Police forces are unable to keep pace with technology when it comes to digital forensics– and there is a backlog of more than 25,000 devices waiting to be examined, a new report has found.
His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services (HMICFRS) examined how effective the police are at providing digital forensics.
Inspectors concluded some forces were overwhelmed and did not have a clear understanding of what digital forensics are. This led to huge delays in examining devices, which had a knock-on effect on both victims’ well-being and chances of a successful prosecution. There was also no clear and coherent national plan for improvement.
The inspectorate said victims face a postcode lottery with the service they receive, with some forces starting digital forensic examinations within weeks of a crime being reported, while others took 18 months to begin capturing evidence in a similar case.
HMICFRS has made nine recommendations to help policing improve, including:
- an alternative operating model to provide effective and sustainable digital forensic services to support police investigations, designed by the Home Office, National Police Chiefs’ Council, College of Policing and the private sector;
- appointing a national digital forensics policing lead to oversee a program of improvement;
- a Home Office review into digital forensics budget and future funding; and
- an increase in the number of dedicated, competent and trained digital media investigators available to advise investigators and at crime scenes.
“In our inspection, we didn’t see enough examples of policing making effective and efficient use of digital forensics,” said His Majesty’s Inspector of Constabulary Matt Parr. “Many forces didn’t have a sufficient level of understanding of the work involved to recover evidence from mobile phones. Delays, lack of resources and lack of adequate training means some victims are being let down and officers are missing their chance to bring offenders to justice. Some forces are showing promise, and we did see examples of good practice. But we found little evidence of this good practice being more widely shared and adopted by others. There is an enormous gulf in performance that cannot continue—it is unacceptable that victims in some force areas receive a significantly better service than others.”
Republished courtesy of HMICFRS.