1. Heather D. Flowe1 and Anna Carline2
1University of Birmingham, UK
2University of Leicester, UK
Interviewing complainants who were alcohol
intoxicated during sexual assault:
New evidence for practice

2. CONTRIBUTORS
Julie Galagher, Dr Julie Gawrylowicz, Professor Graham Davies, DI
Reme Gibson, Dr Clare Gunby, DI Michelle Keen, Lawrence
English, Professor Vanessa Munro, Mary Prior QC, Dr Kevin Smith,
Dr Melanie Takarangi, Former Chief Superintendent Steph Pandit,
Nilda Karağolu, Dr Melissa Colloff, Danielle Hett, Harriet Smailes, Dr
Lisa Smith, Dr Joyce Humphries, Dr Hannah Ryder, Dr Debbie
Wright, HHJ Nicholas Dean, Rachel Tuffin, Kasha Zelek, Rape
Crisis, Leicester, Juniper Lodge, Millicent Grant, Professor Mandy
Burton, DC Simon Collington, DC Joanne Collins, Professor Sally
Kyd Cunningham, Sally French, Professor Rebecca Milne,
Professor Mark Reed, DC Gail Hurley, DC David Patten, Urvi
Rathod, Mike Nicholson, College of Policing, DC Phil Parkinson, DC
Carey Potter, DC, Deirdre Wokingham,
Katarzyna Zelek, Dr Jessica Woodhams

3. CASE ATTRITION

4. ALCOHOL AND SEXUAL ASSAULT
• 4 out of 5 cases involve alcohol
(Stern, 2010)
• Perpetrators seem to target people
who are alcohol-intoxicated (Lisak &
Miller, 2002)
• Alcohol can affect a survivor’s
perception of rape, reducing the
odds rape is reported to the
authorities (Wolitzky-Taylor et al.,
2011)
• By and large, the victim will have
ingested alcohol only, not other
drugs, and she will have done so
voluntarily (ONS, 2015)

5. PROBATIVE ASPECTS OF ALCOHOL
The prosecution’s case may be that the complainant had
lost the capacity to consent

6. PREJUDICIAL ASPECTS OF ALCOHOL
• Alcohol can diminish
complainant credibility
(e.g., Ellison and Munro,
2007) and reduce
likelihood of conviction
(Lynch, Wasarhaley,
Golding, & Simcic, 2013)

7. PREJUDICIAL ASPECTS OF
ALCOHOL
‘Advocates and SANEs [Sexual Assault Nurse Examiners]
get frustrated when we can’t move forward with an
investigation, but sometimes we can’t because the victim
doesn’t remember what happened or there are
inconsistencies [in her story].’
Quoted in Cole & Logan, 2010

8. WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT ALCOHOL
AND MEMORY IMPAIRMENT?
‘Based on personal experience, alcohol is bad for memory.’

9. WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT ALCOHOL
AND MEMORY IMPAIRMENT?
Basic research on memory and cognition finds that alcohol
impairs memory

10. MODAL MEMORY MODEL
Atkinson & Shiffrin, 1968

11. ALCOHOL AND MEMORY
Alcohol (en bloc) blackout can occur
at high levels of intoxication (e.g.,
BAC = .14 to .27%)
• En bloc blackout
• A person will have no memory and not be
able to recall anything about events that
took place for a stretch of time
• Sensory and short-term memory are
preserved
• Fragmentary blackout
• A person is able to remember partial
information; memory formation is
incomplete
• more common than en bloc

12. BUT HOW DOES ALCOHOL
IMPAIR TESTIMONY?
In lab tests – the participant
has no control over their ‘test
output’ – memory is
exhaustively tested.
During police interviews,
people control and regulate
their testimony (Weber &
Brewer, 2008)

13. QUANTITY-ACCURACY TRADEOFF

14. PARTICIPANTS WHO WERE
INTOXICATED ENGAGE IN A
QUANTITY-ACCURACY TRADE-OFF

15. ALCOHOL MYOPIA

16. ALCOHOL MYOPIA THEORY
• Proposes that alcohol narrows the
perceptual field, thereby making people
more responsive to salient information
and less responsive to peripheral
information
Josephs & Steele, 1990

17. MEMORY COMPLETENESS
• Women who were
most intoxicated
provided less
information than their
counterparts 24 hours
and 4 months later
Flowe et al., 2016

18. MEMORY ACCURACY
• No differences in
accuracy depending on
alcohol intoxication
• Women most accurate
about the central (i.e.,
perpetrator) details
compared to peripheral
(e.g., bystanders)
details they reported,
regardless of
intoxication level
.000
.100
.200
.300
.400
.500
.600
.700
.800
.900
Placebo Medium HighAccuracy
Central
Peripheral
Flowe et al., 2016

19. ALCOHOL-MEMORY TIMELINE
Peak Blood
Alcohol Concentration
Fragmentary/En bloc
memory loss
Retrograde
Facilitation
Time
Wixted, 2005

20. MEMORY SUGGESTIBILITY
• Suggestibility refers to the
reporting of erroneous
information due to exposure to
misleading questions
(immediate suggestibility) or
incorrect information that is
later recalled (delayed
suggestibility)
• Few studies have examined
the impact of alcohol on
suggestibility and findings
have been mixed (e.g.,
Gawrylowicz et al., 2017)

21. REPEATED INTERVIEWS
Initial account
VRI
Time
VRI
Time
A
B
Research suggests accuracy will be higher over time in scenario A
relative to scenario B
Alcohol
intoxication
Alcohol
intoxication

22. REPEATED INTERVIEWS
Initial account
VRI
Time
VRI
Time
A
B
Research suggests accuracy will be higher over time in scenario A
relative to scenario B
Alcohol
intoxication
Alcohol
intoxication

23. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PRACTICE

24. SIX RECOMMENDATIONS
• Do not avoid interviewing because they were intoxicated
at the time of the rape
• Establish rapport with the complainant prior to the
interview
• Allow the complainant to control the level of detail in their
testimony
• Avoid focusing on the complainant’s memory for
peripheral information
• Probe the complainant’s memory for relevant events that
occurred before intoxication

25. DO NOT AVOID INTERVIEWING
• Initial account should be obtained
as soon as possible, even if they
are still intoxicated
• Body cam
• potentially persuasive evidence too
intoxicated to consent
• May support the credibility of a
complainant
• Balance against concerns that such
footage may perpetuate stereotypical
and judgemental perspectives
• Blood alcohol will be decreasing

26. ESTABLISH RAPPORT
• One of the most important investigative
tools
• Influence complainant engagement
• Complainant knows their account ‘will
be heard, accepted and not judged’
(Powell et al)
• Reassaure not at fault or responsible
• Encourage to speak truthfully about
their levels of intoxication
• Increased risk of developing PTSD

27. COMPLAINANT TO CONTROL THEIR
TESTIMONY
• Serves to increase the
overall accuracy
• Repeated questioning
may lead to
inconsistency and
undermine credibility
• ‘I don’t know’ - mistaken
assumption regarding
the ability to remember
everything

28. PROTECT FROM SUGGESTIBLE
INFLUENCES
• Memory can be affected
by suggestible influences
• Conflicting results
regarding the impact of
alcohol
• Mainly use open-ended
questions

29. AVOID FOCUSING ON PERIPHERAL
DETAILS
• Focus upon the
central facts
• Questions regarding
peripheral factors
likely accumulate
uncertain responses
• Recall of central
elements will not be
any less accurate

30. PROVE FOR RELEVANT EVENTS PRIOR
TO INTOXICATION
• May be value in
probing for
information
• May help identify
witnesses
• May help identify
other lines of
evidence

31. THOUGHTS AND REFLECTIONS
• Views on the
suggestions
• How do you see
these working in
practice?
• What can we do to
take these forward
and to support
implementation?
• Any other potential
developments – i.e.
jury directions?