What can footwear do for you?

Dr Julie Mennell and Dr Helen Tidy

University of Teesside

The Thematic Inspection Reports, Under the Microscope, and Under the Microscope Refocused, carried out by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) in 2000 and 2002 respectively, identified a number of problems with the use of forensic science by police forces. These included the failure of senior officers to “champion” the scientific support function, a lack of performance data on volume crime and scientific support, and difficulties associated with crime scene attendance and in managing the process of turning identifications into detections. In particular, Under the Microscope, gave very strong support to police forces using systems to manage footwear evidence and stated “Forces where no footwear system is in place should review their approach to this valuable source of evidence and intelligence”.

However, in comparison to DNA and fingerprints, footwear evidence and intelligence (FEI) has perhaps not been utilised as effectively as it could have been. The 2004 Home Office report, authored by Bernard Rix, ‘The contribution of shoemark data to police intelligence, crime detection and prosecution’ identified that most forces could make more effective use of FEI. For example in 2002/3 the average number of scenes where footwear marks were recovered by Crime Scene Investigators (CSI) was 9% and there was found to be a wide variation in retrieval rates between forces. The research showed that on average 14.8% of burglary scenes attended by CSI yielded footwear marks, with success rates ranging from 2.5% to 33.9%. It also highlighted the importance of force champions in demonstrating the effectiveness of using FEI, as like DNA the more FEI is used and the more it is proactively sought as an evidence type, the more likely the police are to benefit.

There is the potential for these results to improve, particularly, following the introduction of new legislation in January 2006 which will allow the police to take an impression of a person’s footwear with or without their consent, if they have been arrested, charged or reported for a recordable offence and an impression of the footwear has not been taken previously. At a recent Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation (Draft Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Codes of Practice) Order 2005) Hazel Blears, the Minister of State for Crime, Security and Communities, said “Code D covers footwear impressions. It makes sure that the provisions on evidence apply to footwear impressions, just as they do to other kinds of evidence. Footwear impressions found at the scene of a crime play an important role in identifying perpetrators. Until now, the powers to take, retain and speculatively search for footwear impressions were not covered in legislation, although impressions of footwear could be taken where it was suspected that the footwear matched an impression taken during an investigation”.

With the advent of a change in legalisation, that should make the recovery and recording of a suspect’s shoe pattern easier to obtain, the need to fully exploit footwear evidence and intelligence is more important than ever. Traditionally, footwear impressions have been used to link a suspect’s footwear to an impression left at the scene of a crime and the utilisation of footwear impressions for other evidential and intelligence uses has been largely undervalued. However, there are many ways in which footwear impressions can aid the police investigator:

Linking a suspect’s footwear to an impression left at a crime scene

A forensic scientist can compare an impression recovered from the crime scene to a suspect’s footwear. The comparison looks for correspondences in pattern, pattern size, general wear, fine wear and unique damage. The scientist may also consider other factors in this comparison, for example how common the shoe pattern is and the circumstances of the incident. This impression can potentially be conclusively linked to a suspect’s footwear. If there is d