implementing VVS.

Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge the work undertaken by police officers and
employees who implemented this trial and collected data and information. Samara
Martin is especially thanked for her help supporting the authors by researching mate-
rials for the manuscript. Superintendent Gary Allcock, Richard Cassidy, Michelle
Luping, Superintendent Bronwyn Marshall, Janine Monahan, and Detective Inspector
Annie Ryan are especially acknowledged for their role in the program of work. The
authors wish to credit the New Zealand Police for supporting the effort to analyze the
data and produce this article for the benefits of wider dissemination. The New Zealand
Police also wish to acknowledge the foundational efforts of Dr. Nina Westera, whose
contribution to this area supported the development of the program.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the
research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The authors are contractors or
employees of New Zealand Police.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publi-
cation of this article.

Note
1. In this field of research, victims are often referred to as survivors. We use the
term victim to align with the court process that will identify a victim in relation
to the charges filed.

References
Ainsworth, P. (1995). Psychology and policing in a changing world. Chichester, UK:
John Wiley.
Walton et al. 17

Blume, J. H. (2003). Ten years of Payne: Victim impact evidence in capital cases.
Cornell Law Review, 88, 257-281.
Curtis-Ham, S., & Walton, D. (2017). The New Zealand Crime Harm Index:
Quantifying harm using sentencing data. Policing: A Journal of Policy and
Practice, 12, 455-467. doi:10.1093/police/pax050
Ede, R., & Shepherd, E. (1997). Active defence: Solicitor’s guide to police and
defence investigation and prosecution and defence disclosure in criminal cases.
London, England: The Law Society.
Edleson, J. L. (1999). Children’s witnessing of adult domestic violence. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 14, 839-870.
Ellison, L. (2002). Prosecuting domestic violence without victim participation. The
Modern Law Review, 65, 834-858.
Ellison, L., & Munro, V. E. (2014). A “special” delivery? Exploring the impact of
screens, live-links and video-recorded evidence on Mock Juror deliberation in
rape trials. Social & Legal Studies, 23, 3-29. doi:10.1177/0964663913496676
Flahive, M. (2017, January). Family Violence Victim Video Interview on Scene—
Privacy Impact Assessment. Wellington: New Zealand Police.
Hester, M. (2006). Making it through the criminal justice system: Attrition and
domestic violence. Social Policy and Society, 5, 79-90.
Hoyle, C., & Sanders, A. (2000). Police response to domestic violence. British
Journal of Criminology, 40, 14-36.
International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP). (2014). Body-worn cameras
model policy. Retrieved from https://www.theiacp.org/sites/default/files/all/b
/BodyWornCamerasPaper.pdf
Jordan, C. E. (2004). Intimate partner violence and the justice system: An examina-
tion of the interface. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19, 1412-1434.
Jordan, C. E., & Pritchard, A. J. (2018). Mandatory reporting of domestic vio-
lence: What do abuse survivors think and what variables influence those opin-
ions? Journal of Interpersonal Violence. Advance online publication. doi:10
.1177/0886260518787206
Katz, C. M., Choate, D. E., Ready, J. R., & Nuño, L. (2014). Evaluating the impact of
officer worn body cameras in the Phoenix police department. Phoenix: Center for
Violence Prevention & Community Safety, Arizona State University.
Kebbell, M., & Westera, N. (2011). Promoting pre-recorded complainant evidence in
rape trials: Psychological and practice perspectives. Criminal Law Journal, 35,
376-385.
Koehnken, G., Thurer, C., & Zoberbier, D. (1994). The cognitive interview: Are the
interviewers’ memories enhanced too? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 8, 13-24.
Lamb, M. E., Orbach, Y., Sternberg, K. J., Hershkowitz, I., & Horowitz, D. (2000).
Accuracy of investigators’ verbatim notes of their forensic interviews with
alleged child abuse victims. Law and Human Behaviour, 24, 699-708.
Landström, S., Ask, K., & Sommar, C. (2015). The emotional male victim: Effects
of presentation mode on judged credibility. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology,
56, 99-104. doi:10.1111/sjop.12176
18 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 00(0)

Law, J., & Martin, E. A. (2013). Oxford dictionary of law (7th ed.). Oxford: Oxford
University Press. Retrieved from http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093
/acref/9780199551248.001.0001/acref-9780199551248
Lens, K. M., Pemberton, A., Brans, K., Braeken, J., Bogaerts, S., & Lahlah, E. (2015).
Delivering a victim impact statement: Emotionally effective or counter-productive?
European Journal of Criminology, 12, 17-34. doi:10.1177/1477370814538778
Lum, C. M., Koper, C. S., Merola, L. M., Scherer, A., & Reioux, A. (2015). Existing
and ongoing body worn camera research: Knowledge gaps and opportunities.
Fairfax, VA: George Mason University.
Matsuo, K., & Itoh, Y. (2016). Effects of emotional testimony and gruesome photo-
graphs on mock jurors’ decisions and negative emotions. Psychiatry, Psychology
and Law, 23, 85-101. doi:10.1080/13218719.2015.1032954
Milne, R., & Bull, R. (1999). Investigative interviewing: Psychology and practice.
Chichester, UK: John Wiley.
Milne, R., & Bull, R. (2006). Interviewing victims of crime, including children and
people with intellectual disabilities. In Mark. R. Kebbell & Graham. M. Davies
(Eds.), Practical psychology for forensic investigations and prosecutions (pp. 7-
23). Chichester, UK: John Wiley. doi:10.1002/9780470713389.ch1
Moore, D., & Singh, R. (2017). Seeing crime, feeling crime: Visual evidence, emo-
tions, and the prosecution of domestic violence. Theoretical Criminology, 22,
116-132.
Murphy, S. T. (2015). Police body cameras in domestic and sexual assault investi-
gations: Considerations and unanswered questions. Battered Women’s Justice
Project. Retrieved from http://www.bwjp.org/resource-center/resource-results
/police-body-cams.html
Myers, B., & Greene, E. (2004). The prejudicial nature of victim impact statements:
Implications for capital sentencing policy. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law,
10, 492-515.
Myers, B., Lynn, S. J., & Arbuthnot, J. (2002). Victim impact testimony and juror
judgments: The effects of harm information and witness demeanor. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 32, 2393-2412.
New Zealand Government. (1993, May). Privacy Act 1993. Author. Retrieved from
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0028/232.0/DLM296639.html
New Zealand Government. (2007, July). Evidence Regulations 2007. Author.
Retrieved from http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2007/0204
/latest/whole.html.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2014). Violence against
women (OECD Data). Retrieved from https://data.oecd.org/inequality/violence
-against-women.htm
Owens, C., Mann, D., & Mckenna, R. (2014). The Essex body worn video trial:
The impact of body worn video on criminal justice outcomes of domestic abuse
incidents. Ryton-on-Dunsmore, UK: College of Policing. Retrieved from https:
//whatworks.college.police.uk/Research/Documents/BWV_Report.pdf
Walton et al. 19

Police to trial family violence victim video statements. (2015, December 1). Beehive.
govt.nz. Retrieved from http://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/police-trial-family
-violence-victim-video-statements
Rock, F. (2001). The genesis of a witness statement. Forensic Linguistics, 8, 44-72.
Van Dijk, J., Van Kesteren, J., & Smit, P. (2005). Criminal Victimisation in
International Perspective: Key Findings from the 2004-2005 ICVS and EU
ICS. The Hague: Ministry of Justice, WODC. Retrieved from http://www
.unicri.it/services/library_documentation/publications/icvs/publications
/ICVS2004_05report.pdf
Westera, N. (2016). Want the best evidence from victims of domestic violence? Press
the record button. Australian Police Journal, 70, 8-15.
Westera, N., Kebbell, M., & Milne, R. (2013). Losing two thirds of the story: A
comparison of the video-recorded police interview and live evidence of rape
complainants. Criminal Law Review, 4, 290-308.
Westera, N., Kebbell, M. R., & Milne, R. (2011). Interviewing rape complainants:
Police officer’s perceptions of interview format and quality of evidence. Applied
Cognitive Psychology, 25, 917-926.
Wolfe, D. A., Crooks, C. V., Lee, V., McIntyre-Smith, A., & Jaffe, P. G. (2003). The
effects of children’s exposure to domestic violence: A meta-analysis and critique.
Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 6, 171-187.

Author Biographies
Darren Walton is an adjunct associate professor of psychology at the University of
Canterbury. His work is multidisciplinary and focuses on data science and analytics.
He has published widely in applied psychology working within Public Health, Road
Safety, and Criminal Justice.
Robert Brooks is a PhD candidate at Jesus College, Oxford University, as the recipi-
ent of the Sir Robert Mahuta scholarship. He is a senior researcher in the Research and
Evaluation unit at the New Zealand Police where he works with the Safer Whanau
team to understand the potential benefits of changes in police operational practice.
Judy Li is a senior research and evaluation advisor at New Zealand Police. Her
research focuses strongly on well-being and ways to improve people’s experience
with police and the criminal justice system. With a background in public health
research, she is particularly interest in police’s delivery of mental health-related
response and their role suicide prevention.