Sandpit Discussion Group Notes

Addressing the Future Research Challenges in Forensics

Tuesday 11th September 2018, 10.00 am – 3.00 pm West Park Conference Centre, Dundee

GROUP DISCUSSION NOTES

Summary of ‘Regulation and Legislation’ Group Discussion

• Nature of crime changing and sources of evidence need to change too. • Need to have public support and confidence in forensic science. • Legislation/regulation needs to be transparent particularly in relation to data protection. • Sharing of data (intra and inter nationally, across different agencies/organisations both public and private. • Independent Advisory Group on use of biometric data in Scotland convened by Scottish Government (SG). Recommendations reported in March 2018. All recommendations supported by SG. • Current SG public consultation paper on oversight of biometric data – closing 1st October. • Concerns about loss of currently identifiable digital evidence from scenes due to lack of clarity around legality of such data use. • Lack of understanding of value of evidence, including biometrics, to criminal justice system. • Difficult to identify what ‘value’ is and how to measure it however need to know as critical to convincer when proposing regulation/legislation. • Need to develop framework which could be used to assess emerging technologies. Would include aspects such as testing, scrutiny and consultation. Needs to be broad enough to encompass all future ‘techniques’. • Need to demonstrate impartiality. ‘Sterile corridor’ between police and labs demonstrable however less so between COPFS and labs, especially as requested work comes as an ‘instruction’. • Different requirements for evidence to be used as intelligence v criminal proceedings. • Whether Scottish regulation/legislation should converge with or diverge from that of England & Wales. • Differences between legally and ethically acceptable practices. • Ethical considerations for use of phenotypic characteristics derived for biometric data.

Suggested Research Project Themes : 1. Creation of Regulatory Framework to apply to both emerging (and where necessary historic) techniques to provide assurance in relation to aspects such as academic rigor, validation, accreditation, evidential value, legal and legislative impact and assurance of impartiality. To include consultation with appropriate stakeholders. Essentially a comprehensive ‘checklist’ for techniques prior to implementation into casework. May be split into 2 categories of technique – probabilistic and pattern recognition although acknowledged that some may not fit into those categories.

______

Business & Knowledge Transfer Manager ● Tim Heilbronn ● +44 (0) 1382 384205 www.sipr.ac.uk

Supported by investment from Police Scotland and the Scottish Police Authority SIPR is a consortium of Abertay Dundee, Dundee, Edinburgh, Edinburgh Napier, Glasgow, Glasgow Caledonian, Heriot-Watt, Queen Margaret, Robert Gordon, St Andrews, Stirling, Strathclyde and the West of Scotland Universities, and the Open University in Scotland

2. Comparison of available regulation and legislation in other countries (UK, Europe, North America) to inform drafting of future Scottish legislation. May include focus on compatibility with emerging and future technologies, public confidence in forensic science, value of evidence. 3. Investigation into the conflicts/inconsistencies/gaps between/within regulatory and legislative documentation. Need for clear, complete, concise and complementary guidance.

Summary of ‘Capture and Communication’ Group Discussion

Capture and communication relates to how we can develop enhanced methods of capturing evidence and communicating it effectively and efficiently at all stages of the investigation and prosecutorial pathway. For example, how can we use drones and robotics at scene for image and evidence capture? What opportunities are there for increasing automated pattern recognition and communication technologies? Capture

______

Business & Knowledge Transfer Manager ● Tim Heilbronn ● +44 (0) 1382 384205 www.sipr.ac.uk

Issue – Volume Crime vs Serious Crime • Academic research appears to be focussing mainly on serious crime issues • The Forensic 2026 Strategy is to improve volume crime provision – faster, more efficient provision of intelligence and identifications to speed up the Police investigation • Volume crime is not considered a ‘sexy’ research topic, but the reality is that volume crime has the most significant impact on local communities, and there is the potential to ‘catch a burglar, prevent a murder’

Potential Solution • There needs to be a clear demarcation between volume and serious crime approach; academics should be aware that volume crime methods do not necessarily need to have 100% scientific rigour • Volume crime research approach needs to be focussed on achieving more at the scene and removing the burden on lab work

Issue – Automated Pattern Recognition • We need to carefully consider what value automated pattern recognition brings to the investigation – in terms of weighing up expertise vs efficiency, and issues with presentation of evidence in court

Communication

Issue – Data Protection / Information Security • Data Protection / Information Security leads to interoperability within and between SPA Forensic Services and partner agencies, including forensic research experts in academic institutions, e.g. o Sharing of crime scene images o No single reference number in a case o In future, the use of handheld devices for rapid identification at scene / remote expert via AR will be limited if we are prohibited from transferring such data over existing networks! Potential Solutions • A single over-arching secure network for sharing information more efficiently • Investment in basic IT equipment to avoid resorting to ‘work-arounds’ • This needs addressed by strategic leadership within the relevant organisations

Issue – Communication with Public • There needs to be more appreciation amongst the public for the science behind all forensic evidence types. DNA and Fingerprints are perceived as being ‘robust but other types of evidence are considered ‘flimsy’ (e.g. facial recognition) • Different agencies within the Criminal Justice System have different approaches to social media – its use is prohibited within SPA Forensic Services, leading to the perception that it is a ‘secretive’ organisation • Some forensic providers are spreading fake news about forensics (e.g. super-recognisers), which is widely reported in the media and accepted as fact by the public ______

Business & Knowledge Transfer Manager ● Tim Heilbronn ● +44 (0) 1382 384205 www.sipr.ac.uk

Potential Solution • SPA Forensic Services should be more open about what it does and about the importance of forensic science regulation.

Issue – Graduate employment prospects / Training • Opportunity exists to collaborate with academic institutions to train students in SPA FS procedures to ensure graduates are ready to enter our workforce

Summary of ‘Delivering forensic science at source’ Group Discussion

Delivering forensic science at source relates to how we can advance technologies for utilizing forensic science at source - capturing evidence, interpreting it and communicating it directly from there. For example, how can we develop miniature and hand held technologies for use at scene that can connect directly with police intelligence databases for immediate interpretation and action?

Initial discussion about what we mean by ‘source’, is this the first point of contact with a piece of evidence, or just at crime scenes? For example, if police recover items, or samples are taken by the FME. General consensus was that we are principally talking about evidence recovered at scenes, particularly given that portability and mobile implementation are key issues for Strategy 2026.

Everyone wrote down up to three key issues on post-it notes, relating to what they wanted from ‘delivering forensic science at source’, and what they thought needed improving in this context. Some general themes came out of these post-it notes so the discussion continued by examining these in more detail, with particular focus on themes that might be of interest to both practitioners and academics, and that might be framed into a potential project.

Many of the issues raised related to increasing speed, efficiency, timeliness, responsiveness etc. and this was a key topic of discussion. However, a number of participants raised the issue that effectiveness also needs to be considered and not sacrificed in the name of efficiency.

One topic that the discussion focussed on was the issue of scene examination, and the potential for using technology to allow scene examiners to capture information at a scene in real-time and transfer this to the relevant parties to allow quick decision making. A great deal of technology already exists or could be developed or re-developed for implementation at a crime scene, we may be able to define deliverables and then go and look for the technology to meet those needs.

The use of technology was discussed in detail in the context of determining what needs to be recovered, prioritising items for recovery and analysis, determining whether specialists are required, etc. For some crime types, it may even be possible that technology could allow frontline/police officers to assess scenes and to be advised remotely by scientists as to whether further action or specialists are required, reducing scientist workloads. For example, information captured from body worn cameras on police officers could be utilised to assess scenes, advise frontline officers and determine whether a scene of crime officer was needed. This expert advice to the person making judgements at the scene would allow them to justify what they did or did not do at the scene when it

______

Business & Knowledge Transfer Manager ● Tim Heilbronn ● +44 (0) 1382 384205 www.sipr.ac.uk

came to testifying in court. The utility of mobile data is increasing rapidly and this is a potentially major area for expansion.

This could allow examiners to identify and tag major evidence items so that they are prioritised for early recovery and analysis. This could allow the lab to prioritise the evidence types that are going to give a result (e.g. identification of a suspect) fastest, and if the evidence types that are prioritised early result in a successful outcome then other items are not unnecessarily tested.

However, in pursuing these types of efficiencies it is important to remember that there is redundancy in the system because often different aspects of the work cannot be done sequentially. For example, if there is a dangerous offender needing to be identified and it isn’t clear which evidence type is most likely to be successful, a lot of analysis has to be done simultaneously. Efficiencies that could be possible in other workplaces may therefore not be as straightforward in the forensic context.

The distinction between volume and major crime was discussed and some participants felt that there was much more that could be done at volume crime scenes using handheld/mobile devices, and this is an important part of the Strategy 2026, whereas the investigation of major crime scenes is already efficient. Some participants were of the opinion that there could be a ‘one size fits all’ approach to volume and major crime scene examinations, but others disagreed. One area where technology could be extremely useful in volume crime is in speeding up the process of assessing the scene, and determining whether a scene of crime officer was required, or if scientific advice to frontline officers would be sufficient. Using technology at increasingly complex scenes may increase the risk of human error, and so routine work may be where the biggest increases in efficiency can be accessed.

There was also discussion around the legal perspective on these issues, the need to build a case that convinces the Sheriff/jury that the right person is in the dock, and how this might affect decision making to maximise the efficiency of evidence collection and processing. It is important to consider that forensic science is a very rational part of a sometimes-irrational system, and there is a distinction between forensic value and evidential value, e.g. negative findings may be evidentially significantly but not forensically significant.

The issue of security came up at various points in the discussion and it was considered that data and information security and privacy is currently a major barrier to the implementation of technology, particularly in real-time. We need to improve the recording of information and the ability to transfer it to the right person/place. In addition, the point was raised that as well as capturing information we also need to be able to capture the interpretation of that information, and the reasons why specific decisions are made at scenes. For example, it often isn’t possible to sample all footwear marks, or all fingerprints, or all blood spots at a scene, or even record them all. Decisions are made about which of these to focus on and technology needs to be able to record that decision-making process. The ability to capture and send information to the lab, so that an interpretation can then be sent back to the scene may also be useful, allowing scene examiners to make more-informed decisions. For example, if a blood sample could be taken, DNA extracted and analysed in real-time and a database hit returned, then this could potentially save the scene examiner from needing to take more samples. However, it is important to consider the issue of confirmation bias in this context, and the fact that human decision making can be error prone. For example, if it was later discovered that there was a second suspect then the lack of further samples could be a major problem.

______

Business & Knowledge Transfer Manager ● Tim Heilbronn ● +44 (0) 1382 384205 www.sipr.ac.uk

Other issues touched upon were education and training to ensure that technology is not used as a short-cut, and the need to make sure individuals are sufficiently trained to make these decisions, in particular that police officers are well educated in forensic science and its implementation and use. The issue of the public perception of technology was also raised, and how this can affect juries and the media, as well as related accreditation issues.

Some specific examples of the issues raised above came up during discussion, which had potential to link up participants across academia and practice, and it was discussed that these could be taken forward as funding applications. One example related to testing of unknown substances at scenes, and whether more detailed testing than presumptive testing could be done at the scene in order to more effectively triage samples, so that fewer samples needed to be subsequently submitted to the laboratory for more detailed testing. Currently many samples are submitted because they are suspected of being controlled substances but many turn out not to be, using a lot of valuable time and resources. A second example related to facial recognition and the potential to improve outcomes by using mobile devices to widely disseminate images of, for example, suspects, as this would be considerably more effective than verbal or written descriptions.

______

Business & Knowledge Transfer Manager ● Tim Heilbronn ● +44 (0) 1382 384205 www.sipr.ac.uk