Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://anrows.intersearch.com.au/anrowsjspui/handle/1/22727 Record ID: dfeed5af-b984-4bbe-af3b-c6a4dee950bb
| DOI: | https://doi.org/10.1080/10345329.2024.2369470 |
| Web resource: | https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/epdf/10.1080/10345329.2024.2369470?needAccess=true |
| Type: | Journal Article |
| Title: | The Devil is in the Detail: An Evaluation of Domestic Violence Evidence-in-Chief in Policing Practice |
| Authors: | Simpson, Helen |
| Keywords: | Domestic and family violence;Domestic Violence;Family Violence;Policing;Criminal Justice |
| Topic: | Legal and justice responses Systems responses |
| Year: | 6-Jul-2024 |
| Publisher: | Taylor & Francis Group |
| Citation: | 1–17 |
| Abstract: | Domestic and family violence (DFV) is a significant contributor to the daily core work of law enforcement officers, and recent decades have seen substantial changes in their response to DFV alongside increasing public and government scrutiny. This study evaluates the use of Domestic Violence Evidence-in-Chief (DVEC) in policing practice, a contemporary method aimed at improving evidence collection and the complainants’ experience of the criminal justice system. Using data from 25 interviews with DFV complainants, 46 interviews with law enforcement, and close analysis of 28 DVEC recordings, this study reflects on the benefits and challenges of DVEC and identifies future directions for this technology. |
| Notes: | DVEC, the audio-visually recorded interviews used as evidence-in-chief in some jurisdictions, have had a significant impact on DFV policing practice. First, they are simple to use, and second, they typically take about a quarter of the time traditional statement- taking methods require. This is suggested to reduce complainant and officer stressors and put officers back on the street faster, though time is contestable in this area, because while DVEC affords time benefits in some stages of crime processing, it withdraws them in others. Third, DVEC has locational benefits. Its portability means that complainants do not have to travel to police stations to provide their evidence, and for officers this again saves time. Fourth, in many instances, DVEC appears to reduce costs, although this is context dependent. Finally, DVEC is supported by most participants in this study, particularly police. This is due to its efficiency and the lens it affords the court into crime scenes. This is perceived by some officers to provide self-protection and to maintain evidence over time. However, issues remain with DVEC in policing practice. This is because the quality of this evidence is variable and conditional on context, and this can place additional stressors on officers who need to collect evidence that can be viewed in court. The fact that additional workloads from DVEC have led to a failure by some prosecutors to review them before court is problematic regarding inferior prosecution practice, and confusion relating to AVO also needs to be addressed. There is also the issue of transcriptions, which continue to be sought for statements recorded in other languages and ‘unofficially’ by some court personnel. Overall, this suggests DVEC is a potentially useful but bounded tool. |
| Description: | Open access |
| URI: | https://anrows.intersearch.com.au/anrowsjspui/handle/1/22727 |
| Appears in Collections: | Journal Articles |
Files in This Item:
| File | Description | Size | Format | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| The devil is in the detail an evaluation of domestic violence evidence-in-chief in policing practice.pdf | 799.13 kB | Adobe PDF |  View/Open |
Items in ANROWS library are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.