You are in:
- Back Issues » 2007 » July
digital forensics - intelligence hits evidence
Bemused onlookers watching the accused walk free from court, immigrants being detained on suspicion of terrorism, even a government being held to account for the most unpopular military decision in decades - never has there been such a demand on reliable evidence and, more often than not, it is the police that is the scapegoat if it all goes wrong.
There used to be a time when intelligence was separate from evidence. By definition intelligence is the capacity to acquire and apply knowledge, while evidence refers to oral statements and material objects helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment.
Blurring of this distinction can be seen when the Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith recently opposed the General Medical Council’s right to punish an expert witness found to be giving false evidence. Professor Sir Roy Meadow, the pediatrician who was struck off after giving flawed evidence at Sally Clark's 1999 trial for the murder of her sons, has since been reinstated, but it leaves the question was his testimony false evidence or bad intelligence?
While the courts try and make sense of the issue, law enforcement agencies have been under a great deal of pressure over the past few years to gather and present in court hard, substantiated evidence that will lead to a conviction. Collection methods are becoming increasingly sophisticated requiring greater technical expertise, but indisputable evidence is being produced and there is a general feeling of satisfaction at improvements in this area.
However, with the public becoming increasingly savvy about the importance of evidence in high profile cases, especially those that are complex and where forensic evidence is vital, such as that of Damilola Taylor, some industry experts are concerned that any complacency will lead to the police fending off more accusations in the near future.
Andy Gill, Managing Director of Radio Tactics Limited, one of the UK’s leading companies in digital forensic technologies, can foresee potential problems. “If we take the example of mobile phone analysis, there have been astonishing developments in technology that allow law enforcement agencies to collect data from both SIM cards and handsets under forensically sound conditions. The police are now able to carry out examinations themselves to high evidential standards, thus keeping full control of their intelligence, which is potentially evidence in court, and also speeding up the investigation as they will not be waiting for an outsourced examination to be returned to them. But there does seem to be a ‘honeymoon’ of confidence in this area of forensics.”
“One of the problems is that the companies that used to do forensics outsourcing are now looking for an alternative way of earning money using their knowledge and their next logical step is to cross over and work for defense counsels. We will now see lawyers in court who have extensive knowledge on the subject and have technical expertise behind them, giving them more ability to question the accuracy and credibility of data collection methods. The evidence is no longer in question, but the process.”
“Couple that with the increasing functionality of modern technology, (new SMART phones are practically ‘pocket computers’) and the speed at which developments are being introduced, there can be no room for complacency. We need to continually update, educate and refer to codes of practice such as RIPA, ACPO, PACE to ensure that consistent and wholly defensible results are being achieved at all levels.”
So if the process of gathering the intelligence is being questioned as a way of invalidating what used to be seen as concrete evidence, what is the solution? “As far as I can see, from the moment a decision is made on which methodology should be used to gather information during an investigation, every procedure must be carried out to a very high evidential standard and in line with the current codes of practice,” concludes Andy. “It is only by being aware of current trends and thus working at an evidentially sound level from the outset, that we can be sure that the police will continue to achieve viable, defensible results which will stand up to any challenges in court.”
