Search

Police investigators increasingly make use of forensic science in the investigation of crime. While there is considerable research on case outcomes following the use of forensic identification evidence (fingerprint and DNA evidence), few studies have explored how police investigators use these evidence types in their investigations. This study aimed to examine police investigators' reasoning processes about the use of forensic identification evidence in volume crimes, such as burglary, to develop a decision-making framework that can be applied to the investigation of such crimes. Twenty-four police officers from three Australian police jurisdictions participated in semi-structured interviews that centred around a case scenario. Data were transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically. The findings highlight that police investigators' decision-making is influenced by the requirement to meet the rules of evidence. Further, participants' own experience and mentoring by more experienced colleagues influenced not only the decisions made in a case, but also the development of decision-making skills in the use of forensic evidence more broadly. A decision-making framework is proposed to explain and guide the use of forensic evidence in volume crime investigations. Overall, the findings suggest that the effective use of forensic identification evidence in volume crime investigations requires that police investigators engage actively in the decision-making process. Further research can explore ways to integrate the findings from this research into police practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Forensic science is increasingly used to help exonerate the innocent and establishing links between individuals and criminal activities. With increased reliance on scientific services provided by multi-disciplinary (police, medicine, law, forensic science), and multi-organisational in the private and government sectors (health, justice, legal, police) practitioners, the potential for miscommunication resulting unjust outcomes increases. The importance of identifying effective multi-organisational information sharing is to prevent the 'justice silo effect'; where practitioners from different organisations operate in isolation with minimal or no interaction. This paper presents the findings from the second part of the Interfaces Project, an Australia-wide study designed to assess the extent of the justice silos. We interviewed 121 police, forensic scientists, lawyers, judges, coroners, pathologists and forensic physicians. The first paper published in 2013 presented two key findings: first investigative meetings were rare in adult sexual assault cases; second many medical practitioners were semi-invisible in case decision-making with this low level of visibility being due to lawyers, forensic scientists or police not being aware of the role/expertise medical practitioners offer. These findings led to the development of a flowchart model for adult sexual assault that highlights the range of agencies and practitioners typically involved in sexual assault. The rationale for the flowchart is to produce a visual representation of a typical sexual assault investigative process highlighting where and who plays a role in order to minimise the risk of justice silos. This is the second paper in a series of two. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

One outcome from a Forensic Intelligence Workshop held by Australia New Zealand Policing Advisory Agency (ANZPAA) National Institute of Forensic Science (NIFS) in Canberra in October 2011 was the identification that, generally, there is not an intelligence culture within forensic science and organisational and cultural change would be required if forensic science is to play a meaningful role in the intelligence space. Over the past decade, attempts have been made to develop a best practice Integrated Forensic Intelligence Model to improve the integration of crime scene physical evidence, intelligence, and investigative capabilities. Although there has been some progression, it has been isolated, jurisdictionally driven and rarely strategic. This paper begins by examining some of the organisational and cultural barriers to the development and implementation of ‘forensic intelligence’ models in Australian jurisdictions. It goes on to outline the progress that has been made, despite these challenges, towards the development of a forensic intelligence culture in some jurisdictions, and identifies some of the factors that have contributed to this shift. It concludes with some recommendations for a way forward. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Forensic science is increasingly relied on by police and the courts to exonerate the innocent and to establish links to crime. With this increased reliance the potential for unjust outcomes increases, especially in serious matters for two reasons. The more serious the matter, the more likely that evidence mishandling can lead to wrongful imprisonment, and the more likely the personnel involved will be multi-disciplinary (police, medicine, law, forensic science), and multi-organisational (Health, Justice, private legal/medical, police). The importance of identifying effective multi-organisational interactions was highlighted in the recent wrongful imprisonment of an Australian male for a sexual assault he did not commit. One factor that led to this unjust outcome was the justice silo effect: where forensic practitioners from different agencies operate in isolation (rarely communicating or sharing information/ knowledge). In this paper we discuss findings from the Interfaces Project designed to assess the extent of the justice silos within Australia. We interviewed 103 police, forensic scientists, lawyers, judges, coroners, pathologists and forensic physicians Australian-wide. Five main themes were identified in the data: the silo effect was only partial and in each jurisdiction some form of inter-agency communication was actively occurring; inter-agency meetings were more common in homicide than sexual assault cases; forensic physicians were semi-invisible; there had been considerable momentum over the past ten years for practice improvement groups, and; practitioners gain more benefits than pitfalls from interagency information-sharing. Based on these findings, five recommendations are made for improving practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Do all members of a research team ‘expect’ the same deliverables? Do all members of a research team know exactly what other members of the team need from the project? Over the past decade there has been an increase in the number of projects accessing ‘what works’ in policing practice. Many projects are large collaborations between different police departments, justice agencies, and universities. Whether these interagency projects will be successful is based on two fundamentals: did the research produce quality outputs; and more importantly, did the outputs match what people needed and expected. We discuss the importance of understanding what police and other industry partners expect from projects they invest in. In this article, we use a large multidisciplinary research project involving two police forces, three universities, and a forensic science industry body as illustrative of how to measure and plan for differing research direction and outcome expectations. We suggest that to avoid disappointment, police practitioners voice their expectations and make explicit what they need to achieve. As expectations are rarely static, it makes sense to revisit over the life of the project the expectations industry partners have. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

There is limited information available about the impact of chemical trace evidence and it has tended to be anecdotal and mostly pertaining to court outcomes. Very little is known about the use of chemical trace evidence by police investigators or the impact that this evidence form has on criminal investigations. This survey, which was conducted in Victoria, Australia, was aimed at addressing these inadequacies by capturing information from police investigators about: (i) the purpose of using chemical trace and other forensic services; (ii) the expectation of what value forensic services would provide; (iii) the actual impact of forensic evidence in specified cases; and (iv) the general perceptions of forensic science. Police officers who were the lead investigators in a sample of criminal investigations were selected as the subjects for this survey. Each of the sample cases included chemical trace evidence and many of the cases also included other forms of forensic evidence. The police investigators indicated that they use chemical trace evidence with the expectation that it will assist decision-making in their investigations and contribute to building a case for court. Survey responses indicated that chemical trace evidence can impact on multiple stages of a case and that this form of evidence can play a part in guiding police investigators in making decisions about how their cases progress through the criminal justice system. It was found that an important aspect of the impact of chemical trace evidence can involve connections with other forensic and non-forensic evidence in the cases. The provision of preliminary results, prior to the formal written reports that are issued for use in court, enables chemical trace evidence to contribute timely support to investigations. The findings of this survey study contradict prevailing perceptions that the contribution of chemical trace evidence is limited to the presentation of evidence in court. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]