Making footwear intelligence fit for purpose

Why is one evidence type treated differently to another? Could it be argued that the intellectual copyright of any outcome of analysis of forensic evidence is owned by the person or organisation that contracted the service in the first place, in the majority of cases the police service, and not the service provider?

So why then, asks the Development and Project Manager for Scientific Investigations in Avon and Somerset Constabulary, Alan Whittle, are the intelligence outcomes of analysis of evidence types such as footwear impressions not shared impartially under a national agreement?

This could have an adverse effect on the currency of intelligence information available to police forces depending upon which service provider is chosen to deliver their footwear analysis services, Mr Whittle told Police Professional.

The independent McFarland Review of 2003 looked at the delivery, performance and responsiveness of the FSS and was influential in the decision to give the service provider its government company (GovCo) status.

Referring to the review Mr Whittle pointed to an anomaly that exists at the core of his argument.

The McFarland Review pointed out that the FSS provided the majority of analytical services for DNA but was also contracted by the police service to manage the National DNA Database (NDNAD). The review went on to recommend that this apparent conflict of interest, with the same organisation responsible for both the management of the forensic analysis and maintenance and scrutiny the subsequently gleaned intelligence should be ended.

In Mr Whittle’s view, the review wasn’t challenging the integrity of the company and the individuals involved, but more probably expressed that it is “unwise that a company puts itself in that position and that the maintenance of transparent integrity and public confidence was crucial for those working within the Criminal Justice System (CJS)”.

He drew parallels of other forensic intelligence database such as the National Ballistics Intelligence Programme (NABIP) which has grown out of the National Forensic Firearms Intelligence Database (NFFID), which although wholly owned by the FSS was populated and paid for by samples gathered from crime scenes across the 43 police forces and was developed originally with Home Office funding.

“The intellectual copyright of information gained from such scenes should remains with the individual forces.

“At the moment, if we obtain ballistics information from a particular case and ask the FSS to challenge it against NFFID it will automatically be challenged against outstanding crime samples from all the forces. My question is have we asked the forces ‘can we do that?’ ‘Who owns the title to the information?’ ‘Does it belong to the FSS or to the forces?’”

He added: “The NABIP process has actually made a decision on that, by saying ‘we (the police service) will’. On behalf on the forces in England and Wales, it will pool and compare the information from all ballistic analysis, operating in a similar fashion as the regulatory body of the national DNA database.”

There are parallels with a forensic footwear impressions database. There are a number of service providers who have extensive footwear databases but the title to any information from any scene or suspect person samples must remain with the police service. It would also be beneficial if any database and searches were managed by or on behalf of the police service and was transparently independent (the McFarland doctrine).

He emphasised that a precedent has now been set with the DNA database and NABIP. “What right does a service provider have when saying that a footwear mark recovered in force X, will or won’t be compared to a mark recovered in force Y, or will be retained for the purposes of disseminating information to other forces?”

“If they are not allowed to do this with firearms and DNA information, or they are if it is controlled by a national agreement, then w