PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "The content and usage of the CIPEM technique was investigated by two Stuff reporters (Ensor & White) and their findings published in several articles (see below). They stated that requests, via the Official Information Act, resulted in the provision of only limited information, with the police stating that the requested information either didn’t exist or couldn’t be found. One document the reporters were able to obtain, albeit in a heavily redacted version, was a review of CIPEM conducted by former New Zealand Police employee Mary Schollum. Schollum had previously authored an internally-published literature review of police interviewing practices for the NZ police. Schollum had concluded that: “the method was in line with international best practice and ‘employed a wide range of techniques that research has shown to be efficient, effective and ethical in eliciting accurate and reliable information when interviewing suspects”. However, as Ensor and White (2022a) note, Schollum did not speak to anyone who had used CIPEM, nor look at any cases here it had been used. Fitzgerald suggested such steps would “take time” and it would have been pointless to review cases prior to them going through the court process."
COMMENTARY: "The first verdict on the Complex Investigation Phased Engagement Model," by Stephen Mosten, published by The Open Legal Blog, on June 8, 2022.
GIST: We haven’t invented anything new here. We’re teaching people an advanced skill in understanding themselves and to engage better. I can’t see any secret in that.
Detective Superintendent Tom Fitzgerald
In November 2021 the case against three men accused of murdering New Zealand woman Lois Tolley was dropped after a judge ruled that crucial confession evidence was deemed to be “very flawed” and “not credible” (see White, 2022a, 2022b).
The confession had been obtained by detectives using an interviewing technique called the Complex Investigation Phased Engagement Model (CIPEM). CIPEM had been designed by NZ Detective Superintendent Tom Fitzgerald who subsequently defended the model and said it was not to blame for the false confession.
According to Stuff reporters Ensor and White (2022b),
CIPEM aims to get suspects who are refusing to talk to police, or those who are reluctant to do so, to open up to detectives.
This is done by replacing normal police interview scenarios with a “fireside chat” environment, with comfortable chairs, no desk or note-taking, shared food, and police appearing empathetic and understanding.
The existence of CIPEM had not been made public until the Tolley case collapsed. Justice Simon France had ruled that detectives using CIPEM to interview a suspect known as “X” (due to a suppression order) had broken numerous fundamental interview guidelines and had not followed “the lawful process”. This included not video recording discussions with X while transporting him, and then again during interview breaks; failing to advise X of his legal rights (at least twice); engaging in persistent questioning designed to “wear a suspect down”; and misrepresenting facts (Ensor & White, 2022a).
Justice France described the interview style as “unfair and improper” and stated that the CIPEM techniques were used to “unacceptable excess”. He also said that the interviews were not a pursuit of a “neutral truth” but “a sustained pursuit of a particular ‘truth’”.
Consequently, the confession was deemed inadmissible and charges against X were dropped.
The content and usage of the CIPEM technique was investigated by two Stuff reporters (Ensor & White) and their findings published in several articles (see below). They stated that requests, via the Official Information Act, resulted in the provision of only limited information, with the police stating that the requested information either didn’t exist or couldn’t be found.
One document the reporters were able to obtain, albeit in a heavily redacted version, was a review of CIPEM conducted by former New Zealand Police employee Mary Schollum. Schollum had previously authored an internally-published literature review of police interviewing practices for the NZ police.
Schollum had concluded that: “the method was in line with international best practice and ‘employed a wide range of techniques that research has shown to be efficient, effective and ethical in eliciting accurate and reliable information when interviewing suspects”. However, as Ensor and White (2022a) note, Schollum did not speak to anyone who had used CIPEM, nor look at any cases here it had been used. Fitzgerald suggested such steps would “take time” and it would have been pointless to review cases prior to them going through the court process.
One outcome of Schollum’s review was that CIPEM was to be renamed as “PEACE Plus” to make the link to the PEACE model more explicit.
Fitzgerald said:
We haven’t invented anything new here. We’re teaching people an advanced skill in understanding themselves and to engage better. I can’t see any secret in that.
However, as the reporters note, Fitzgerald did not answer follow-up questions about CIPEM/PEACE Plus.
Commentary
My own searches for information on CIPEM have drawn a blank. There are no published articles (academic or otherwise) on the CIPEM and were it not for the failure of the case against X, it’s existence would have likely remained in-house to NZ police only.
CIPEM should not be confused with the Canadian Phased Interview Model for Suspects (see Carr, 2017) and its relationship to the PEACE model is unclear.
The harsh verdict delivered by Justice France suggests that the CIPEM is a highly problematic technique and that it needs close scrutiny.
I’ll update this Blog if more information on CIPEM makes it into the public domain."
The entire story can be read at:
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com. Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog;
