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

8. Public Responsibility

8.1 Need for National Standards

Evidential Standards

8.1.1 The application of a standard is very important to maintaining a safe and reliable method of fingerprint comparison. Experience and expertise enables a fingerprint expert to "know" that a mark has been made by a certain finger but it is necessary that a standard is applied to translate that view into a reasoned argument on which the conclusion can be based. The application of a recognised and accepted standard protects the fingerprint expert from inappropriate pressures and influences and allows the generation of safe and positive conclusions.

8.1.2 Different standards for fingerprint evidence apply in different countries throughout the world. In some countries the standard is based on the identification of a particular number of identical points between the mark and the prints being examined. These are referred to as a numeric standard. In other countries, arguably, a more holistic approach is taken towards the comparison and identification is based on a detailed analysis of the whole impression, taking into account, detail at a number of different levels. The process is described in more detail in later in this chapter. This standard is described as a non-numeric standard.

8.1.3 The sixteen-point standard, which currently applies in the UK is an example of a numeric standard. Numeric standards have varied over the years and between countries.

8.1.4 The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in the United States and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) are among those where a non-numeric standard is now applied. Australia and America have some states where numeric standards are applied and some where the standard is non-numeric. HMIC shares the widely held view that this situation is undesirable and that a common standard should exist worldwide.

UK Standards

8.1.5 The origin of the sixteen point standard which currently applies throughout the UK is discussed in Chapter 6 of this report. (Paragraph 6.8.1 refers).

8.1.6 The meaning of the sixteen point standard, in practice, is that sixteen identical characteristics must be present in sequence and agreement in both the crime scene mark and the donor fingerprint for an identification to be reported to the court. This is despite the fact that fingerprint experts have the technical ability to make positive identifications in relation to cases where there are far fewer points than sixteen. The current standard precludes experts from explaining this situation to a court, except on the rarest of occasions, because the evidential standard for court purposes currently requires the identification of sixteen identical characteristics. The sixteen-point standard was variously described during this inspection, as a "threshold," a "hurdle," a "comfort blanket" and "a numbers game." Whichever label one chooses the fact is that it is an arbitrary figure with little scientific or intellectual basis.

8.1.7 The move within Scotland towards a non-numeric fingerprint standard is consistent with efforts in England and Wales to achieve the same change. The issue was the subject of deliberation by the ACPO Crime Committee in 1994 when a working group was set up. This group reported in 1995 and the recommendations to abolish the numeric standard and replace it with a quality based standard, were endorsed by the Crime Committee. Endorsement was re-affirmed by the Chief Constables' Council in 1996 and a project group was established with a view to implementation. The project group undertook a substantial programme of work with a target date for implementation set for 3 April 2000. The change is now due for implementation on 2 October 2000.

Training

8.1.8 While the most basic methodology involved in fingerprint comparison does not change irrespective of which standard is being used, there are subtle differences in approach to making an identification with a numeric and non-numeric standard. The move towards a non-numeric standard in England and Wales has involved the preparation of robust quality assurance process which HMIC considers to be integral for the successful implementation of the new standard. Part of this process requires a high standard of documentation in relation to operating standards and procedures.

8.1.9 Under the current sixteen-point standard in Scotland, experts do not regularly and fully document their thought processes in reaching a conclusion in respect of a comparison. Where a number of experts confirm that at least sixteen identical characteristics have been found in both a crime scene mark and a fingerprint, neither the location nor nature of these characteristics are routinely documented. This is only done when photographic enlargements of the mark and print in question are requested for court purposes, then the experts would "chart" the sixteen points identified. Moving to a non-numeric standard will result in a range of approaches for an expert to reach a conclusion. Because these will not always be as straightforward as "counting points," HMIC believes there is a need for experts to record their reasoning and findings in each case.

8.1.10 While it is acknowledged that this may be time consuming, it is believed to be necessary in terms of accountability and transparency. In practice it is recording the processes which the expert already goes through. Technology will be able to assist with reducing the bureaucracy. Experts need training and guidance in this respect to achieve a practical, consistent and robust approach to such processes. Further training is also likely to be required by experts to assist their presentation of evidence according to the new standard. The need for training and raising awareness in respect of the non-numeric standard is not confined to the experts and HMIC stresses the recommendation in Chapter 7 regarding a national training standard, A full training needs analysis should be undertaken including consideration of the training requirement for all sections of the criminal justice system.

8.2 Publication of Standards

8.2.1 HMIC found that SCRO has made some progress on the development of a Quality Assurance/Procedures Manual. This step is a pre-requisite for the introduction of the non-numeric standard and the production now needs to be progressed. At the time of the inspection it was anticipated that the manual would be complete by September 2000. SCRO is following guidelines in this respect produced by the ACPO National Fingerprint Evidence Standards Project. These guidelines were also circulated to all force fingerprint bureaux in April 2000.

8.2.2 HMIC emphasises that such a manual should apply to fingerprint bureaux across Scotland. HMIC also advocates that change to the agreed standards and procedures should not be made arbitrarily, nor should they be the unilateral decision of senior management at SCRO. Inevitably such changes impact on others providing similar services in Scotland. In future, independent of any decision regarding centralisation, changes in standards or procedures should be discussed and agreed across Scotland in order that national consistency can be maintained. Consideration needs to be given as to how change is agreed, recorded and implemented.

8.3 Compliance with Legislation

8.3.1 Legislation in relation to fingerprints is discussed in Chapter 5 above. It is essential that the relevant legislation is widely known and understood by all staff involved in fingerprint work. For example, HMIC noted frequent reference by experts to difficulties sometimes encountered when the fingerprint form completed following a person's arrest is of a lesser quality than an earlier form. Various approaches seemed to follow. These included seeking permission from a procurator fiscal to use a previously held form. Legislation is clear however that as soon as it is recognised that a fingerprint form is of poor quality, then provision exists for that person's fingerprints to be retaken.

8.4 Weeding Policy

8.4.1 Tenprint images are weeded from the AFR database in accordance with SCRO's weeding policy in respect of its Criminal History System (criminal records). Marks from serious cases remain on AFR indefinitely. Other marks are weeded from the AFR database after 3 years and are held manually for 5 years before disposal. Only photographs of marks are held by SCRO, the photographic negatives and productions being retained by the originating force.

8.4.2 HMIC was told that there are tenprint forms held in the manual collection which should have been weeded, but due to insufficient resources, this has not been done. When such forms are found, they are destroyed. HMIC recommends that a specific effort be made to bring the weeding up to date.*

8.5 Quality Assurance

8.5.1 The main quality assurance checks carried out at SCRO are in relation to checks during the identification/verification process, accurate completion of case documentation, tenprint forms, submission of evidence for court and competency (proficiency) testing of fingerprint experts.

8.5.2 HMIC was informed that a number of previously established quality assurance processes have not been carried out for the last two years. This has largely been due to the quality assurance officer's commitment to training, demands for which have been significantly increased by the introduction of the tenprint identification officer posts, additional AFR training for forces and the requirement to achieve training accreditation. The quality assurance processes which have suffered include case auditing, random audits of tenprints (paragraphs 6.4 and 8.6 refer) and test searching of selected marks and tenprints through AFR to endorse accuracy of the system and individual terminals.

8.5.3 HMIC was advised that backlogs regularly occur in the quality assurance processes and work is often carried out on overtime, weekends and evenings, in an attempt to keep up to date. It is anticipated that the recruitment of a full-time training officer will allow the quality assurance systems to be reviewed. SCRO recognise a need to restructure the bureau in a manner which further utilises supervisors as part of the audit process.

8.6 Audit

8.6.1 SCRO informed HMIC that case auditing was one of the quality assurance processes which used to be in place within the fingerprint bureau. Case audits involved tracking a percentage of the cases received each month through the different stages of the processes involved. As a consequence of the demands made on the quality assurance officer in respect of training, the increased workload, and the continued shortage of fingerprint experts however, this has not been carried out for the last two years.

8.6.2 Random audits of tenprints received, both Livescan and inked forms also used to be carried out. This included tracking a percentage of the palm impressions received. These checks have also stopped over the last two years for the same reasons.

8.6.3 SCRO is aware that internal and external audit procedures are required to meet ISO accreditation. HMIC suggests that the APRT give the audit issue early attention.

8.7 Blind Trials

8.7.1 Blind trials or blind testing occurs where a test case is submitted as if it were real and those dealing with it are unaware that it is a test. This is a reliable method of quality assurance, well tried and tested within the forensic science arena. It has never been used at SCRO nor within force fingerprint bureaux although it is well suited to the fingerprint case scenario. HMIC raised the possibility with SCRO staff who were opposed to the idea of its introduction on the basis of time pressures in respect of real cases. In addition, it was claimed that experts would be able to recognise cases which were not genuine and it would therefore not be valid as a "blind test". HMIC would stress that in order to sustain public confidence and to become fully efficient, SCRO must introduce quality assurance processes of the highest level. HMIC suggests that blind testing is considered as part of these processes. (Paragraph 6.6.1 also refers).

8.8 Competency Testing

8.8.1 Competency tests have already been discussed in Chapter 6, (paragraph 6.5), of this report. However, under a chapter heading of 'Public Responsibility,' HMIC considers it appropriate to refer to this issue again. Although competency tests have been carried out at SCRO since 1996, such testing, administered externally, is seen as a basic step towards restoring public confidence in the service delivered by the SCRO fingerprint bureau.

8.8.2 The tests currently used within SCRO are prepared and managed internally. HMIC recommends that this process needs to be undertaken by an external provider and examiner to demonstrate openness and transparency. (Recommendation 14, paragraph 6.5.3 refers). Only one force in Scotland currently uses an external provider. While SCRO has expressed interest in the same process, commitment to this step now needs to be demonstrated.

8.8.3 HMIC recommends that all fingerprint experts within the SCRO Fingerprint Bureau should undergo competency testing provided and managed by an external provider as soon as possible. This recommendation is notwithstanding the fact that some SCRO experts may already have recently been tested.

8.9 Procedures for Dealing with Failed Competency Tests

8.9.1 HMIC saw the documentation setting out clear procedures to deal with those experts who do not successfully complete competency testing. Staff need to know what the procedure is and the consequences of being unsuccessful in a test. While management should be alert to the identification of stress or a need for welfare support among staff, through such testing, there does need to be a robust mechanism for dealing with inadequate performance as identified by such testing. Reference has been made to the competency testing proposed by the National Registration Council, which will incorporate procedures to deal with failure to meet these tests. Registration of Scottish fingerprint experts may still be some way off however and HMIC recommends that a common procedure, subject to validation by an external body, be put in place in all fingerprint bureaux to deal with failure in the course of competency testing.

8.10 Procedure for Dealing with Errors and Misidentifications

8.10.1 HMIC recommends that a national policy be introduced to deal with all erroneous fingerprint identifications (misidentifications) (Recommendation 13, paragraph 5.20.4). Formal procedures should be introduced within all fingerprint bureaux to deal with such mistakes in an honest and open manner. Some errors will be identified internally before the identification is notified outside the bureau. Others could be identified after an identification has been passed to the investigating officer or prosecutor and the identification may have been acted upon. A policy to deal with both potential outcomes is required. While such mistakes are likely to be very infrequent, it is essential that there is a recognised and documented process in place to deal with them. It is equally important to have a procedure in place to demonstrate a willingness to accept that mistakes do happen and that they are addressed in an open and transparent manner in order that confidence can be maintained in the system. It is equally important that any procedure has the confidence of fingerprint staff in order that learning rather than simply criticism is seen as the outcome.

8.11 "Registration" of Fingerprint Experts

8.11.1 There is a "register" of fingerprint experts in Scotland only in so much as there is a list of all fingerprint experts working at SCRO and in Scottish forces who have been authorised to give expert evidence by way of joint report. This should not however be confused with the type of professional regulation offered by the National Council for Registration of Forensic Practitioners referred to later in this chapter at paragraph 8.19.

8.11.2 Experts within the SCRO and force fingerprint bureaux are "authorised forensic scientists" under Section 280(4) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995. The process of authorisation involves the notification by SCRO or the respective force to the Scottish Executive that a trainee fingerprint officer meets certain set criteria in relation to training and experience which it has been agreed should qualify that individual as an expert. The recommendation is notified to the Crown Office and if the relevant criteria are met, it receives approval. Authorisation is then granted by the Scottish Ministers and that person is then qualified to give evidence in court as a fingerprint expert. In essence the authorisation is to allow the expert to submit evidence to the court by way of a joint report.

8.11.3 HMIC questions the true value of this authorisation process. While the legislative requirements are such that only "authorised forensic scientists" may give evidence by way of a joint report, the criteria to be met infers competence on the part of the individual being recommended for expert status. The process provides no test of competence and providing that SCRO or the force confirms that the person has five years' experience and has completed certain training courses then authorisation will be granted. At present a dual standard is applied where the criteria requires force experts to have undertaken the expert training course at the National Training Centre at Durham. SCRO however negotiated a change to the criteria to allow SCRO experts to become authorised without this course, based on the premise that the SCRO expert course is more relevant to the Scottish expert's needs than the Durham course.

8.11.4 As discussed elsewhere in this report, (paragraph 3.5), the "qualification" of five years experience is also an arbitrary one and experts responsible for the supervision of trainees, confirmed to HMIC staff that many individuals have the ability to perform the role of a competent expert with less than five years' experience. HMIC supports the view that expert status ought to be based on competency rather than length of service.

8.11.5 While the legislation requires "authorisation" before an expert can give evidence by way of joint report, HMIC recommends that a review is undertaken of the current process with a view to establishing a competency based qualification for expert status. Once so qualified, authorisation should then follow on the basis of that qualification. (see also Recommendation 5, paragraph 3.5.3).

8.12 Corporate Identity

8.12.1 Comment has already been made in this report regarding the need for SCRO to reassert its own corporate identity and to reposition itself in relation to Strathclyde Police and Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary (Recommendation 3, paragraph 2.15.11). It is considered appropriate however in terms of public responsibility to discuss again the need for a distinction to be drawn between SCRO's role as a fingerprint bureau for these two police forces and as the key provider of fingerprint services to the Scottish criminal justice system.

8.12.2 In re-asserting itself as an independent provider of such services, SCRO needs to develop a stronger corporate identity. The move to new premises is helpful in this respect. Such independence cannot be fully achieved by SCRO alone and if the opportunity which the move to new premises provides is to be maximised, then consideration must be given to the support structures necessary for the organisation to proceed on an independent basis.

8.12.3 HMIC is of the view that this situation can never be fully resolved unless the management and funding of Common Police Services as a whole are addressed. Many of the difficulties faced by SCRO in terms of limited support and reliance upon police forces are replicated throughout the Common Police Services structure. HMIC is aware that the Scottish Executive is addressing this issue, as a matter of urgency, in the review of policing in Scotland.

8.12.4 Meanwhile however, HMIC recommends that the APRT give early attention to establishing a corporate identity for SCRO. This should take account of the code of ethics and media policy suggested below in paragraphs and 8.18 and 8.20 respectively.

8.13 Liaison with Other Bureaux

8.13.1 HMIC notes that senior experts from the SCRO Fingerprint Bureau attend national conferences and meetings on a regular basis. Also, SCRO experts attend as observers at user group meetings of NAFIS and the AFR Consortium to keep abreast of the Automatic Fingerprint Identification Systems operating in England and Wales. A senior SCRO representative also attends the European Experts Group on Fingerprint Identification which is convened under the auspices of Interpol. There was also evidence that leading experts from fingerprint bureaux in England and Wales and overseas are invited to address SCRO experts on a regular basis. HMIC considers this liaison to be good practice and necessary for maintaining awareness about current issues and developments.

8.13.2 In Scotland, the Eight Force Standard working group had become the main point of liasion between SCRO and force bureaux outside the operational casework arena, until December 1999, since when no further meetings have taken place. This had replaced the SCRO Fingerprint Liaison Officers' Committee meetings between members of force identification branches and the head of the SCRO fingerprint bureau. This committee met quarterly when issues concerning service provision and new developments would be discussed. The reason for discontinuing the Eight Force Standard Group meetings was given as the pending inspection by HMIC.

8.13.3 Relationships between forces and the SCRO fingerprint bureau is also discussed in Chapter 2, paragraph 2.6.

8.13.4 At a time when caseloads are so high, emphasis is rightly placed on managing the incoming work and clearing backlogs. It is noted however that most of the liaison which takes place by SCRO staff tends to be at senior level. This is understandable and it can prove effective in a hierarchical organisation providing there is good feedback provided to other staff. There was evidence of good internal communication. HMIC suggests however, that where the exigencies of workloads permit, liaison and networking with staff from other bureaux should be encouraged among all fingerprint staff. Most already have professional contacts of this nature but the suggestion is made with a view to increased openness and greater sharing of experiences and good practice.

8.14 Culture

8.14.1 HMIC found that despite the areas of good practice discussed above regarding liaison by senior staff with other bureaux, SCRO appeared to have an 'internalised' culture. SCRO has the biggest fingerprint bureau in Scotland and the fourth largest in the UK. Historically, it is a bureau that has been held in high regard by other experts. Partly due to its size it has viewed itself as self-sufficient in some respects including, to a degree, training. While other Scottish bureaux made use of the fingerprint expert course at Durham, SCRO regarded its own expert course as more relevant to that offered at Durham. Similarly SCRO developed its own competency testing and manages the testing internally. Although external experts have been invited to comment on the testing process, it is only recently that consideration has been given to commissioning such tests from an independent, external source. The external recruitment of qualified fingerprint experts by SCRO has taken place only very recently, in response to a staffing crisis. Otherwise fingerprint experts have always been trained internally having been recruited into SCRO as trainees. Senior posts such as deputy head of bureau, quality assurance officer/training officer have not always been advertised externally. As a result these posts have been filled by experts whose whole experience is within SCRO. HMIC regards the recruitment of qualified staff with experience of other bureaux as a positive move which should assist in developing a less introspective culture than that which has existed as a result of mainly internal recruitment, training and development.

8.14.2 HMIC suggests that SCRO, in the development of its corporate identity, address the need for a more open and transparent culture within the organisation as a whole. Many of the recommendations contained in this report should assist in that respect.

8.15 Working Practices

8.15.1 There is a public responsibility to ensure that the processes described in Chapter 5 above are documented and published and that staff are working to recognised standards. One of the key issues concerning the working practices of fingerprint experts is the need for independence and for experts to be able to work in an environment free from outside influence and pressures. Examples of such pressures can include closeness to the police investigation where knowledge of certain details of the crime or the police enquiry could result in pressure to "get a result." Other influences can be internal e.g. working in a busy, noisy office resulting in distractions or hierarchical pressures where a junior member of staff is verifying the work of a senior colleague. These situations should be avoided or managed to limit such potential pressures arising. For example, processes can be adopted whereby the expert carrying out the verification is unaware of both the identity of the expert who last examined the case and of his or her findings.

8.15.2 HMIC found that within the SCRO fingerprint bureau, the documentation accompanying cases identified the experts who had examined the case and their findings. The third expert to check a case for example would know which experts had examined the case previously and what their conclusions were. The inference could be that a junior or less experienced expert is influenced by the information that two
of his/her most senior colleagues had already identified a mark as having been made by a particular individual. HMIC recommends that practices be reviewed with a
view to introducing a system that increases the independence within the identification/verification process.

8.16 Accountability

8.16.1 The manner in which fingerprint experts present their evidence in court varies according to the court and the requests made of the experts by procurators fiscal and the Crown. It is now relatively unusual for fingerprint experts to be called to give evidence in court. This has arisen as a result of interim diets resulting in fewer trials and joint reports submitted by experts being accepted by the defence.

8.16.2 The joint report is an effective means of presenting an expert's evidence. The reports tend to contain little detail and largely consist of a statement by the experts that sixteen identical characteristics were found in both the crime scene mark concerned and a certain fingerprint. In some cases experts are asked to present photographic enlargements as a production to assist in the explanation of their evidence to the court. These photographs are typically "charted" with red lines indicating the sixteen "points" which have been identified in both the mark and the fingerprint of the accused person. The experts giving evidence will usually have been involved in preparing the photographic representations but will not necessarily have been the experts who first made the identification. No record of any of the experts' findings is kept as a matter of course. Experts explain this approach on the basis that if there are sixteen points of similarity in sequence and agreement then this fact will not change and the same points can be identified by any expert at any time.

8.16.3 As stated elsewhere in this report, HMIC recommends that under the non-numeric standard, experts should keep notes of the working process which has led to their findings in respect of all aspects of their work whether a negative suspect check, elimination or identification. This provides accountability in terms of their decision making and a basis on which their decisions can be verified or assessed.

8.17 ECHR

8.17.1 The Human Rights Act 1998 is due to become law on 2 October 2000. The Scottish Police Service has been preparing for its introduction for some time and a full time working group addressing the impact of human rights legislation on the service is located at the Scottish Police College.

8.17.2 HMIC recommends that the SCRO fingerprint bureau liaises with this working group, particularly in relation to its development of a manual on standards and procedures. Advice should be sought from this group which has developed sound knowledge and awareness of such issues on matters which might be of relevance to fingerprints and areas such as compliance with a documented weeding policy.

8.18 Ethics and Values

8.18.1 HMIC suggests that the adoption of a code of ethics should be an integral part of the change proposed for SCRO. The introduction of a code of ethics is appropriate for any organisation seeking to change its culture and is fully consistent with the standards based, quality assurance approach to processes which is now being recommended to take the SCRO fingerprint bureau forward.

8.18.2 Many other fingerprint services and organisations already have longstanding codes of ethics and sets of values. HMIC suggests this is part of the work on a corporate identity referred to at paragraph 8.14.2 above.

8.19 National Council for Registration of Forensic Practitioners

8.19.1 The Council for the Registration of Forensic Practitioners was recently established in England and Wales. Consideration is currently being given to the adoption of the system in Scotland. The council is a self-regulatory body whose main objective is to promote public confidence in forensic practice in the UK. Its role will include:

• Publishing a register of competent forensic practitioners
• Ensuring through periodic re-registration that forensic practitioners keep up to date
• Dealing with registered practitioners who fail to meet the necessary standards.

8.19.2 To achieve registration, practitioners will be required to submit appropriate evidence of competency to external assessors and a series of discipline based committees. Competency will be measured against an agreed set of national standards for each of the professional disciplines involved, one of which is fingerprints. The deputy head of the SCRO fingerprint bureau is a member of the Council's Fingerprint Sub-Group, which was set up to establish the qualifying criteria for fingerprint experts. At present the Council is focusing on the standards required for crime scene officers and laboratory based forensic scientists. The standards for all disciplines will depend heavily upon evidence of competency in the workplace and will be complementary to any relevant academic standards.

8.19.3 Once registered, a practitioner will be subject to a code of conduct, contravention of which could result in a practitioner being removed from the register. While registration would be voluntary, at least in the first instance, HMIC regards the Council as a potential means for ensuring the continued professional competence of forensic practitioners, including fingerprint experts and the reinforcement of standards and professional values within the discipline.

8.19.4 The code of ethics suggested in paragraph 8.18.1 above might well be based on principles highlighted within the code of conduct already established by the Council including:

• Honesty, integrity, objectivity and impartiality
• Confidentiality and freedom from discrimination
• Understanding the limits of professional competence

8.19.5 The Council's role in relation to determining a practitioner's continued fitness to practise will deal with issues relating to professional conduct, performance and state of health as well as competence. It is essentially about raising standards however and continuous improvement within the various professions involved. HMIC recommends that the APRT look closely at this development and give consideration as to how Scotland can capitalise on this new Council.

8.20 Media Policy

8.20.1 HMIC appreciates that it is unusual for fingerprint evidence to attract media and public interest in a way that requires a pro-active approach. Also marketing or publicising the work of SCRO has not had a high priority against a background of heavy demands. Given the nature of suggestions in this report for a 'new look' fingerprint service then some level of communications expertise will be necessary into the future. The APRT can consider how that can be achieved. Certainly a communications policy (handling external and internal needs) is required. HMIC suggests this might be developed in conjunction with the corporate identity issue dealt with at paragraph 8.12.4 above.

< 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.