13 th Meeting Forensic Science Technical Advisory Committee (FSTAC)

Transcription

1 13 th Meeting Forensic Science Technical Advisory Committee (FSTAC) Head Office 2 Pine Trees, Chertsey Lane, Staines- Upon-Thames, TW18 3HR Thursday 30 th November :15am 3.00pm Minutes Attendees (JF) Jim Fraser (KJM) Katherine Monnery (DC) David Compton (SG) Siobhan Green (GT) Gillian Tully (MVJ) Martyn Jones (PH) Peter Harper (KF) Kirsty Faulkner (JB) John Beckwith (VM) Victoria Morton University of Strathclyde (Chair) PSNI Forensic Science Regulator Independent Orchid Cellmark (AFSP representative) Forensic Information Databases Services (FINDS) (Home Office) Staffordshire Police Scottish Police Authority (Forensic Services) In Attendance: (KB) Kimberley Brumpton (AB) Alison Brodie Apologises: (CL-H) Chanda Lowther-Harris (JT) Jo Taylor (PD) Paul Daniels (MB)Marie Barrett (Minutes) Metropolitan Police Service College of Policing National Crime Agency Forensic Market Place FSTAC Minutes (17) 07 Page 1 of 5

2 Welcome and introductions Matters Arising No matters arising. Minutes from the previous meeting have been reviewed and published on the website. Review of membership / attendees of the committee The long standing item of representation and attendance at the committee was discussed. It was proposed that a representative from the Charted Society attend to represent the smaller service providers. This would allow for information to be disseminated and gathered and shared with the smaller providers. It was also proposed that a representative from the Fire Services and Collision Investigation attend to represent the emerging new areas in Forensics and also consider representation from the toxicology community. Further review of membership to be discussed at the end of the meeting. Action 1- to invite a representative from the Chartered Society and consider representation from new areas of Forensics. Forensic Science Regulator Update G Tully GT prompted a discussion around what could be expected from accreditation, particularly in relation to the recent issues highlighted in the press. The view of the committee was that accreditation could give assurance that appropriate systems were in place but if staff were intent on wilfully not following the procedures / processes then accreditation would not always be able to identify this; and that this was the responsibility of the organisations and the individuals within them. GT also prompted a discussion around the expectations with respect to Proficiency Testing in terms of suitability and challenge. A key requirement for accreditation against ISO/IEC is the participation in Proficiency Testing (PT) or Inter Laboratory Comparison (ILC). representatives indicated that both accredited customers and those seeking accreditation would be required to participate in PT and / or ILC and would need to justify their level of participation. Concerns were expressed that PT is not always used to its full potential by participants in terms of learning opportunities and adoption of best practice. It was also noted that there was a variety of quality of provision of PT. Additionally, it was indicated that organisations new to accreditation have the misguided expectation that it is a tick in a box exercise. There was acknowledgement by the committee that good quality PT is difficult to set up, and that PT providers can find it challenging to keep up with the pace of change in the forensic sector. On a separate point, GT suggested that future FSTAC meetings may wish to consider reviewing the next steps in forensics and biometrics. For example, areas such as artificial intelligence and facial recognition which are rapidly developing within a continuously changing area. The committee could review the challenges of these type of disciplines and their suitability with respect to accreditation. FSTAC Minutes (17) 07 Page 2 of 5

3 update KJM gave an update on the current situation within with respect to staff and resourcing. FSR Codes of Practice and Conduct KJM gave a presentation on the status of assessments for the Codes of Practice. This included a brief background of the FSR Codes, the approach for implementation, and the main themes identified during the assessment visits. KJM stated that the new version of the Codes of Practice (Version 4) had been issued and that assessments would start against this new version on the 1 st February Fingerprint Comparison Project KJM gave a presentation on the approach that had taken with respect to the assessment of Fingerprint Bureaux including the issues noted in the first few assessments. One area of concern was the lack of sufficient validation; therefore, the committee were asked for their views on accepting a more basic level of validation during the first assessment to an organisation with a view that either the individual bureau, or the industry as a whole, conduct, further validation on an on-going basis. The initial validation would need to utilise Ground Truth Data and would cover key variables including the complexity of comparisons, materials and techniques representative of casework involving as many staff as possible. The provision of additional validation would be reviewed at subsequent visits. This approach was discussed and agreed. KF indicated that her organisation (FINDS) has a data assurance strategy and that its implementation plans may help the industry move forwards with the issues being raised during assessments. KF suggested to the committee that a waiver be put in place between the Fingerprint Bureau and to allow the sharing of information from the visits with FINDS so they can provide support to the industry., Scene of Crime Accreditation KJM updated the committee with respect to progress in this area. Applications for accreditation have not been received in line with the NPCC National Quality Landscape predictions, and to date no applications have been received from Police Force customers. have identified new technical assessors within this area but has delayed their training until June 2018 due to lack of applications for assessment. In addition, as there was no involvement from Police Force customers in the original pilot, will be considering conducting dry runs with the Police Force customers to help understand the models used in policing and how this may impact on the assessments and definitions of scope. Participation in this dry run would be free to the customers but would not be a formal assessment and therefore accreditation would not be granted at the end. GT added that generally, all crime scenes with a crime scene examiner in attendance would be included in the scope. However, mass disasters and terrorist incidents would mostly likely not fall FSTAC Minutes (17) 07 Page 3 of 5

4 into this scope and could be categorised under rarely used methods as they would present additional and different challenges. Updates on Digital Forensics D Compton DC gave an update with respect to the latest numbers and status of accreditations in the Digital sector; and also of the number of Technical Assessors in the different areas. DC stated that are still looking for suitably qualified candidates for the CCTV processing and audio technical assessing roles at. He asked the FSTAC members if they could promote these assessing roles to anyone that they know within these areas. In the future. would hope to select people from accredited organisations. There was a brief discussion on the challenges and issues that had been identified during recent assessments, these included validation and knowledge of quality assurance. Update on Development Projects D Compton DC gave an update with respect to the current development projects including Cell Site, Kiosks, Forensic Casework Review, Collision Investigation and Fire Scenes. DC led discussions around how should approach assessments at scenes and the associated challenges that this type of activity presents. It was discussed that volume crime scenes would be suitable to use for witness examinations/ assessments. However, that the alternative methods of assessment would be more suitable for major crime, fire investigation and collision investigation scenes. Factors such as health and safety, timelines and court requirements would affect how these sites would be assessed in the future and would need to be considered by. Different potential modes of assessment were discussed including the following; Body worn cameras, videos, live feeds. Mock crime scenes- set up by, Police or out sourced to a provider. Interviews with Crime scene examiners Review of casefiles and notes. The pros and cons of the different models were discussed. An advantage of using a mock crime scene would be that it would offer more control throughout the assessment process in terms of timings and coverage of the scope. DC then presented some options with respect to the way in which new areas in forensics could be assessed by depending on the significance of the changes involved, from taking some areas through the business as usual assessment route to the running of specific pilot projects. Custody Suites / Kiosks KJM asked the committee to give their views around the balance between assessment and assurance when evaluating scopes or activities that are undertaken at multiple sites / locations FSTAC Minutes (17) 07 Page 4 of 5

5 within one organisation, for example, digital examinations using kiosk technology or analysis at custody suites. KJM presented some of the potential issues to consider and the associated risks and benefits. The possible approaches were discussed by the committee with the agreed outcome that the assessments should include all sites / locations. However, this could be reviewed once assurance of the appropriate and effective implementation of the systems at the sites/ locations had been demonstrated and then a more risk based approach could be considered. Therefore, the preferred model for organisations moving toward accreditation would be to start with a few sites / locations and build upon this to demonstrate an appropriate level of assurance. It was noted that this same approach should be employed for scene of crime, where all sites should be visited at the initial assessment. Committee Member Updates All MJ noted that he had observed a significant variability of standards in forensic submission units, which are not always covered by the scope of accreditation as the CoP Statement of Requirements does not currently cover this area, and therefore he asked GT if there were plans to include this area in the future. GT responded that this was something that had been raised as part of the review of Sexual Assault Referral Centres and therefore it would be reviewed but that there were no immediate plans for this area. JB provided an update from the Digital Forensics Portfolio Board. 11. AOB Further discussion was held regarding committee membership. 12. Date of next meeting Dates for consideration for the committee 16 th or 17 th May FSTAC Minutes (17) 07 Page 5 of 5