KEY TAKEAWAYS:
- Evidence has a hierarchy of reliability: direct evidence carries more weight than circumstantial, hearsay, or opinion evidence in workplace investigations.
- Objective credibility factors (corroboration, consistency,) should be prioritised over subjective factors (demeanour, reputation) when assessing witness accounts.
- Investigators must recognise their own biases and also understand how trauma can impact memory and presentation when evaluating conflicting testimony.
- A structured approach using tools like credibility matrices helps systematically compare accounts across objective factors and document reasoning.
- Findings should be based on the balance of probabilities standard (“more likely than not”), with clear determinations rather than inconclusive outcomes.
- Investigators should not rely on their ‘gut’ feel.
The role of the workplace investigator is to weigh the evidence gathered during an investigation and to ultimately make findings of fact.
In their role, investigators often face the challenging task of evaluating conflicting accounts to determine what occurred. Sometimes they will need to assess the credibility or reliability of evidence as part of this process. This is a foundational element of being able to conduct a fair and impartial investigation. It is also well recognised as one of the most challenging aspects of workplace investigations.
This article summarises key takeaways from a recent ‘lunch and learn’ session on credibility assessments, led by Workplace Investigator and Trainer with Q Workplace Training Corlia Fernandes.
The workshop covered: evidence types and their value; weighing evidence; assessing credibility; and making findings.
Understanding evidence types
Investigators gather different types of evidence during the investigation process, including:
- direct evidence: Firsthand accounts from witnesses
- circumstantial evidence: Indirect evidence that requires inference
- corroborative evidence: Evidence that supports other evidence
- hearsay evidence: Second-hand information
- opinion evidence: Subjective interpretations
- similar fact evidence: Evidence of similar past behaviour.
All forms of evidence can be relied on in a workplace investigation, however some are given more weight than others. For example, direct evidence is more valuable than indirect evidence.
Common sense plays an important role. The more reliable a piece of evidence, the more weight it carries.
The evidence weighing process
A structured approach to weighing evidence involves:
- identifying relevant evidence that is agreed upon and consistent
- attempting to resolve inconsistencies or conflicts
- categorising the types of evidence available
- assessing reliability and credibility, starting with objective factors
Key principles for credibility assessment
When assessing credibility, investigators should:
- be aware of their own biases, including confirmation bias (seeking only evidence supporting initial impressions) and unconscious bias (a person’s experience of the world and how they perceive the world and other people)
- consider the impact of trauma on recollection
- focus on objective factors
- evaluate all available evidence
Credibility findings should be a last resort.
Objective credibility factors
The most reliable factors for assessing credibility include:
- corroboration: Does other evidence support the account?
- opportunity for knowledge: Was the person in a position to know what they claim?
- consistency of statements: Are the person’s statements internally consistent and consistent over time?
- plausibility: Is the account reasonable and logical given known circumstances?
- specificity vs. vagueness: Detailed accounts often indicate reliability, while vague or evasive responses may indicate credibility issues.
- motive, self-interest, or bias: Does the person have a reason to misrepresent facts?
When to proceed with caution
Some factors should be considered carefully and given less weight, these include:
- prior conduct
- reputation
- demeanour during interviews
These subjective factors can be influenced by unconscious bias and other factors and should not be primary determinants of credibility.
Making findings
When making findings, investigators should:
- consider using a credibility matrix to systematically compare accounts across objective factors
- document and explain their reasoning process, including evidence limitations
- remember that credibility assessments rely on the totality of evidence, not single factors
- determine if there is enough evidence to meet the required standard (typically “more likely than not” or 50%+)
- make a clear finding rather than declaring a matter “inconclusive”
Assessing credibility in workplace investigations requires a structured, objective approach. By focusing first on the evidence itself, categorising it appropriately, and then systematically evaluating credibility using primarily objective factors, investigators can make sound findings even in challenging cases.
The role of the investigator is to make a determination based on the available evidence, applying a balance of probabilities standard. This methodical approach ensures fairness to all parties and produces defensible investigation outcomes.
More information
Assessing credibility will be explored in the context of a mock sexual harassment investigation in an upcoming Q Workplace Training workshop. During the 18 September workshop, Sexual Harassment Allegations: Conducting a Mock Investigation, participants will be guided through a simulated investigation from drafting allegations, to gathering evidence, assessing credibility and making findings.
Places are limited. Book here: Sexual Harassment Allegations: Conducting a Mock Investigation.
Q Workplace Solutions’ national team of legally qualified and licensed investigators are trusted by public and private organisations, including ASX-listed companies and government agencies, to investigate complex and often highly sensitive allegations of employee wrongdoing. We also undertake reviews of organisations, divisions or units, and provide training, coaching and external advisory support to internal investigators and teams. To find out more about how we can support you and your team, contact us on 1300 944 049.
