Home
Publications

What We Do Police HMIC

< Previous | Contents | Next >

The Fingerprint Bureau: Primary Inspection 2000

6. Quality, Standards and Performance

6.1 Quality Assurance

6.1.1 Quality assurance checks are an essential part of fingerprint bureau procedures. The role of the quality assurance officer is discussed in paragraphs 2.11.1 and 2.12.1. The SCRO fingerprint bureau has had difficulty in developing this role due to the level of work and insufficient resources to deal with all dimensions of it. The commitment of the designated quality assurance officer to training (paragraph 2.11 refers), has resulted, inevitably, in a reduced emphasis on quality assurance processes. The SCRO Annual Report commented on partial completion of competency testing of staff by the end of 1998/99 and highlighted that in order to prevent procedural deficiencies and ensure accurate completion of clerical duties, it was essential that the role of quality assurance officer/training officer be evaluated. (SCRO Annual Report, page 29). This was done and there is recognition that these two roles need to be separated. At the time of the inspection however, 90% of the quality assurance officer's time was still being spent on training. This situation is discussed in more detail in Chapter 2, paragraph 2.12, including the SCRO advertisement for a training officer post. Although this vacancy had not been filled at the time of the inspection, the advertisement of the post is a positive step. Based on current training levels HMIC is concerned that even when this post is filled there will still only be one designated training officer post. Demands are such that even on present levels two trainers are needed therefore a second expert will still be required to assist the new appointment. As the main training officer currently also holds the post of quality assurance officer, it requires separation of these two roles to ensure that training is not being provided to the detriment of quality assurance or vice versa. It is noted that this dual post holder has become a well-qualified trainer. At paragraph 2.12.1 HMIC has recommended that SCRO separate the roles of Quality Assurance Officer and Training Officer.

6.1.2 HMIC was concerned to note that one of the measures taken to increase expert availability for scene of crime fingerprint work was to reduce the number of quality assurance checks being carried out. As part of the work required to re-establish the SCRO fingerprint bureau, a re-newed focus and importance requires to be placed on the quality assurance process.

6.2 Verification of Experts' Work

6.2.1 The number of experts involved in making an identification was reduced from four to three in 1999. The original rationale for having four experts involved was to manage quality and standards. It is significant that the change was one of the actions taken to assist the bureau recover its position in terms of workload. However, this change brought SCRO in line with many other fingerprint bureaux and HMIC is satisfied that, provided robust quality assurance checks including dip sampling of verification work in support of an audit process and independent competency testing is in place, this was an appropriate change to working practices.

6.3 ISO 9002

6.3.1 ISO 9002 is a worldwide standard for Quality Assurance systems. It requires organisations to conform to documented systems of quality assurance. External audits are carried out to ensure the organisation is complying with its own standards. Certification of ISO 9002 standard requires an organisation to prepare a written policy statement on quality assurance, write a quality manual on its own systems and procedures and make available all documents and controls as required.

6.3.2 SCRO, along with fingerprint bureaux in other countries, has taken steps to achieve ISO 9002 accreditation. In March 2000 a consultant was contracted to assist SCRO in this venture and they aim to have their accreditation assessment in December 2000.

6.3.3 In order to maintain the confidence of both the criminal justice system and the public in the Quality Assurance processes in SCRO the achievement of ISO 9002 is an important step. It demonstrates the willingness of SCRO to allow independent external examiners to audit their Quality Assurance processes.

6.3.4 In the move to a non-numeric standard it will be essential to have in place Quality Assurance processes and procedures for their validation. This includes a quality procedure manual with internal and external audit systems. HMIC fully supports SCRO in this move towards ISO 9002 accreditation. Other bureaux are also considering the use of ISO 9002 for validation of their quality processes. As individual experts will be subjected to scrutiny during the registration process of the Council for the Registration of Forensic Practitioners, (see paragraph 8.19), HMIC suggests that all bureaux agree common Quality Assurance processes using the co-ordinating influence of this body. In doing so, good practice may be promulgated and the time and effort in production of a quality manual reduced.

6.4 Independent Audit

6.4.1 Audits of various aspects of SCRO are occasionally undertaken by Strathclyde Police Data Protection section. These have been at the request of SCRO and are not part of a formalised programme. In order to attain accreditation, external as well as internal audit procedures are required and this needs to be addressed as part of the work undertaken to achieve ISO accreditation. (See also Chapter 8, paragraph 8.6).

6.5 Competency Testing

6.5.1 SCRO senior management informed HMIC that the SCRO fingerprint bureau was the first to pilot competency testing of fingerprint experts and HMIC acknowledges the importance of this step. At present, the tests applied are prepared and marked internally. Management is aware of the view that such testing benefits from independent administration. An approach was made by SCRO to the US company which administers the United States Collaborative Testing Services Commercial Test, described by SCRO as the only independently administered testing service available. The intention was for the head of the bureau and the quality assurance officer to undertake that test, as these post holders are the two senior experts who administer the competency testing conducted within SCRO. Difficulties were encountered however as that test is only released at a given date and the SCRO request missed the date in question. HMIC was told that SCRO would apply for it again at the end of 2000.

6.5.2 The 'internal' SCRO competency test (referred to at SCRO as a proficiency test) was submitted to the FBI for independent assessment. A critique of the test was provided by the FBI, which included a comment that as a test to measure competency, it was considered to be too stringent.

6.5.3 It is a harsh comment, especially when there are limited alternatives, to observe that competency testing can only have real validity if it is wholly independent of the organisation under test. HMIC recommends this is an aspect that the APRT review team needs to pursue with vigour to seek an early, sustainable and defensible programme.

6.6 Blind Trials

6.6.1 Blind trials consist of a case being submitted to a bureau as if it were genuine for the purpose of testing the procedures applied and the quality and accuracy of the processes involved. SCRO has never employed this method of quality assurance and HMIC suggests that it is another tool that is worthy of consideration. This is discussed further in Chapter 8, paragraph 8.7.

6.7 Benchmarking

6.7.1 In determining the effectiveness and efficiency of an organisation it is useful to make comparisons in performance with other organisations in the same field or market. This applies to fingerprint bureaux so that the stakeholders, or parent organisation, may determine its performance in relation to others to ascertain whether there is scope for improvement, and if so, how much. In addition, in a Best Value regime, it is essential that this type of comparison is not only possible, but is actually carried out.

6.7.2 In order to make such comparisons it is necessary that the same statistical indicators of performance are used. To do otherwise precludes a like for like comparison. In the Hamilton Report in 1998 it was found that the fingerprint bureaux in Scotland were unable to provide some of the statistical information requested for the report. As a result it was recommended,

6.7.3 During the pre-inspection stage of this inspection, similar statistical information to that sought for the Hamilton Report was requested, not only to inform the inspection but also to determine whether any progress had been made in this respect.

6.7.4 It was found that there are still differences in the way that force bureaux record information to the extent that comparison between forces is not always possible. It was learned that some progress had been made through the Eight Force Standard Group which had included this issue on its agenda.

6.7.5 HMIC is of the opinion that, regardless of the future structure of the fingerprint service in Scotland, it is essential that agreed, common statistical performance information should be collected by bureaux so that valid comparisons can be made. In addition, HMIC sees benefit in consulting fingerprint bureaux outside Scotland on this matter, in order that the most suitable benchmarking partners may be identified. This would allow both SCRO and force fingerprint bureaux to assess their performance on a larger scale, in a more meaningful way and with more accuracy. HMIC suggests that the APRT give this issue early attention.

6.8 Evidential Standards

16 Point Standard

6.8.1 The use of a minimum number of points or characteristics in coincident sequence and agreement with no points of dissimilarity has been used in Scotland since fingerprint evidence became routinely used in the first half of the last century. Originally 12 characteristics in sequence and agreement was the accepted standard. The present 16 point standard was introduced to Great Britain in 1924 following the publication of photographs which purported to show two fingerprints from different people with 16 common characteristics. New Scotland Yard disagreed with 6 of these characteristics but in the belief that 10 were identical, recommended that the standard should be raised to 16 points. The fingerprints, which prompted this change, were later found to have been altered and in fact did not contain 10 points of agreement. Nonetheless the 16 point standard remained.

6.8.2 In 1953, following reviews of the differing practices throughout Great Britain, the Home Office agreed that a minimum of sixteen points should be the standard for a single print. This has remained the position until the present day although in some cases courts have accepted evidence of fingerprint identification where a lower number of points have been found.

6.8.3 The practice in other countries varies from no specific number required to a fixed number which is usually lower than 16.

6.8.4 There is no strict scientific basis for the use of a numeric standard as the identification rests with the expert's opinion. This is recognised in an increasing number of countries where a non-numeric standard is applied, including England and Wales where active steps are taking place to progress the introduction of a non-numeric standard.

6.8.5 Fingerprint bureaux in England and Wales had planned to introduce the non-numeric standard on 3 April 2000. This has been delayed however but is now due to take place in October 2000.

6.8.6 The move to a non-numeric standard in Scotland was meant to follow that of England and Wales. However, HMIC has noted that there have been significant differences in approach to this move between Scotland and England and Wales. England and Wales, through the ACPO Crime Committee, has been planning this move since 1996 when a Project Team was formed to progress this issue. This team has consulted widely with all members of the criminal justice system to ensure that everyone with an interest in fingerprinting evidence was given training or awareness of the implications of the change.

6.8.7 Although Scotland was represented on this Project Board, by SCRO, the same comprehensive project process has not been applied here. There have been meetings of force bureaux to discuss the standardisation of processes throughout Scotland, and to develop protocols referred to as the "Eight Force Fingerprint Standard". Included in these discussions were the non-numeric standard and the formation of a sub group to examine its introduction.

6.8.8 During the course of this inspection HMIC noted that there was some confusion about the introduction of a non-numeric standard not only amongst fingerprint experts but also in the wider Scottish criminal justice system. The impact of a move to a non-numeric standard on fingerprint evidence is substantial and wide ranging. If such a move is to retain the credibility of fingerprint evidence then all concerned must be aware of its meaning and impact. This is not presently the case.

6.8.9 HMIC considers that a change of this magnitude requires a dedicated project approach which includes managing the interests of all parts of the criminal justice system. HMIC recommends that managing the change to a non-numeric standard should be addressed at a very early point by the APRT.

6.8.10 In a wider context, the Interpol European Expert Group on Fingerprint Identification is considering the feasibility of introducing a European Fingerprint Identification Standard to ensure common standards across Europe. This would facilitate the exchange of evidence between member countries and minimise the risk of experts from different countries giving conflicting evidence when called to other country's courts - which would damage the credibility of fingerprint evidence. Scotland is represented on this group by SCRO and HMIC fully supports SCRO participating in this important work, recognising that it represents another extraction for key staff.

6.9 Presentation of Evidence

6.9.1 In 1999, fingerprint experts at SCRO received 543 witness citations to attend court. Out of a total of 406 cases where fingerprint evidence had been submitted, fingerprint experts gave evidence in only 13 cases.

6.9.2 The presentation of evidence in court by SCRO fingerprint experts has been given consideration following the McKie case. Senior fingerprint managers have taken advice on presentation skills and procedures and training sessions have been provided for staff by independent training consultants. HMIC was informed that presentation methods are to be re-evaluated with the possibility of using enhanced visual aids in the future. Established methods were called into question following a realisation by SCRO staff that arguably the presentation skills and visual aids of the defence team in the McKie case, were of a higher standard than their own. Although the defence experts came from a different legal jurisdiction, SCRO staff acknowledged that the comparison suggested that methods could be improved. HMIC notes this frank and commendable awareness and the action taken to date but two years after the McKie case presentation methods have not changed significantly.

6.9.3 The introduction of a non-numeric standard will require further training to be provided for all fingerprint experts and this will be particularly true in relation to court presentation. HMIC recommends that the important area of court presentation skills be given a new impetus.

6.10 Standard and Content of Joint Reports

6.10.1 The joint report is an effective means of presenting expert evidence. The content of many of these reports is agreed between the crown and the defence before the case comes to court. This increases court efficiency and reduces the amount of time wasted by expert witnesses attending court and not being called to give evidence.

6.10.2 The standard content and quality of joint reports submitted to courts by fingerprint experts was found to vary across Scotland. This may be due to the expectations of individual procurators fiscal who request the reports. Generally however, the reports contain scant detail and largely consist of a statement by two fingerprint experts that sixteen identical characteristics were found in both the crime scene mark concerned and the fingerprint of the accused person. HMIC acknowledges that the joint report is designed for efficacy but there may be value in considering the future reporting needs under a non-numeric standard. This might require greater detail of the expert's opinion than is currently imparted by a standard joint report.

6.11 Performance Measurement

6.11.1 The number of identifications made by SCRO staff in 1998/1999 fell in respect of both cases and marks compared to the previous year. HMIC notes that while the number of identifications made in 1999/2000 represents an increase on the 1998/1999 figures, the total number is still less than was achieved in 1997/1998. Figure 11 below shows the number of cases involving identifications made by SCRO between 1995/1996 and 1999/2000.

Figure 11: Number of cases involving identifications by SCRO

6.11.2 Figure 12 below shows the number of marks identified by SCRO between 1995/1996 and 1999/2000.

Figure 12: Marks identified by SCRO

6.11.3 The need for a standard approach across Scotland to the gathering of performance statistics/management information within fingerprint bureaux was highlighted in the course of previous reviews of SCRO. The matter was on the agenda of the Eight Force Standard Group but to date SCRO and forces continue to collect these statistics in different ways which inhibits valid comparisons between bureaux. Paragraph 6.7 on benchmarking highlights the need for such information to be collected to a standard to permit comparison with other bureaux (including other countries).

6.12 The Dual Role of Fingerprint Expert/Scenes of Crime Officer

6.12.1 There are no dual role posts at SCRO and thus no fingerprint expert also performs the role of scenes of crime officer. All are dedicated fingerprint experts. This is not the case in forces where many of the fingerprint experts are also scenes of crime officers. While HMIC has no prescriptive stance in respect of the dual role, it can result in situations, which require careful managing. For example if a force has a major incident or a spate of crime where demand for crime scene examination is increased and/or protracted this impacts on the balance between the roles which is normally maintained. Managers of fingerprint bureaux who are not in charge of scenes of crime work may find their staff depleted as priorities can demand that crime scene examinations take precedence over fingerprint work.

6.12.2 Another issue raised in the course of the inspection is the potential for the expertise of the dual role expert to be seen as less good than the dedicated expert whose career is spent solely on fingerprint comparison work. Concern was expressed that the reduced amount of time spent by some fingerprint officers, both trainees and experts is adversely affecting the quality of fingerprint expertise available within forces. This needs to be managed but HMIC saw little difference between this situation and that where the fingerprint expert is only occasionally used in the expert role. This might occur for example in the case of a police officer who is a qualified expert but transferred to other duties unrelated to crime scene work.

6.12.3 HMIC found no reason to suggest that the dual role is a threat to the credibility of fingerprint evidence given by such an expert. There is an issue about any expert maintaining standards of competency which may be affected by lack of practice. However many of the recommendations contained in this report relating to quality assurance, standards and competency testing should address that issue.

6.12.4 In considering the way forward for a national fingerprint service, there is clearly a need to debate the appropriateness of the dual role fingerprint expert. HMIC suggests in paragraph 2.15.6 that this debate should be considered by the APRT.

< 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.gsi.gov.uk or fill out our online questionnaire.