Forensic Science Regulator Research Articles

The long journey of resistance toward acceptance: Understanding digital forensic accreditation in England and Wales from a social science perspective

AbstractDrawing on topical academic and practitioner accounts, our contribution examines the challenges of accreditation in digital forensics (DF), specifically, the adoption of ISO/IEC 17025 standard for forensic science support providers in England and Wales. We built on the debate generated by the Forensic Science Regulator's introduction of this standard in DF to reflect on the position and status of DF community of practice. We argue that a social science approach can help illuminate the organizational and professional tensions generated by this development and to understand better the implications for the role of DF specialists and their position in the wider forensic science community.This article is categorized under: Digital and Multimedia Science > Cybercrime Investigation Crime Scene Investigation > Education and Formation

National fingermark visualisation collaborative exercise 2020

In 2020, the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory organised and ran what is believed to be the first UK national collaborative exercise of its kind in the field of fingermark visualisation, on behalf of the Forensic Science Regulator. Laboratories were provided with a piece of wrapping paper, a challenging item for fingermark visualisation due to its semi-porous characteristics, both from a planning and processing perspective, and asked to treat it as a major crime exhibit. Due to the complexity of the substrate, variation in approach was anticipated. 23 laboratories from 21 organisations completed the exercise. In general, laboratories performed well, providing assurance to the Forensic Science Regulator regarding their ability to visualise fingermarks. Key learning points were identified around decision-making, planning and implementation of fingermark visualisation processes – all of which assist in raising the level of understanding around the likely success of fingermark visualisation. Lessons learnt, along with the overall findings, were shared and discussed in a workshop held in summer 2021. The exercise provided a useful insight into the current operational practices of participating laboratories. Areas of good practice were identified as well as the areas within the laboratories’ approach that could be altered or adapted.

The Case for Validating ADDIE Model as a Digital Forensic Model for Peer-to-Peer Network Investigation

AbstractRapid technological advancement can substantially impact the processes of digital forensic investigation and present a myriad of challenges to the investigator. With these challenges, it is necessary to have a standard digital forensic framework as the foundation of any digital investigation. State-of-the-art digital forensic models assume that it is safe to move from one investigation stage to the next. It guides the investigators with the required steps and procedures. This brings a great stride to validate a non-specific framework to be used in most digital investigation procedures. This paper considers a new technique for detecting active peers that participate in a peer-to-peer (P2P) network. As part of our study, we crawled the µTorrent P2P client over ten days in different instances while logging all participating peers. We then employed digital forensic techniques to analyse the popular users and generate evidence within them with high accuracy. We evaluated our approach against the standard Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, and Evaluation (ADDIE) model for the digital investigation to achieve the credible digital evidence presented in this paper. Finally, we presented a validation case for the ADDIE model using the United States Daubert Test and the United Kingdom’s Forensic Science Regulator Guidance – 218 (FSR-G-218) and Forensic Science Regulator Guidance – 201 (FSR-G-201) to formulate it as a standard digital forensic model.

Planning and developing a method for collecting ground truth data relating to footwear mark evidence

Ground Truth Data is data that comes from a known source, where the truth about the data is known and not inferred (FSR, 2021). The Forensic Science Regulator requires forensic units (that carry out certain forensic processes) to undertake tests against ground truth data for the purposes of quality assurance/quality control processes such as accreditation. However, the data collected must form a meaningful dataset that will enable relevant tests to be performed that inform the end-user. This technical note discusses how a forensic unit in the UK planned and developed a method for collecting ground truth data for footwear mark evidence. It discusses the materials and variables that were considered when developing the method and the evidence-based, decision-making processes that enabled its creation. Recommendations and considerations are provided to assist other forensic units collect data relevant to their jurisdiction. Whilst the method is not prescriptive, if it is used as a guide, it may facilitate the development of a large and relevant national dataset.

Swapping Carrots for Sticks: Forensic science provider views of the Forensic Regulator Act 2021

In April 2021, the Forensic Science Regulator Act 2021 received Royal Assent, providing new statutory powers for the Forensic Science Regulator (FSR) of England and Wales. These powers are intended to enable the FSR to compel forensic science providers (FSPs) comply with quality standard requirements. The FSR has until now relied upon ‘soft power’ and arguments of benefits to be gained if FSPs achieve accreditation and adhere to the Code of Practice. Reaching the limits of persuasive powers, the FSR Act now introduces powers to penalise FSPs who remain unaccredited or fall below published standards. To gauge the potential impact, forensic scientists were asked to anticipate effects of the Act. Practitioners indicated that the new statutory powers could instil a sense of urgency among police force forensic science units in particular, in prioritising quality and investing in accreditation. However, there are significant capacity limitations which may hamper more widespread and sustainable change, such as financial pressures faced by FSPs, as well as resource constraints within the FSR role. Changing from a regulatory approach focussed upon voluntary cooperation, support and encouraging intrinsic motivations (i.e ‘carrots’), for one reliant upon deterrence in the forms of threats of sanctions and punishment (‘sticks’), could prevent real improvements in quality and undermine the achievement of regulatory aims. The FSR Act is unable to address problems with forensic science provision, that militate against the quality of forensic science services. Thus, benefits accrued from swapping carrots for sticks may be illusory and may ultimately prove counterproductive.

Forensic Science Regulator: The Forensic Science Regulator Act 2021.

Deficiencies in performance in forensic science have led to the need for a statutory regulator with powers over standards and performance, investigation, compliance and enforcement.

Interpretation and reporting of mixed DNA profiles by seven forensic laboratories in the UK and Ireland

In 2014, the UK Forensic Science Regulator (FSR) commissioned a collaborative trial to assess the methods used by forensic service providers (FSPs) in the UK and Ireland for analysis, interpretation and reporting of mixed DNA profiles. Five different mixed samples of varying complexity with supporting mock case circumstances were tested using SGMPlus™ and the newly introduced DNA-17(+) multiplexes and reported by participating laboratories. The results demonstrated a high degree of consistency in analytical methods and allele designations, but some variation in the statistical evaluation and reporting of results. Some of the differences noted were attributable to the major technology change to 17(+)-STR systems which had recently been implemented across the UK at that time. The FSR made recommendations based on the trial outcomes which were intended to produce a more consistent approach to mixtures analysis, interpretation and reporting.Four years later, the Association of Forensic Science Providers (AFSP) repeated the trial, with all major UK and Ireland FSPs (both public sector and private companies) again participating. This second trial used the same mixture set as the 2014 trial but was focussed on the methods for interpretation and evaluation. Since 2014, all UK and Ireland FSPs have implemented probabilistic statistical software using continuous models enabling statistical evaluation of more complex mixtures than was possible in 2014. The trial was therefore aimed at investigating the value of these improved capabilities and also to investigate if there appeared to be marked differences between the different software tools in use in the UK.The results demonstrate a high degree of concordance within and between FSPs and across different evaluation models, and will provide important support for the use of such models in evaluation of mixed DNA profiles.

The unwanted effects of imprecise language in forensic science standards

The author has previously contributed to work on requirements definitions in digital forensic methods, and identified a potential gap which could not be fully explained at the time (Marshall and Paige, 2018). The former Forensic Science Regulator (FSR), with others, commented on this and challenged the finding (Tully et al., 2020). This paper re-addresses this issue and explores the issue of language used in the various standards from ISO/IEC 17 025 (2017) through to the FSR's own guidance on digital forensic method (Forensic Science Regulator, 2020), comparing it with language used in other related standards and in software engineering standards. From this, the author proposes that the language used by the FSR may cause an over-emphasis on establishing requirements for the ultimate end-user, to the detriment of requirements for purely internal use of processes. This can also result in overly complex methods, which are inherently difficult to fully validate, being produced. Furthermore, the use of overloaded terminology may also lead to confusion about some key concepts in the various stages of method validation and re-validation.

The UK forensic science regulator: Fit for purpose?

AbstractThe role of Forensic Science Regulator (FSR), created in 2007, was established to assure the achievement and maintenance of forensic science service (FSS) provision that commands public confidence. The FSR works at an organizational level, to assure, and improve the quality of forensic service provision and manage the risks of quality failures by Forensic Service Providers (FSPs). Despite this apparent introduction of “regulation,” forensic science provision in the United Kingdom has continued to receive a critical assessment. FSPs are meant to voluntarily adopt the Regulator's quality standards, achieve and maintain accreditation, and comply with regulatory requirements and guidance, including reporting complaints and quality failures to the Regulator. The effectiveness of the FSR thus cannot be gauged by examination of the actions of the Regulator alone, but also requires evidence of impact upon FSPs. Using public data, supplemented by interviews with FSS providers, to facilitate an initial assessment of whether the FSR's role is “fit for purpose,” we outline five demands made of FSPs in delivering FSSs to the criminal justice system and the five objectives of the FSR to support and enhance the ability of FSPs to meet these demands. We provide a prefatory commentary on whether the FSR is able to effectively fulfill this purpose. It is argued that the FSR role in its current form cannot be considered “fit for purpose” when evidence of the impact of regulation is lacking. Finally, we briefly summarize “inhibitors” that prevent the FSR from being more effective.This article is categorized under: Jurisprudence and Regulatory Oversight > Expert Evidence and Narrative

The accuracy and validity of the Sheffield Features of Gait Tool

Gait is now widely used in the UK as a contributor to identification, and increasing interest is being shown in its use in both Europe and the US. One of the long standing criticisms of the use of gait as evidence has been the lack of a validated standard methodology. With the publication of the ‘Code of practice for forensic gait analysis’, and the adoption of the code as part of the ‘Codes of Practice and Conduct for forensic science providers and practitioners in the Criminal Justice System’ by the Forensic Science Regulator, forensic gait analysts are now required to provide evidence of the testing of the methods used. The Sheffield Features of Gait Tool is specifically designed to assist observational gait analysis in the forensic context, and was developed by forensic gait analysis practitioners based on their casework and trial experience. Birch et al 2019 reported the findings of a study undertaken to assess the repeatability and reproducibility of the tool. This paper reports the findings of a study undertaken to assess the accuracy with which analysts identified features of gait when using the tool.Fourteen participants, with experience in observational gait analysis, viewed footage of computer generated avatars walking, and completed the features of gait tool on multiple occasions. The results showed a mean accuracy score of 134.92 out of a possible 180 (74.96%), a standard deviation of 9.49 (5.27%) and a coefficient of variation of 7.03%, demonstrating a good degree of consistency between the scores (Cronbach’s alpha <0.90; ANOVA p-value <0.05).The findings of this study, coupled with those of the Birch et al 2019 study which showed there to be good levels of both repeatability and reproducibility of observations of features of gait made by the participants, suggest that the Sheffield Features of Gait Tool is a valid and fit for purpose method of observing and recording features of gait in the forensic context. The use of the tool provides the basis of a standardised methodology for observational gait analysis in the forensic context.

Quality standards for digital forensics: Learning from experience in England & Wales

The Forensic Science Regulator has the role of setting quality standards for forensic science in the Criminal Justice System (CJS) in England and Wales. The current requirement is for organisations carrying out digital forensics to gain accreditation to the international standard ISO/IEC 17025 and the Forensic Science Regulator's Codes of Practice and Conduct. The aim of this requirement is to embed a systematic approach to quality, including understanding methods, validating software and systems, understanding risks, ensuring that all involved in the crime scene to court process have the skills and competence they need and the appropriate equipment and environment for the work, and providing ongoing assurance of quality through audit and proficiency tests. However, the challenge of implementing the standards in digital forensics should not be underestimated, particularly in an environment where there is insufficient capacity to meet a growing demand for services in an area of increasing complexity and fragmented delivery. It is therefore timely to review available data to determine the extent to which accreditation to ISO/IEC 17025 is addressing quality issues in digital forensics and consider what changes and resources could be made available to assist with implementation of quality systems.

Standardization of forming and expressing preliminary evaluative opinions on digital evidence

The growing number of cases involving overlooked or misinterpreted digital evidence is raising concerns among factfinders and decision-makers about the reliability of digital forensic conclusions. To reduce the risk of mistakes and misinterpretations of forensic observations, including but not limited to digital evidence, there is a pressing need to standardize how evaluative opinions are formed and expressed. Responding to this need, the international community is drafting ISO-21043 and the UK Forensic Science Regulator is drafting an evaluative interpretation standard that promote a likelihood ratio approach. This approach is suitable for fully evaluative opinions in many forensic disciplines, but until more refined methods for evaluating digital evidence are developed, digital forensic practitioners require an interim solution to address immediate needs. More broadly, digital evidence is used in many non-judicial contexts that do not require fully evaluative opinions expressed as a likelihood ratio. This work proposes a standardized approach to formulating and expressing preliminary evaluative opinions in terms of strength of evidence in a manner that employs scientific reasoning within a logical Bayesian framework and can be understood by non-specialist factfinders. Illustrative case examples are presented that involve digital evidence tampering. In addition, this work presents a proof-of-concept database of cases involving tampering of digital evidence that could support assignment of strength of evidence in similar cases.

Towards Increasing Trust In Expert Evidence Derived From Malware Forensic Tools

Following a series of high profile miscarriages of justice in the UK linked to questionable expert evidence, the post of the Forensic Science Regulator was created in 2008. The main objective of this role is to improve the standard of practitioner competences and forensic procedures. One of the key strategies deployed to achieve this is the push to incorporate a greater level of scientific conduct in the various fields of forensic practice. Currently there is no statutory requirement for practitioners to become accredited to continue working with the Criminal Justice System of England and Wales. However, the Forensic Science Regulator is lobbying the UK Government to make this mandatory. This paper focuses upon the challenge of incorporating a scientific methodology to digital forensic investigations where malicious software (‘malware’) has been identified. One aspect of such a methodology is the approach followed to both select and evaluate the tools used to perform dynamic malware analysis during an investigation. Based on the literature, legal, regulatory and practical needs we derive a set of requirements to address this challenge. We present a framework, called the ‘Malware Analysis Tool Evaluation Framework’ (MATEF), to address this lack of methodology to evaluate software tools used to perform dynamic malware analysis during investigations involving malware and discuss how it meets the derived requirements.

What do forensic analysts consider relevant to their decision making?

In response to research demonstrating that irrelevant contextual information can bias forensic science analyses, authorities have increasingly urged laboratories to limit analysts' access to irrelevant and potentially biasing information (Dror and Cole (2010) [3]; National Academy of Sciences (2009) [18]; President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (2016) [22]; UK Forensic Science Regulator (2015) [26]). However, a great challenge in implementing this reform is determining which information is task-relevant and which is task-irrelevant. In the current study, we surveyed 183 forensic analysts to examine what they consider relevant versus irrelevant in their forensic analyses. Results revealed that analysts generally do not regard information regarding the suspect or victim as essential to their analytic tasks. However, there was significant variability among analysts within and between disciplines. Findings suggest that forensic science disciplines need to agree on what they regard as task-relevant before context management procedures can be properly implemented. The lack of consensus about what is relevant information not only leaves room for biasing information, but also reveals foundational gaps in what analysts consider crucial in forensic decision making.

Quality in Focus: A Q&amp;A with the Forensic Science Regulator for England and Wales

Abstract Dr Gillian Tully is responsible for setting quality standards for forensic science in the criminal justice system of England and Wales. She tells Brian Tarran about her role and her work with statisticians to set standards for the evaluative interpretation of evidence

Development of RapidHIT® ID using NGMSElect™ Express chemistry for the processing of reference samples within the UK criminal justice system

The RapidHIT® ID is a new instrument which has been designed specifically for non-technical users in non-laboratory environments, for example police custody suites or border control. The development studies presented here were performed using the AmpFℓSTR® NGMSElect™ Express STR kit with single source reference samples. The system has been successfully optimised for extraction, PCR and electrophoresis. Once optimised studies on sensitivity, in terms of DNA input template, sample repeatability and instrument reproducibility have shown that the instrument is capable of producing robust profiles within an 85min, window, using mock reference buccal samples. This work has been carried out within the validation framework provided by the United Kingdom Forensic Science Regulator and is a key stage in the validation of the RapidHIT® ID for use in custody suites within the UK criminal justice system.

Improving uncertainty in Widmark equation calculations: Alcohol volume, strength and density

The Widmark equation is probably the most commonly used calculation for medicolegal purposes. Recently the National Research Council (USA) and the Forensic Science Regulator (UK) have called for the uncertainty of all results to be given with all forensic measurements and calculations. To improve the uncertainty of measurement of results from Widmark calculations we have concentrated on the uncertainties of measurement involved in the calculation of amount of alcohol, that of the volume of alcohol, the concentration of alcohol and the density of alcohol as previous studies have investigated some of the other factors involved. Using experimental studies, the scientific literature and legal statutes, we have determined revised and improved uncertainties of the concentration of ethanol for Widmark calculations for both the USA and UK. Based on the calculations that we have performed we recommend the use of Monte Carlo Simulation for the determination of uncertainty of measurement for Widmark Calculations.

Briefing: Impact of the Forensic Science Regulator

This briefing paper provides information on the role of the Forensic Science Regulator (FSR) and considers the impact that the quality standards introduced by the regulator will have on the preparation and presentation of expert evidence to be given by forensic engineers in the courts and other tribunals in the UK. In particular, the FSR is aware of the risk of cognitive bias, which can only be managed by the use of procedures that limit the amount of information provided to examiners and testers to that required to carry out any particular investigation. Results and the subsequent technical opinion may otherwise be affected by unconscious cognitive bias.

Regularising the Regulator: The Government's Consultation about Placing the Forensic Science Regulator on a Statutory Footing

This article comments on a recent Home Office consultation about making forensic regulation statutory and the government's response to the Law Commission's recommendations for reforming the admissibility of expert evidence in criminal trials. By suggesting a duty of ‘omissive disclosure’ we offer a possible solution to concerns expressed to parliamentary inquiries about the ‘fragmentation’ of forensic science evidence and how reform, including regulation, might bear on (and support) individual scientific and medico-legal experts, as well as organisations and methods. We welcome the regulation initiative, but suggest that government policy also needs to address interrelated and systemic problems that beset the production of scientific and medico-legal evidence. We argue that these problems stem from fragmented policy making between and within government departments, possibly a similar fragmentation in jurisdictional rule-making and, reflecting their economic influence, the degree of responsibility vested inadvertently in the police and the CPS. We also suggest that regulation is not an alternative to implementing the Law Commission's recommendations, which together with forensic regulation should not be confined to criminal courts.

Digital Forensics Specialist Group

Miranda Moore QC and Simon Iveson give a personal impression on the work of the Digital Forensics Specialist Group and the difficulties in identifying appropriately qualified digital evidence specialists in the UK Index words: Digital Forensics Specialist Group; Forensic Science Regulator; Forensic Science Advisory Council; accreditation; digital forensic methods; validation