|
|
|
Fingerprint Evidence Standard Significant Milestone In The Change To A Non-numerical STANDARD (This article is reprinted from the October 1998 issue of Fingerprint Whorld, vol. 24 #94, pp 139-145. Thanks to Tom Jones, Kern County, for sharing this very important news.)
by MARTIN LEADBETTER A CPO Crime Committee and Chief Constables Council have endorsed the recommendations of the Project Board. These include the development of Bureau Documentation; Audit mechanisms; Competency Assessment; Training needs analysis and development of new course design and the requirement for six monthly meetings of Heads of Fingerprint Bureaux to ensure the progress towards the change date of 3rd April 2000. THE HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT The fingerprint System of Identification has been in operation in the United Kingdom since its inception at New Scotland Yard on 1st July 1901. Over the intervening years many reviews have taken place of the standard by which identifications are established. Initially there was no set standard, but gradually a numerical standard evolved. Until the early 1920s a standard of 12 clear ridge characteristics in agreement was used, however this was then changed to 16 characteristics at New Scotland Yard in August 1924. This was not mandatory on other fingerprint Bureaux and some continued to use 12 characteristics. This situation prevailed until 1953 when a meeting was held to set a National Standard. At this meeting were representatives of the Legal Professions, the Home Office, the Police Service and Senior Fingerprint Experts. This meeting concluded that the following standard should be instigated: ( i ) It was desirable that a common standard should be observed by all Forces whose officers give evidence in court about fingerprint identification in order that there should be little risk of such evidence being challenged. ( ii ) In the case of a single print this standard should be a minimum of sixteen points of resemblance. ( iii) In the case of two prints found at the scene of a crime which do not belong to the same finger, it would be permissible to offer fingerprint evidence, if it could be shown that the prints came from the same hand or hands of the same individual, provided that there was a minimum of 10 points of resemblance on each print. In addition to setting a standard, the meeting recommended the creation of a National Conference of Fingerprint Experts, to be held annually to discuss the fingerprint issues. At its first meeting the conference added the following to the new standard: Where evidence is being given, and , in addition to any mark(s) with at least 16 points of resemblance, there are also other marks from the same scene made by the same person, but with less than 16 points, these can also be mentioned provided each mark has at least 10 characteristics in agreement with the finger palm impression(s). The National Conference addressed the issue of fingerprint identification standards over the years until 1983 and always maintained that the `16 point standard,' as it was by then known, should be retained. In 1982 a Steering Group was formed to deal with the `fingerprint business' between conferences. In 1983, the Steering Group placed before the conference an addendum to the `16 point standard': The National Standard notwithstanding, it is recognized by fingerprint staffs that there will be rare occasions when an identification which falls below the standard is crucial and of such dire importance that it should be placed before a court. In such extremely rare cases it is the recommendation of the National Fingerprint Conference Steering Committee that evidence of the comparison should be given only by an expert of long experience and high standing in the profession ( preferably from a large Regional or Force Bureau). Nevertheless this officer may have to say, when on oath, that, although he is satisfied with the identification, it does not meet the nationally accepted standard. The present National Fingerprint Standard, therefore, is complicated and in operation, in the circumstances which relate to the 1983 caveat, is in effect a variable numerical standard. In fact there are already a number of stated cases in respect to fingerprint identity being established on less than 16 ridge characteristics. There is however a need to rationalize the situation and to ensure that the support mechanisms are robust and auditable. Therefore more recent reviews have been commissioned to consider all the aspects. In 1988, ACPO and the Home Office commissioned a study by Ian Evett (Statistician) and Dr. Ray Williams (Forensic Scientist) into the Fingerprint Identification Standard. The recommendations made by this study were progressed by a Working Party under the lead of Detective Chief Superintendent Hannis and Detective Superintendent Scrafton (PRSU — Home Office). The report of this Working Party was put to Chief Constables Council in 1989 but was not accepted. Further work on the subject was not progressed due to the disbanding of PRSU and the National Fingerprint Conference, which was replaced by the National Conference of Scientific Support in 1989. In 1994 an ACPO Working Group was formed under the chairmanship of Mr. Reynolds, DCC Thames Valley, to again review the Fingerprint Evidence Standard for ACPO. The recommendation was that the forces in England and Wales should change to a non-numerical standard from current `16 point' standard. Chief Constables Council endorsed this recommendation and as a result in the City of London in 1996, a meeting of Heads of Fingerprint Bureaux was held to discuss the matter. In December 1996 the ACPO (Crime Committee) Fingerprint Evidence Project Board was instigated under the chairmanship of C J Coombes, Director of Identification (Metropolitan Police), with D G Gunn, Chief Constable, Cambridgeshire Constabulary, as Chief Executive. The Project Board has undertaken a survey of all Fingerprint Bureaux in England and Wales and considered all the aspects necessary to change to a non-numerical standard for fingerprint identification. In researching the non-numerical standard of operations, the Project Board assessed the progress made in the USA and Australia. Additionally the Chairman represents ACPO on the Interpol - European Working Group on Fingerprint Identification Standard. In February 1998, the project Board hosted a three day workshop for all Heads of Fingerprint Bureaux to debate the main issues identified by the Project Board. Additionally at this workshop were representatives from Scotland, Northern Ireland, Eire and the University of Lausanne. This latter attendee is engaged on fingerprint standard issues for the Swiss Police. The outcome of the Workshop and the research undertaken by the Project Board were incorporated in the 1st Report of the Project Board which was presented to ACPO Crime Committee on 25th March 1998. The Project Board made a number of recommendations to enable a target date of 3rd April 2000 to be set for the change in the Fingerprint Identification/Evidence Standard. The report was endorsed by ACPO Crime Committee and subsequently by Chief Constables Council on 29th April 1998. TARGET 2000 The change to the manner in which fingerprint identifications will be established and evidence presented from the 3rd April 2000, will not affect the integrity or accuracy of the evidence. What it will do is to enable Fingerprint Experts to give their opinion of the results of the comparisons without being fettered by an arbitrary numerical threshold. All fingerprint experts know through training and their own experience that the positivity of identity is established with far less that `16 points.' Additionally, fingerprint experts will be able to use other information resident in a fingerprint which has not historically been used or needed because of the ultra high numerical threshold. Nevertheless, until the proposed date for change (3 April 2000), the present `16 point' standard will remain in place. There will need to be additional training and documentation put in place over the next two years to meet the deadline date. Despite this, evidence may be produced on demand for identifications which have less that 16 points under the legislative provisions on disclosure. Whilst experts will be able to provide positive identity evidence, the fact that it does not meet the present guidelines will also be disclosed in line with the caveats of the present standard. The changes which are being put in place and the move to an `expert's opinion' based evidence production for fingerprints will place the Fingerprint Service in a stronger position to support the Criminal Justice process in the future. Chief Constables Council has agreed [with] the recommendations of the National Fingerprint Evidence Project Board which were based on the views of the Heads of Bureaux at the Lancashire Workshop in February 1998. The Project Board is now preparing the documentation which develops the practical application of those recommendations for consideration by Heads of Bureaux in the Autumn of 1998. It is the intention of the Project Board to host a meeting of Heads of Bureaux at six monthly intervals during the project leading to the implementation target date of 3rd April 2000. The sub-groups of the Project Board will be considering the aspects of Bureau Documentation, Audit, Competency Assessment and Training. Designated members of the Board will be taking the lead on these issues and preparing the documentation. The Project Board will be presenting its 2nd Report (Progress) to ACPO crime Committee before the end of the year. COMMUNICATION Members of the Project Board with special responsibilities for the various aspects of the process of the change to a non-numerical standard for fingerprint identification and evidence are shown together with their telephone numbers and addresses. Any officer who wishes to make comment or suggestions on the development of the issues may contact the officers directly.
Bureau Documentation and Audit Procedures
Training
Bureau Trainers
Competency Assessment
General Enquiries The Chief Executive and Chairman of the Project are liaising with the Lord Chancellor's Department, the Crown Prosecution Service, the Law Society, the Bar Council and the Home Office regarding the change in the next few months. There will be an onus on forces similarly to inform local CPS and Courts of the process to change the Fingerprint Evidence Standards. The Project Board will be producing a Briefing Pack to assist forces in this aspect. Scientific Support Managers have an important role in the Management of the Change within their Bureaux. Their support for the planning undertaken by Heads of Bureaux will be crucial to the success of the implementation of the factors required. In this respect the Project Board will continue to update SSMs through the mechanism of these newsletters and the National Conference of Scientific Support. The Project Board would also welcome contributions from SSMs on any of the subjects being addressed by the Board. WHAT NEEDS TO CHANGE Countries which have changed to a non-numerical or `no set number' standard, include the major nations of the World. The Australians especially have made significant steps in the development of such a process. Their experience has shown the need for Quality Assurance and Audit together with Competency Assessment as key to the implementation of such changes. The USA and in Europe, Norway, among other have also made the change and have found the same requirement for support facilities and programmes. The change to be made in England and Wales therefore needs to build on the experiences of others and in doing so ensure that the support mechanisms and programmes are in place before the change is made. The issues to be addressed are: Training Subjects for inclusion in future training of Fingerprint Officers to deal with the opportunity to utilize other information resident within a fingerprint, will require the Training Establishments to undertake some research. Nevertheless information is already available on the topics of Ridgeology, Poroscopy etc. Training in these subjects is offered through the Education Programme of the International Association for Identification. The Training Establishments will take advantage of these courses; evaluate them, and then introduce such instruction into one syllabus at the England and Wales Training Centres. RIDGEOLOGY With the implementation of a Non-numerical fingerprint evidence standard, it is now essential to explore other facets of fingerprint comparison in addition to ridge characteristics. One such facet is Ridgeology which includes the elements of Edgeoscopy and Poroscopy. Edgeoscopy being the study of characteristics along the ridge edge and Poroscopy being the study of pores on a ridge. Ridgeology has been recognized for a long time and the early pioneering work goes back at least to the seventeenth century. It has, however, never been studied in depth within the UK with a view to operational use, whereas in Canada, for example, it has been used in identification for the last five years. It forms part of the training and assessment of a fingerprint expert in Canada and its use as an identification medium is used in other countries of the world. At present, Ridgeology only features in awareness terms in courses at both the NTCSSCI, Durham, and Scientific Support College, Metropolitan Police. The full understanding of Ridgeology and its use in the identification process is now pertinent to the knowledge base of fingerprint personnel. Whilst the awareness input to courses have provided some information, there clearly now needs to be a far greater depth of instruction. Research into the subject is being addressed by the Training Establishments and information is being gleaned from sources in the UK and abroad. Its use and the manner in which training is given will be ascertained and evaluated and then the appropriate training programme will be developed for delivery. This Programme will encompass the practical application of the subject and its effects on court presentation of fingerprint evidence. COURT PRESENTATIONS The manner in which evidence is presented at court is likely to change with the implementation of a non-numerical Fingerprint Evidence Standard. The need to fully explain the development of the friction ridge system, persistence and experience gained by the fingerprint identification system, will take on a higher profile than now. Also it is anticipated that the courts may more often require that the `fingerprint expert' proves him/herself. Disclosure rules will play more and more a significant part on what information an expert is required to give an opinion. Retention of material could result in an expert being requested to assess a comparison which does not reach a level where he/she can be positive. The answer to such a comparison can be: a) the marks do not belong to the suspect b) there is insufficient detail to reach any conclusion c) the detail disclosed exactly matches the detail in the suspects finger/palm prints but is insufficient to be positive as to identity. In such circumstances an expert can say that whilst no positive identification can be established the suspect can neither be excluded. An agreed term for this aspect will need to be established (Note: the Australians defined it as Points Consistent). Much more work needs to be undertaken on the totality of evidence preparation presentation and contributions from all in the Fingerprint Service will be important in the development process. The Directors of the Training Establishments will welcome your input to this aspect of the change process. BUREAU TRAINER ROLE The Project Board has recognized the key role of the `Bureau Trainer' to facilitate and take ownership for the training and professional development of bureau staff. It is envisaged that each bureau will have a dedicated `Bureau Trainer' (accepting that in small bureaus, the training portfolio will either be carried by one expert who has other duties or small bureaus could come to an arrangement whereby the share a Bureau Trainer. Importantly, the inaugural Bureau Trainer's Forum held at the end of May 1998 addressed the essential detail of the Bureau Trainer Job Description and personnel specification. Following wide consultation the proposed Job Description and personnel specification will be presented to the Project Board for approval. Another Bureau Trainers Forum will be hosted by National Fingerprint Training in late 1998 and such a forum is proposed to become an annual event to discuss and develop a range of training issues. Training is a key to the success of the project and through the national network of Bureau Trainers the Fingerprint Service will achieve, and exceed, the expectations of the Police Service. Quality Assurance Quality Assurance issues play a vital role in ensuring that confidence in the Fingerprint Service is maintained and continuous improvement is apparent following the move to a non-numerical standard. The totality of features and characteristics visible in a fingerprint have a bearing on the identification process and the ability of a fingerprint expert to make the correct decision. Likewise, the totality of the aspects of service procedures have a bearing on its ability to satisfy the needs of the service users, these being the investigating officers, courts etc.. It is therefore essential that the best practice is identified and a consistent approach for adopting, introducing and maintaining a quality system suitable for all Fingerprint Bureaux is agreed and implemented. Documentation & Audit There are three basic elements required for a quality system:
1. You say what you are going to do:
2. You do it:
3. You prove that you have done it: It is proposed to create a generic quality procedures manual to cover the above elements, allowing for flexibility due to local Force requirements where necessary and documenting all the critical activities performed in a Fingerprint Bureau. The ideal would be for all Fingerprint Bureaux to eventually achieve ISO 9002 accreditation whence the audit would be truly independent and regular. Nevertheless, despite the encouragement of the Project Board for Bureaux to aim for ISO, forces are not compelled to take this route to comply with the need for clear documentation and audit. Indeed the audit could be conducted from within the force using its own audit procedures. Competency Assessment Probably the most controversial aspect of the non-numerical fingerprint evidence standard is the need for competency assessment. The Sub Group intends to explore all avenues to recommend a credible system for consideration by the Project Board. The Project Board is keen to evaluate the outcome of the pilot system being instigated in the North West and additionally would welcome contributions to assist in the progression of this work. The assessment process is a new venture for the fingerprint service but is in line with the processes that have been introduced in and are coming to other professions. It has been instigated in the fingerprint profession elsewhere in the world and we should embrace it here, planning carefully for the introduction. It is far better to plan for the introduction rather than to have it imposed by default without prejudging the outcome or the procedures to be adopted the assessments will confirm our skills in fingerprint identifications. There is nothing to fear about assessments but fear itself. YOUR INVOLVEMENT Now that the change from the existing fingerprint identification/evidence standard to a non-numerical standard has been endorsed by ACPO Crime Committee and ACPO Chief Constables Council, we, each and every one of us, from Bureaux Heads to the new recruits to the Service, have a great responsibility. We all need to ensure that, not only does the change take place efficiently, but also to continue protecting the integrity of the Fingerprint System. We are individually and collectively responsible for identification and evidence preparation presentation throughout the process of change and after the non-numerical standard becomes effective. As individual fingerprint officers/experts, we are already aware of the great responsibility we carry to ensure that only work of the highest calibre is produced. We also have a collective responsibility to ensure that the change takes place smoothly and effectively maintaining a strong and unified Fingerprint Service. Some members of the Fingerprint Service may disagree with the change to a non-numerical standard, but as professionals we should put personal feelings aside and continue corporately to provide what is certainly the finest Fingerprint Service in the world. It is the Heads of Fingerprint Bureaux who hold the key to the success of the change. They will need to ensure that all the requisite building blocks are in place and that all their staff are fully aware of the implications. They will need to identify the potential problems which may occur during the transitional period of the change, with staff being fully conversant with these. In order to meet this requirement, regular meetings will take place between Heads of Bureaux to discuss and devise corporate solutions in addition to managing the change process. During and after implementation of the change, Bureau Trainers will have a vital role to play. They must ensure that all staff have received the appropriate training and be fully prepared to deal with the change. Additionally it is envisaged that they will play a key role in the competency assessment of experts in the future. To provide Bureau Trainers with the information and skills, it is planned that workshops will be held. This is not the first time that the Fingerprint Service has experienced reform and it is not surprising that this fundamental change will prompt fears and uncertainty in some minds. It is, however, the dedication and professionalism of our fingerprint personnel that has made the service one that is envied by others in the world and as “owners” of the new standard we can ensure that it will remain the premier service. Some residual fears may remain after the implementation date, but we shall continue to perform our duties to the same high standards, armed with new skills, techniques and knowledge ready to meet the challenges and take the Fingerprint Service into the new millennium. ACP Crime Committee — National Fingerprint Evidence Project Board, June 1998 (Editor -- This historically important philosophical and procedural change helps to further establish a truly international consensus standard on this topic. This change makes a very strong statement, in that it is the result of specific research, analysis and debate. As many lawyers frequently suggest a lack of standards in the United States, by attempting to compare our `non-numerical standard' to the UK's `16 point standard', this significant change is also important to American latent print examiners. A key element in this issue is the emphasis placed on the adoption of higher standards for training, quality assurance and competency assessment. Whether it be TWGFAST, ASCLD or self imposed agency procedures, these key elements need to be implemented by all examiners.)
This article was printed in “THE PRINT” |