April 2026
Pilot scenario library completed
The shared scenario library now supports cross-site legal, behavioural, and AI evaluation with consistent annotation guidance.
ERC Synergy Grant Project
Evidence-led interviewing, studied across law, cognition, and technology.
JUSTICE examines how coercive interviewing emerges and how reliable, lawful alternatives can be built through interdisciplinary research.
Top News
Latest project updates
March 2026
Methods retreat in Dublin
Researchers aligned measurement protocols and interview coding standards for the next empirical phase.
March 2026
Two PhD vacancies published
Open positions focus on computational modelling and hybrid intelligence for evidence-led interviewing practice.
About the project
Challenge
Across many settings, interview practices still prioritize immediate compliance over informational reliability. This creates substantial risks: false confessions, evidential distortion, institutional error, and long-term psychological harm. JUSTICE studies these risks as interconnected legal, cognitive, and organisational phenomena rather than as isolated incidents.
Reliability
Pressure can increase compliance without increasing truthfulness, weakening the quality of investigative decision-making
Vulnerability
Immature, impaired, imbalanced, and impressionable persons may face heightened risks of suggestibility and false admission
Legitimacy
When institutions rely on coercive methods, public confidence in fairness and due process is undermined
4 Major Research Questions
Main Research Questions-driven structure for the JUSTICE research programme.
The project is organised around four Main Research Questions. Each Main Research Question links legal safeguards, behavioural evidence, human impact, and implementable tools.
Main Research Question 1: Legal safeguards
Which legal safeguards and institutional standards most effectively prevent coercive interviewing across jurisdictions?
Main Research Question 2: Coercion mechanisms
How do social, organisational, and cognitive mechanisms drive coercive interviewer behaviour?
Main Research Question 3: Human impact
How does coercive interviewing affect memory, wellbeing, decision-making, and long-term trust in justice institutions?
Main Research Question 4: Evidence-led tools
How can AI, simulation, and decision-support systems help operationalise non-coercive, evidence-led interviewing?
Comparative programme
From formal standards to everyday practice.
Statutory frameworks, professional guidance, and daily practice are examined side by side to show where ethical interviewing standards are recognised, embedded, and still unevenly applied
Implementation lens
JUSTICE compares formal safeguards with real-world investigative routines to identify where ethical interviewing standards are already embedded and where further change is still needed
Applied scenario studies
Testing decision-making under pressure.
Cross-national action studies and mock-crime scenarios are used to observe how investigators, legal representatives, and institutional actors respond to uncertainty, urgency, and perceived threat. The goal is careful research into how situational pressures alter professional judgement.
4
Study locations
3
Decision contexts
1
Shared benchmark
Research structure
How information maps to the four Main Research Questions
Each update, publication, and engagement activity is categorised by research theme so visitors can quickly find work relevant to legal safeguards, coercion mechanisms, human impact, and implementation tools.
Main Research Question 1
Legal safeguards and standards
Sections emphasise safeguards, due process, and institutional standards that reduce coercive interviewing risk.
Main Research Question 2
Mechanisms of coercion
Sections track social, organisational, and cognitive mechanisms that can shift interviews away from evidence-led practice.
Main Research Question 3
Human impact
Sections focus on effects on memory, stress, vulnerability, and long-term trust in justice institutions.
Main Research Question 4
Evidence-led tools and implementation
Sections highlight how computational methods and practice-oriented tools can support non-coercive interviewing.
Methodological architecture
Multiple methods for one goal.
JUSTICE uses mixed methods to connect doctrine, behaviour, lived experience, and system design. Each method contributes to the shared goal of better interview quality, fairness, and reliability.
/ 01
fNIRS hyperscanning
Functional near-infrared spectroscopy is used to study group-level social cognition, including trust, authority, shared decision-making, and responsibility diffusion in high-stakes settings
/ 02
Méndez-informed language modelling
A specialised language-model environment is being designed to evaluate prompts, identify non-compliant questioning patterns, and generate alternatives aligned with evidence-led interviewing principles
/ 03
Global compliance mapping
A comparative map of jurisdictions is in development, alongside a compliance scale showing where legal guarantees, training, and daily practice diverge
Evidence and experience
Bringing lived experience and empirical analysis into the same frame.
Testimony, cognition, and behaviour are read together as evidence that speaks to each other. Qualitative interviews illuminate long-term psychological consequences, while experimental and doctrinal work help explain how harmful practices are justified, normalised, and reproduced.
Evidence focus
- Cognitive capture and lingering effects of coercive exposure
- Trauma-informed interpretation of interview experiences
- Typologies of vulnerability, resilience, and institutional response
Analytical themes
- Qualitative interviews connected with behavioural evidence
- Cross-disciplinary interpretation of memory, stress, and decision-making
- Comparative analysis of institutional incentives and safeguards
Expected outputs
Outputs
The project aims to deliver more than publications alone. These outputs are meant to inform training, guide practice, and improve interviewing standards over time.
Comparative benchmark tools
Scales, maps, and structured indicators to assess how jurisdictions align with non-coercive interviewing principles
Training environments
Simulation-based resources and interview bots designed to support reflective practice and ethical questioning skills
Practice guidance
A structured pathway for turning research findings into practical guidance, training, and accountability in practice
Open positions
Jobs
Interested in computational modelling, hybrid intelligence, reinforcement learning, and human decision-making? Apply to the positions below:
PhD position 1
Generative AI and Computational Modelling of Human Behaviour
This position involves reinforcement learning for evidence-led investigative interviewing.
Deadline: 22 March 2026
Reinforcement learning
Apply now
PhD position 2
Hybrid Intelligence and Human Decision-Making
This position focuses on combining artificial and human intelligence in high-stakes contexts.
Deadline: 22 March 2026
Hybrid intelligence
Apply now
Updates
News
Updates from recruitment, collaboration, and research planning across the JUSTICE consortium
Hiring now
Two doctoral positions are open
We are currently recruiting for two PhD roles focused on computational modelling and hybrid intelligence in investigative interviewing. Both roles are listed in the jobs section below with direct application links.
View job positionsApril 2026
Pilot scenario library completed
The consortium finished a shared set of interview scenarios for legal, behavioural, and computational testing across all study sites.
May 2026
Consortium methods retreat announced
Researchers will convene in Dublin for a three-day workshop on coding frameworks, interviewing attuned to trauma, and AI evaluation protocols.
Outputs
Publications
Papers and reports, updated as the project develops.
Preprint
Modelling coercion cues in investigative dialogue
Working paper introducing a coded typology of coercive prompts and early machine-assisted detection benchmarks.
Report
Safeguards across four interview systems
Comparative report mapping procedural protections, training structures, and monitoring arrangements across partner sites.
Article in review
Trust, stress, and decision pressure in interview teams
An interdisciplinary manuscript connecting behavioural observation, neurocognitive measures, and how findings get applied.
Field notes
Blog
Short updates from conferences, workshops, and project milestones, with full articles available in a quick-read modal.
Conference
JUSTICE to present at the European Society of Criminology meeting
The team will share early findings on coercion indicators, accountability structures, and stress-sensitive interview design in a dedicated panel session.
Workshop
Graduate methods bootcamp scheduled in Tilburg
Invited doctoral researchers will test coding rubrics, simulation prompts, and mixed-method comparison strategies across partner case studies.
Milestone
First shared coding handbook released internally
The consortium now has a common language for classifying legal safeguards, interviewer behaviour, vulnerability factors, and system-level interventions.
Press statements
Press & Media
This section contains consortium statements, not third-party coverage summaries.
Statement
Consortium scope and research integrity statement
JUSTICE investigates coercive interviewing through legal, behavioural, and computational research. The consortium does not provide case-specific legal commentary.
Statement
Methods transparency statement
Public updates are aligned with the project’s four Main Research Questions so readers can distinguish legal safeguards, coercion mechanisms, human impact, and implementation work.
Statement
Engagement and communication statement
The consortium shares high-level project information for research communication and recruitment. Detailed findings will appear in peer-reviewed outputs.
FAQ
FAQ
Common questions answered
What does JUSTICE study?
JUSTICE studies how coercive interviewing emerges, how it affects evidence and people, and which legal and behavioural changes can support non-coercive alternatives.
How can I get project updates?
Use the newsletter form to receive periodic updates, and check the News section for all major consortium announcements.
Where can I apply for positions?
Current vacancies are listed in the jobs section, including direct links to the external application pages for each advertised role.
Consortium principal investigators
Team
The project is led by four principal investigators whose expertise supports a shared understanding of how interviewing works: legal doctrine and procedure, cognitive and clinical impact, neural mechanisms, and computational analysis
Yvonne Daly
🇮🇪 Dublin City University
Criminal law and procedure, with attention to rights protection, legal safeguards, and implementation challenges
Website
Shane O'Mara
🇮🇪 Trinity College Dublin
Neuroscience and cognition, with a focus on how stress, memory, and decision-making interact in investigative settings
Website
Dave Walsh
🇬🇧 De Montfort University
Police interviewing and investigative practice, including turning research findings into practical guidance
Website
Bennett Kleinberg
🇳🇱 Tilburg University
Data science and computational methods for modelling communication, behaviour, and ethical decision support
WebsiteAbout us
Research Locations
The consortium brings together 4 universities and research strengths in Tilburg, Leicester, and Dublin
🇳🇱 Tilburg, Netherlands
🇬🇧 Leicester, United Kingdom
🇮🇪 Dublin, Ireland
🇮🇪 Dublin, Ireland
Contact
Reach Out to us
Interested in the JUSTICE project, collaboration options, or one of the open roles? Send us an email and we will get back to you.
Reach out