Home | Press | Publications | What We Do | Who We Are | Search | Site Map | Contacts | Links
Publications

What We Do Police HMIC

< Previous | Contents | Next >

The Fingerprint Bureau: Primary Inspection 2000

5. Processes

5.1 The Law relating to Fingerprints

Statutory

5.1.1 The Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1995, as amended by the Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Act 1997 is the primary legislation covering fingerprints.

5.1.2 The authority of the police to take fingerprints from persons in custody is derived from Section 18. It also gives the police the authority to take fingerprints from persons detained under Section 14 of the same Act. Section 18 also describes the disposal of fingerprints of those against proceedings are not taken or who are not convicted.

5.1.3 Section 19 makes provision for the taking of fingerprints of individuals who have either failed to be fingerprinted or whose prints have proved to be defective, under specified conditions. Section 284 of the same Act also allows for the evidence of the taking of such a fingerprint to be proved by means of a particular certificate.

5.1.4 Section 280 provides the general basis for fingerprint reports (joint reports) to be accepted in evidence.

5.1.5 Approval to use Livescan to capture fingerprints was given in The Electronic Fingerprinting etc. Device Approval (Scotland) Order 1997.

5.1.6 Regulation 17 of the Police (Scotland) Regulations 1976, makes provision for the taking, storage and disposal of fingerprints of police officers. (These are available for elimination purposes when officers are known to have been present at the scene of a crime where marks have been found.)

Case Law

5.1.7 Two cases defined the use of fingerprint evidence in Scotland. The first, Adair v McGarry, 1935, SLT482, established that the police could legitimately take the fingerprints of a person who had been lawfully arrested, without their consent and without warrant. Secondly, that the evidence of a single fingerprint, in particular circumstances, as being sufficient evidence on its own to convict an accused person, was established in Hamilton v HMA, 1934 JC1.

5.2 National Fingerprint Collection

5.2.1 It is one of the primary functions of SCRO to maintain a national fingerprint collection for Scotland. This includes the tenprints and palmprints of persons pending prosecution and those convicted of crimes and offences.

5.2.2 All police forces are required to submit tenprint and palmprint forms to SCRO. A copy is retained by most forces for local purposes.

5.2.3 The national collection now consists of a manual collection and the AFR database. The manual collection comprises "hard copy" tenprint forms filed sequentially. Each has a unique reference number generated by the SCRO Criminal History System. Since 1996, the reverse side of the tenprint form has included palmprints. Prior to this, palmprints were taken on separate forms and these are filed in a separate collection. A separate manual collection is also held in respect of individuals who are active in document fraud. This collection consists of photocopies of tenprint forms which are organised in a two-hand classification system and filed in classification order. This collection is used for training purposes to teach methods of classification and manual searching.

5.2.4 The Automatic Fingerprint Recognition (AFR) tenprint database is organised into subsets of alphanumeric data relating to gender and fingerprint pattern types. The crime scene marks database on AFR is organised into similar subsets of data based on finger number and pattern type.

5.3 Automatic Fingerprint Recognition (AFR)

Background

5.3.1 The AFR system is a computerised system of storing and comparing fingerprints and finger impressions found at crime scenes (crime scene marks). It was introduced in Scotland by SCRO in 1991 and the National Fingerprint Database is installed on it.

5.3.2 Using AFR it is possible to compare:

• Print to Print - A set or sets of fingerprints searched against a fingerprint collection. Sets may be incomplete. Sometimes referred to as tenprint to tenprint. The purpose is to confirm the identity of an individual

• Mark to Mark - Scene of crime mark (latent) searched against outstanding scenes of crime marks, to identify linked crimes.

• Print to Mark - A set or sets of fingerprints searched against outstanding scenes of crime marks, to identify further crimes for which the arrested individual may be responsible.

• Mark to Print - Scenes of crime marks searched against fingerprint collections. Sometimes referred to a mark to tenprint, to identify the perpetrator from the bank of stored fingerprints

5.3.3 The fingerprints/marks are stored on the system under a number of different classifications.

5.3.4 It may have been anticipated that the introduction of AFR would reduce the need for the involvement, and therefore the number, of fingerprint experts. This has not proved to be the case, rather the number of experts required has increased as the volume of cases which can be searched on AFR has increased. The recognition of the value of a national tenprint database, advanced by the increase in the number of fingerprints actually taken, has also contributed to the increased volume of work.

5.3.5 The introduction of Tenprint Identification Officers (TIO) to operate AFR has alleviated the demand on experts to some extent. However, experts are still required to supervise their work, and to examine, and confirm identifications arising from AFR "hits". The confirmation of an identification is a matter for three fingerprint experts and the purpose of the computerised AFR system is to provide a quick and accurate focus for the comparison(s).

5.3.6 Since its introduction to Scotland in 1991 the use of AFR has expanded with terminals now sited in four locations, namely:

• SCRO - 6 terminals. Used by SCRO staff for inputting all material from SCRO, Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary, Northern Constabulary and Strathclyde Police;

• Lothian and Borders Police Headquarters, Edinburgh -1 terminal;

• Grampian Police Headquarters, Aberdeen -1 terminal;

• Tayside Police, Western Division Headquarters, Perth -2 terminals. Used by staff from Identification Bureaux based at Central Scotland Police Headquarters, Stirling, Fife Constabulary Headquarters, Glenrothes and Tayside Police Headquarters, Dundee.

5.3.7 Two of the terminals at SCRO and those at Aberdeen and Perth were introduced in March 1999. One of the reasons for the installation of these additional terminals was to reduce the workload of SCRO. By the end of 1999 SCRO believed that these terminals had reduced the caseload they received by approximately 12%. However, as Strathclyde Police, Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary and Northern Constabulary do not have access to AFR terminals, all AFR work for these forces is undertaken by SCRO staff.

5.3.8 Table A below shows the number of marks searched on AFR by SCRO during the five year period 1995/96 to 1999/2000. The decreasing numbers in respect of forces other than Strathclyde Police, Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary and Northern Constabulary, signify the move by these other forces to undertake their own AFR work. At the time of the inspection there were 33804 outstanding marks held on the AFR crime scene mark database.

Table A - Marks searched on AFR by SCRO

5.3.9 The siting of the two terminals at Perth was a compromise solution to meet the needs of the Tayside, Fife and Central forces. The distance involved for staff from each of these forces to travel to Perth involves costs in terms of time and transport and is operationally inconvenient. The experts inputting the forms do not do so on a daily basis, but rather collate the forms, and when there are sufficient numbers, or when staff are available, take them in batches to Perth. As their time there is restricted, they are confined to limited searching.

5.3.10 In addition, the searches undertaken do not have the immediacy of the searches undertaken in other areas. Examples were given by forces with AFR terminals located in their headquarters of AFR searches taking place on the same day as the crime occurred, with an identification being made and confirmed and the culprit apprehended still in possession of the property stolen. This has clear advantages both operationally and in the wider interests of justice. While location may not be everything, speed, thoroughness and ease of search is important.

5.3.11 One of the uses of AFR described previously is the ability to compare crime scene marks to crime scene marks to identify linked crimes. Given the importance of intelligence led policing and the increasing investment in, and use of, crime pattern analysis by forces this facility has obvious benefits to the enquiry officer and to crime management units. However, because of the pressures of limited resources and time at SCRO and at forces, this search is only carried out in the most serious crimes, some frauds or at the request of the senior investigating officer. These same pressures also inhibit the re-submission of cases with different search parameters or revisiting serious cases at a later date.

5.3.12 The crime scene mark to crime scene mark search facility is a valuable tool, which is under-utilised and HMIC suggests that this is a matter that the APRT needs to consider in scoping the resources and equipment needed to provide an efficient and effective service.

5.4 Livescan Terminals

5.4.1 Livescan is a means of capturing fingerprint images without ink using an electro-optical computerised device, which immediately transmits those images to SCRO for processing on the AFR system. Telephone lines transmit the images.

5.4.2 Livescan was introduced on 1 April 1997 as a 24-hour service, with terminals being sited at nine locations. Since then further terminals have been installed to give the present position, as shown in Table B below.

Table B - Number of Livescan terminals and their distribution.

5.4.3 When Livescan was introduced, SCRO undertook to confirm identity or otherwise within 2 hours of receipt of the images being received at SCRO. In 1999/2000 this target was achieved in 95.5% of cases. A commendable achievement, a considerable benefit to crime detection and effective operation of the criminal justice system as early confirmation of identity is a key factor. The commitment by SCRO to provide this service, without additional resources, meant that 55% of the fingerprint experts were lost from scene of crime mark examinations. This situation has now been addressed to a large extent by the employment of Tenprint Identification Officers since 1999.

5.4.4 In 1997 training was provided by SCRO to four trainers from each force who were then responsible for cascade training within their own force. If dedicated support staff turnkeys take the fingerprints from persons in custody this would improve police officer availability and should improve the quality of the images taken. Standards and improvements would be much easier to achieve. (See 3.14).

5.4.5 The present Livescan equipment is not capable of capturing palmprints although SCRO are still working with the present suppliers, SAGEM, to resolve this. As a result all palmprints have to be taken using ink, and the forms sent to SCRO to be married up to the electronically received tenprint forms and filed together in the hard copy tenprint collection. It had been hoped that the introduction of Livescan would reduce the amount of form processing by SCRO but this has not been possible. The administrative burden could be reduced significantly by the electronic capture of palmprints and this should be progressed as quickly as possible. The number of tenprints received at SCRO between 1995/96 and 1999/2000 is shown in Figure 8 on page 36 and in a more detailed way in Table C below:

Table C - Number of tenprints received by SCRO.

5.4.6 This increase is partly attributable to a more robust policy in forces of fingerprinting every person arrested. While this causes difficulties for SCRO in administering such a high volume of tenprints, there is little doubt that the benefits for detecting crime more than compensate for this. The greater the size of the database the greater the likelihood of obtaining an identification. For example, in Lothian and Borders Police this policy has resulted in crimes detected by means of fingerprints increasing by 61%.

5.4.7 HMIC suggests that the policy of taking fingerprints from all persons where the law allows be pursued with vigour as this offers a singular opportunity to prevent and detect crime.

5.4.8 The quality of tenprints transmitted to SCRO by Livescan is controlled in two ways. Firstly the device itself has a facility to indicate when the captured print is of poor quality. However, the operator may ignore and override this advice. Secondly, Tenprint Identification Officers and/or fingerprint experts at SCRO check that the quality of the prints received is acceptable. If it is not, then the originating Livescan site is telephoned immediately to request that either specific fingers, or the whole form, be retaken and resubmitted. This is not always possible, for example, if the person in custody has been released before such notification is received.

5.4.9 Rejected forms are returned to forces for monitoring purposes. The number of forms rejected in 1999/2000 is shown in Table D below.

Table D - Livescan tenprints rejected 1999/2000

5.4.10 The rejection rate is not particularly high, however because not all fingerprints are re-taken it does represent a lost opportunity to detect crime at the point of arrest or in the future. It must be monitored to determine patterns of rejection in order to identify areas where retraining is required. (see also comments at paragraph 5.4.4 above).

5.5 Fingerprinting of Persons in Custody

5.5.1 Legislation provides that every person who is arrested may be fingerprinted. It has not always been the case that every person in police custody is fingerprinted but there is a move towards that position. (see paragraph 5.4.7 above).

5.6 Fingerprinting of Police Officers

5.6.1 Regulation 17 of the Police (Scotland) Regulations 1976, makes provision for the taking, storage and disposal of fingerprints of police officers. Where an officer is recorded as having attended a crime scene where fingerprints have been found, then it is practice to use these prints for elimination purposes. Where these prints are not readily available, officers may be asked to provide elimination prints in the same way as others who have had legitimate access to the scene. It is not uncommon for the fingerprints of police officers and other police staff to be identified at crime scenes that they have attended in the course of their duty. The latter occurrence is regularly addressed in training and should be a matter that supervisors re-enforce at briefings. Limiting unnecessary marks would reduce work for others.

5.6.2 The fingerprint records of Strathclyde Police officers are held by SCRO for elimination purposes. They are filed in a manual collection which is held separately from the criminal databases and cannot be routinely searched against the outstanding marks database. The fingerprint records of officers in other forces are held either by the force's personnel department or within the identification branch.

5.7 Fingerprinting of Unidentified Bodies

5.7.1 The importance of identification by fingerprints is not restricted to the field of crime detection. Every year, the police in Scotland deal with a number of unidentified bodies, where the positive identity is only established by difficult and painstaking fingerprint comparison work. While some of these identifications will result from searching the criminal database, some are made against fingerprint lifts taken from items, which a missing person is known to have handled.

5.7.2 In Strathclyde, cases necessitating the fingerprinting of a dead body to assist identification, are supervised by the team leader of the special case team. Scenes of crime officers undertake the fingerprinting of the body. SCRO fingerprint experts identified 50 of the 97 unidentified bodies found in the Strathclyde Police area in 1998/99. In other force areas the same task is undertaken by both fingerprint experts and scenes of crime officers.

5.8 The Office Management Process

5.8.1 One of the recommendations in the independent consultants' final report in June 1999, was the introduction of an office management information system incorporating automated case tracking. This had not happened by the time of the inspection and the existing system was not found to be effective. HMIC repeats, in paragraph 5.8.11 below, the recommendation made by the consultants in June 1999, that an automated system of case tracking should be introduced as part of a new office management system at SCRO.

< Previous | Contents | Next >

The information contained on this WWW site is Crown Copyright but may be reproduced without formal permission or charge for personal or in-house use. Privacy and Content Disclaimer.

For general enquiries about this web site email ceu@scotland.gov.uk or fill out our online questionnaire.