Are coercive powers or ethical interviewing techniques the solution to gaining greater quality and quantity of information?
This assessment task will assess the following learning outcome/s:
• be able to demonstrate an understanding and knowledge of the procedures followed by investigators and other stakeholders and challenges arising in these
• be able to think critically about the ethical dimensions of investigative functions and how these can impact on processes and procedures.
This will allow you to research investigative interviewing practice world-wide and discuss how such practice effects the quality and quantity of information gained during an investigation.
Marking criteria and standards
Analysis not present (0 marks)
Analysis inappropriate (3 marks)
Analysis appropriate but poorly described (6 marks)
Analysis appropriate but containing flaws which invalidate some conclusions (8 marks)
Analysis appropriate (15 marks)
No evidence of research presented (0 marks)
Some evidence of research (3 marks)
Evidence of research and authorities correctly cited (5 marks)
Evidence of research well beyond the suggested readings and authorities correctly cited (15 marks)
Use of library resources
Not used (0 marks)
Used, but not effectively (2 marks)
Used effectively (5 marks)
Unstructured (0 marks)
Structured inappropriately (1 mark)
Structured appropriately and professionally presented (3 marks)
Level of detail
Major sections not present and/or contains large unnecessary sections (0 marks)
Some minor omissions and/or contains some unnecessary detail (1 mark)
Comprehensive yet contains no more than the client requires (2 marks)
Please note that the Subject Coordinator can award marks within a criterion that fall between the assessment points described.