Collaborative Practise Between United Kingdom Fingeprint Bureuaux and Academia to Establish Effective Documentation Strategies for Fingerprint Examinations

The documentation of forensic evidence is an essential and routine part of the examination process. Issues relating to the documentation of fingerprint evidence were highlighted by the Fingerprint Inquiry (2011) and the case of R-v-Smith (2011). The mandatory introduction of ISO 17025 accreditation has forced changes to the documentation of fingerprint examination practice in the UK. The requirement for effective documentation to provide a sufficient auditable trail is consistent, yet despite numerous sources of academic and grey literature reporting on the information to be documented from fingerprint examinations, there appears to be relative dissimilarity in the guidance offered and subjectivity with its interpretation. Most of the guidance was published before the announcement of accreditation, therefore the documentary suggestions could already be in use. As there is no evidence of pre-accreditation documentation strategies in literature, only the criticisms in court, this research facilitated a gap analysis through professional conversations discussing what was recorded and the documentary suggestions from literature and policies. Subsequently, a confirmed list of documentary suggestions referred to as the ACE-V checklist in this document was created. The aim of this research was to provide evidence-based recommendations for the content of contemporaneous notes that are recorded by identification experts as part of fingerprint examinations in casework.

Study one involved 31 UK fingerprint experts who analysed eight impressions of varied quality. In the first part, the analysis was documented using the pre-accreditation documentation strategy with an additional free text box to gather the thought processes. In the second part, the analysis was documented using an online software. All documentation was cross-compared to documentary suggestions (also referred to as ACE-V checklist in this study). The results found more information was recorded consistently between experts when prompted using the online software. In addition, there were significant associations between documentary suggestions i.e., generic information and more factors and grade of the mark. These results indicate what could be within effective documentation. Taking this into consideration, a new documentation strategy was created.

Study two involved 33 UK fingerprint experts of these 27 experts were from study one. Due to workload, 4 experts could not continue participating in the study however, 6 new fingerprint experts from another UK bureau joined. Each expert completed a full analysis, comparison and evaluation (ACE) of the same eight impressions using the new documentation post-accreditation strategy. The documentation produced was cross-compared to the ACE-V checklist. Due to excessive workload, 11 of the 33 experts from part one of the study completed another full examination (ACE process) using the online software. The results have shown varied documentation strategies not only in approach but also the extent of notes within. Despite the variations, all the selected UK fingerprint documentation strategies have been accepted by United Kingdom Accreditation Service. There are significant associations between documentary suggestions i.e., level of detail and annotations, and comparison/evaluation notes and the grade of the mark. These findings show the variance of notes over the different quality of marks and contribute to what could be within effective documentation.

Although all have achieved accreditation, this is not the only measurement of effectiveness. As there are clear differences between strategies another means of measurement should be conducted to provide evidence-based research on an effective documentation strategy including the approach and extent of notes within. Within study three, a matching exercise was conducted to determine if participants could correctly identify the impressions matched the documentation presented side by side. A correct outcome will demonstrate if an individual, expert or novice, can successfully follow the notes of the original expert and therefore be deemed as effective. There are significant associations between obtaining a correct or incorrect outcome and strategy and grade of the mark. The most effective documentation strategies and their inclusion of documentary suggestions from the ACE-V checklist is used to suggest new minimum requirements for fingerprint documentation.

As experts completed multiple examinations of the same impressions, the inter and intra variance of reporting outcomes were investigated, which contributes to existing research. However, the novel aspect falls within the use of documentation to understand the variance of opinion. There were a number of occasions whereby experts changed their decision and using the documentation can allow an understanding of the thought process and if an error has occurred, then training can be provided where necessary. In some post-accreditation documentation strategies, no notes were provided for insufficient or inconclusive outcomes. As a result, the thought process could not be determined and provides additional support to include reasons for conclusions, not only the outcome.