Don't already have an Oxford Academic account? Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide.
Sign In or Create an Account. Sign In. Advanced Search. Search Menu. Article Navigation. Close mobile search navigation Article Navigation. Volume 2. The Case to Review Murder Investigations.
Dean Jones , Dean Jones. Oxford Academic. Google Scholar. The Code for Crown Prosecutors also deals with modes of trial, accepting a guilty plea, restarting a prosecution and charging, the latter having been radically transformed by the CJA. Previously a custody officer would make a decision on whether there was sufficient evidence to charge and would thereafter charge the person or release them without charge, unless the matter was still under investigation.
The custody officer can determine whether to charge in the offences specified in the Guidance document see paragraph 3. In making a decision on whether to charge, the custody officer must have regard to the tests set out in the Code for Crown Prosecutors.
If there is insufficient evidence to meet the required tests and it is not appropriate for the person to be released on bail after charge, the custody officer must assess the case against the Threshold Test. If this test is satisfied then the person shall be charged and placed before the court for a ruling on pre-trial custody. After a reasonable time, which will depend on the circumstances of the case, the crown prosecutor must review the evidence in terms of the test in the Code for Crown Prosecutors and make a decision on whether to proceed or not.
In all other matters crown prosecutors have the responsibility for deciding whether to charge. In these matters investigating officers are directed to seek an early consultation with the duty prosecutor to identify issues such as the required lines of enquiry, evidential requirements and pre-charge procedures. In terms of the Guidance, an investigating officer is required to place certain information before the prosecutor in order that the latter can make the necessary decisions on charging.
The information to be supplied is detailed in paragraph 7. A summary of the roles and responsibilities of the custody officer in relation to the statutory charging provisions are set out in the Guidance to Police Officers and Crown Prosecutors at section 8.
The CPIA now provides a legal definition covering the role of the investigator. The purpose is to place an obligation on the investigator consistent with the need to provide the defence and the court with a fair appraisal of what the investigation uncovered.
This provision makes the conduct of the investigation a relevant issue in the trial, for example, if the enquiry is found not to be objective and reasonable. The CPIA is the current legal basis for investigation and sets the standard. Not only must the enquiry be fair, it must also be recorded so that any evidential material can be available to all sides.
The Act is divided into seven parts but only the first two Parts are of importance to the police. The original primary and secondary disclosure of the prosecution are removed and replaced with a single continuing objective test. Despite the fact that the Act places a duty on the prosecutor, the Code of Practice state that the police have a responsibility to assist in the process. A list of defence witnesses must also be supplied to the prosecution.
Part II sets out the duties of the police in relation to criminal investigations, including disclosure. The Code of Practice under Part II defines the roles of the officer in charge of the case, the disclosure officer, the investigator and the supervisor of the aforementioned officers.
It also sets out the duties and responsibilities of the officers regarding the recording and retention of material obtained in the course of a criminal investigation. It makes it unlawful for public bodies like the police to violate the rights contained in the ECHR. Article 2 Right to life Article 3 Prohibition of torture Article 4 Prohibition of slavery Article 5 Right to liberty and security Article 6 Right to a fair trial Article 7 No punishment without law Article 8 Right to respect for private and family life Article 9 Freedom of thought, conscience and religion Article 10 Freedom of expression Article 11 Freedom of assembly Article 12 Right to marry Article 14 Prohibition of discrimination Where there has been a breach of the ECHR — or even where there is about to be — the victim can take proceedings in court under the HRA.
They may be able to take judicial review proceedings, obtain an injunction to stop the violation, force the public authority to take action or obtain damages and compensation. Any person who is a victim of a violation can use the HRA. A victim includes anyone directly affected by the actions, or inactions, of any public body. A victim may include a person not necessarily directly affected by the action of a public body but who is indirectly affected.
For example, a person who is likely to be subject to surveillance by the police as part of an investigation will be able to use the HRA even though they have not yet had their privacy interfered with. However, a person who is no more affected than any other member of the public is unlikely to be able to use the Act.
The HRA principally affects investigations by providing a set of standards which must be met in order to permit interference in the rights of privacy of an individual. The Act has identified categories of persons who are to be considered as vulnerable or intimidated witnesses and accordingly are to be afforded special measures during the investigation of an offence and at any court appearances.
Section 16 1 For the purposes of this Chapter a witness in criminal proceedings other than the accused is eligible for assistance by virtue of this section — a if under the age of 17 at the time of the hearing; or b if the court considers that the quality of evidence given by the witness is likely to be diminished by reason of any circumstances falling within subsection 2.
Section 17 1 For the purposes of this Chapter a witness in criminal proceedings other than the accused is eligible for assistance by virtue of this subsection if the court is satisfied that the quality of evidence given by the witness is likely to be diminished by reason of fear or distress on the part of the witness in connection with testifying in the proceedings. NB Not all parts of section 17 are currently in force, particularly those relating to video-recorded evidence in chief for adults and video-recorded cross-examination and re-examination.
Whether or not special measures are allowable or any evidence coming from them is admissible is a matter for the court. The problem for the investigator is that he or she would have had to anticipate the use of special measures beforehand. To retain the integrity of the case the investigator, during the course of investigations, must be aware of any witness or defendant that may require special measures, and take the appropriate steps when obtaining evidence.
The Act lists the special measures which may be used during court proceedings, eg, video-recorded evidence in chief, evidence by live link and the use of screens. Following a series of landmark judgements handed down by the European Court of Human Rights it was made clear that a non-statutory authorisation regime in respect of these techniques was insufficient.
The Act effectively allowed lawful interference with the provisions of Article 8, provided the law enforcement agencies can show that they have legitimate aims. Section 5 3 of the Act sets out the grounds upon which an interception warrant may be granted. Part I of the Act also sets out the circumstances where such an interception may take place without the need for a warrant, where for example, one of the parties to the communication has consented.
Covert surveillance is not intrusive where it is carried out by means of a surveillance device not present on the residential premises or in the private vehicle, unless it consistently provides information of the same quality and detail as might be expected from a device which is actually present on the premises or in the vehicle.
Section 32 sets out the persons responsible for the authorisation of intrusive surveillance, together with the grounds upon which such authorisations may be granted. Directed surveillance Section 26 2 defines directed surveillance as covert surveillance that is undertaken for the purposes of a specific investigation or operation, and in such a manner as is likely to result in the obtaining of private information about a person.
Authorisation is not required where the surveillance is by way of an immediate response to events or circumstances where it would not be reasonably practicable to obtain one. Section 28 sets out the persons responsible for the authorisation of directed surveillance, together with the grounds upon which such authorisations may be granted.
Covert Human Intelligence Source Section 26 8 defines a CHIS as a person who establishes or maintains a personal or other relationship with a person for the covert purpose of using that relationship to obtain information, to provide access to any information or to disclose information obtained as a consequence of that relationship. Section 29 sets out the persons responsible for the authorisation for CHIS, together with the grounds upon which such authorisations may be granted.
At the time of writing the provisions of Part III have yet to come into force. In the absence of any lawful authority such actions can constitute a civil wrong, actionable by the owner of the property or land for damages.
The effect of section 92 of the Police Act is that no entry on or interference with property or with wireless telegraphy shall be unlawful if properly authorised under that Act. The authorisation process and the grounds upon which such an authorisation may be granted are set out at section 93 of the Act. The Act imposes positive duties on public bodies to eliminate discrimination and to promote racial equality.
Non-compliance with this duty can result in legal sanctions against the chief constable and the police authority and leave the investigator open to severe cross-examination on his or her investigatory techniques, with the resultant loss of credibility, at trial.
At common law there is a duty of care placed on all police officers to protect and ensure the safety of all citizens. A crucial case relating to this duty of care was that of Osman v UK 29 EHRR where the court held that Article 2 ECHR the right to life imposes a positive duty on states to safeguard the lives of those within their jurisdiction. The court went on to hold that in certain circumstances the police have a duty to take all reasonable steps to protect potential victims from a real and immediate threat to their lives arising from: i Actual or threatened criminal acts of another; ii Suicide Karen Orange v Chief Constable West Yorkshire Police For the police to be held accountable on the duty of care, the courts have held that the police must have been aware of the likelihood of the danger or risk to the individual concerned.
This duty extends to witnesses, victims, members of the public and defendants. A breach of this duty may give rise to a civil action for damages. In Vellino v Chief Constable of the Greater Manchester Police , the court held that the police had a duty of care for the health and safety of those in their custody but that they owed no duty of care towards an arrested person to ensure that he was not injured in a foreseeable attempt to escape from lawful custody.
It explains how the initial amount of material generated by an offence can differ from the amount which is finally admitted as evidence in court. This section also describes the criminal investigation process which includes reactive and proactive methods of investigation.
In the first instance, if in doubt, investigators are advised to err on the side of caution and, where it is legally permissible, to gather and retain material. Subsequently supervisors or crown prosecutors can be consulted to determine whether the material should be retained for use in the investigation or in subsequent court proceedings. There are a number of potential sources from which the investigator can gather material. Material may present itself in different formats.
Any tangible object could be material. Intangible things such as sound or images can be reproduced in a format eg, video or audio recordings that can be used in evidence. The skill of the investigator is not only to identify and locate potential sources of material but also to understand how the material must be gathered and stored in a format that is evidentially admissible. All material gathered during an investigation is subject to the CPIA, irrespective of whether it is used as information, intelligence or evidence.
Ideally, the total amount of material generated by a criminal event will be collected by the police and be admissible as evidence, but this is rarely possible.
Each crime has a unique mix of material, but the amount is finite as there are only so many witnesses or so much physical evidence. It is not always possible to collect all of the material generated by an offence.
Some physical material may be lost or destroyed, some witnesses may not be located, and some of the material will only be known to offenders who do not reveal it to others. The rules that determine what material will be accepted by a court as evidence are complex and are often themselves contested within a criminal trial. As a consequence all material may be judged to be admissible under certain circumstances.
There are a number of general principles, however, which mean that some material will not normally pass the evidential test, eg, hearsay, second person testimony, intelligence reports or evidence of opinion. Even though the material is of a type that is generally not admissible, it does not mean that it should not be gathered or that it will not assist the investigation. Such material may be highly valuable in setting parameters for other investigative activities or generating lines of enquiry that may produce other relevant, reliable and admissible material, and should, therefore, always be gathered.
The Interpretation of the rules of evidence are complex and investigators should always provide the CPS with all of the material that has been gathered so that decisions can be made as to its value as evidence. Any material subject to public interest immunity guidance, see 3. Positive action in the period immediately following the report of a crime minimises the attrition of material and maximises the chance of securing the material that will be admissible in court.
Metropolitan Police 4. The proactive method is sometimes called intelligence led or covert investigation.
The main difference between these two methods is that the reactive method starts with the discovery of a crime and seeks to bring offenders to justice by uncovering material that identifies suspects and provides sufficient evidence to enable a court to determine their guilt. The technique of reactive investigations focus on interviewing victims, witnesses and suspects, the examination of scenes and the development of forensic links between suspects and the offence. The proactive method usually starts with an intelligence analysis that a particular individual or group is involved in criminal enterprise.
This is often organised crime such as drug dealing, fraud or people trafficking. Individual instances of such offending are rarely reported to the police and so generally the techniques of reactive investigation cannot be used. As a result investigators generally use a range of covert surveillance techniques which are designed to link offenders to the criminal enterprise. These techniques are often complemented by financial investigations and forensic science techniques.
The two methods of investigation may overlap, particularly after a suspect has been arrested. A reactive investigation may also use covert policing techniques as part of the overall strategy and vice versa.
The two methods of investigation should not, therefore, be considered as being wholly discrete or mutually exclusive. The purple sections represent activities selected from investigative strategies, see 6 Core Investigative Strategies, the grey sections represent the main decision points, see 5 Investigative Decision Making and the white sections are the outcomes that can be achieved.
Every investigation is different and may require a different route through the model. For example, in some cases the identity of the offender is known from the outset and the investigation quickly enters the suspect management phase.
In others, the identity of the offender may never be known or will only be discovered after a lengthy further investigation. Call takers, public counter staff and patrol officers receiving initial reports will be guided by force policy on the information that is to be gathered and the action that is to be taken in any given case.
They are under the same obligations as others involved in the investigation to record and retain this material and to ensure that it is communicated to the investigating officer. The investigators should be familiar with the investigative strategies relating to victims and witnesses as this will enable them to exploit early opportunities to gather material by questioning the person reporting the crime, see 6 Core Investigative Strategies.
The arrangements for receiving reports of crime vary from force to force and investigators should familiarise themselves with their local arrangements. These sources are often referred to by investigators as intelligence packages and have been developed by national, force or local intelligence systems. They identify groups or individuals who are assessed as being involved in ongoing criminal activity. They will generally have been through a tasking and coordinating process which has then allocated them for further investigation.
Irrespective of the method of instigation, those involved need to understand that the instigation phase is part of the investigation and is therefore subject to the provisions of the CPIA. Investigators, who are allocated crimes for further investigation, need to identify who dealt with the instigation phase, establish what decisions have already been made, what actions have been taken and what material has been gathered so far.
They should take possession of this material, or if the original material remains in the hands of third parties, obtain copies and ensure that the original is retained in accordance with the CPIA. Intelligence packages and referrals from other agencies are likely to be allocated for further investigation without the need for any initial investigation. The majority of reports are, however, likely to be dealt with by deploying police officers to a scene or to the person reporting.
In some police forces the initial investigation of certain categories of crime are dealt with entirely over the telephone before a decision to carry out further investigation is made. Whether carried out in person or over the telephone, the quality of the initial investigation is a significant factor in gathering material that leads to detection of a crime. The first opportunity to locate and gather material may be the only opportunity.
For example, scenes that are not identified and secured will deteriorate quickly; witnesses who are not identified and interviewed straight away may discuss events with others and thus contaminate their recollection of the event or may leave the area and be impossible to trace later; CCTV images that are not recovered immediately may be recorded over during the days following the incident and be lost to the investigation.
It is vital that those engaged in the initial investigation of a crime take positive action to ensure that material is not lost in this way. They should always investigate the crime as thoroughly as possible and not merely record the details on the assumption that the crime cannot be solved or that someone else will carry out an investigation at a later stage.
Officers initially deployed to an incident are likely to have a number of competing demands placed on them as they arrive.
Once these immediate priorities are dealt with, officers should plan how best to conduct the investigation. They should use the investigative strategies which are as applicable to initial investigation as they are to suspect management and further investigation, see 6 Core Investigative Strategies. The key factors they should consider are shown in Figure 4 Initial Investigation.
In such cases officers should call for assistance from supervisors. In cases of major crime a supervisor or senior investigating officer SIO will take responsibility for directing activity at the scene. This officer may be the investigator throughout the enquiry.
Concluding the Initial Investigation In complex investigations it is unlikely that there will be a clear distinction between the initial investigation and further investigation. In practice what happens is that once an SIO arrives, the initial investigation continues to its conclusion.
Further investigation activity is then instigated by the SIO. Where the case is allocated to another investigator a briefing should be conducted at the conclusion of the initial investigation. The briefing should include the actions that have been undertaken and by whom, the decisions that support that action and details of the material gathered so far.
This provides the new investigator with a clear understanding of events and assists them to prioritise the investigative actions that will be required to progress the case. Fast Track Actions This term is traditionally associated with major enquiries but should apply to every investigation whether or not it is using the reactive or proactive method of investigation. Fast track action is particularly appropriate when investigators are responding to incidents which are still ongoing or have only recently ended.
Material in the form of witnesses, forensic evidence and articles associated with the crime may be readily available if prompt action is taken to gather them. Whether the crime has been recently committed or not, the first chance to obtain material may be the last. To delay protecting, preserving or gathering material may result in it being contaminated or lost.
It is important that every chance to gather material is taken as soon as possible. In larger enquiries SIOs must establish strategies to ensure that new information is brought to their attention quickly so that fast track action can be taken when it is needed.
The investigator has to continually evaluate material, see 5. In some police forces a crime evaluator conducts a formal evaluation at the conclusion of the initial investigation process. A crime evaluator is an experienced investigator who evaluates the material gathered so far and decides if the crime is to be allocated for further investigation.
Most forces have developed policies to guide evaluators on the type of crimes that will be subject to further investigation and the resources or units that they will be allocated. Even where crimes have been through a formal evaluation process, investigators should continue to carry out their own evaluations as new material becomes available. In some cases the initial investigation and the investigative evaluation will lead to the identification of a suspect and sufficient material to justify interviewing the suspect under caution, eg, where victims or witnesses have made an allegation against a named individual.
In these circumstances the investigation is likely to move straight into the suspect management phase, see 6. Where this is not the case, further investigation will focus on gathering material that leads to the identification of a suspect, see 6 Core Investigative Strategies. In many cases this will be limited to the investigator, crime scene examination and forensic analysis of the material recovered from the scene or the suspect.
In more complex cases resource allocations will be greater. All Investigative plans should be accurately recorded, see 7. It uses the same techniques as the investigative evaluation but the additional test of admissibility is applied to the material. They also include the action to take in situations where the duty prosecutor cannot be contacted.
Crown prosecutors work closely with investigators to ensure that the charges used are the most suitable for the material that is available. The CPS have responsibility for the prosecution of the case after a suspect has been charged.
If further investigative action is required investigators will liaise closely with the CPS. Additional Material There is the possibility that new material will become available after charge. This material may affect the eventual outcome of the case. If investigators have been thorough during the course of the investigation the impact of new material should be minimal. All new material must be evaluated and any reasonable lines of enquiry that are identified must be pursued.
The investigator has to manage the disclosure process, which includes: i Retaining all relevant material; ii Recording all retained material; iii Ensuring that the retained material is revealed to the prosecutor. In addition anything which may undermine the prosecution case, assist the defence case as set out in their defence statement and any unused material must be disclosed.
This duty is a continuing duty and if any further material comes to the attention of the prosecution, they are obliged to disclose this to the defence. All material is subject to disclosure considerations, whether it has been used as information, intelligence or evidence. For further information and specific guidance on disclosure issues see the JOPI.
File Preparation Accurate and full record keeping is essential throughout an investigation, see 7. Investigators should check that all records have been fully completed and that there are no matters to be resolved. There may be reports outstanding from forensic scientists or other experts and these should be obtained and thoroughly checked to ensure that they do not contradict the prosecution case.
Exhibit management is an important part of file preparation, see 7. In volume or less serious crime it is still a fundamental principle that any exhibit is properly numbered and labelled, sourced and provenanced by a witness. It is the role of prosecutors, defence solicitors and the courts to thoroughly test the reliability and integrity of the material gathered during an investigation. A prepared investigator who has used a methodical and systematic approach to record keeping during the investigation and file preparation will be able to withstand scrutiny.
Defence Liaison In most cases, post-charge liaison with the defence will be carried out by or in association with the CPS. Checklists 1 to 3 set out the considerations which an investigator needs to take into account when preparing for a trial. It also proposes a number of measures, including the investigative mindset and investigative and evidential evaluation to assist investigators in making accountable decisions and to minimise the chance of errors.
Decision making is, therefore, central to any criminal investigation. A core skill for any investigator is the ability to make decisions which can be justified to others. Despite this, decision-making skills are not generally part of investigator training. A decision can be made instantly but more often involves the decision maker in a process of identification, analysis, assessment, choice and planning. Failures in decision making are not only confined to major investigations or difficult cases.
A study carried out in for the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice found that the most common type of error in crime investigation was that of decision making Irvine and Dunningham, , which is supported by the Home Office Paper , , Reviewing Murder Investigations. They usually rely on a set of working rules or heuristics that they develop from their experience of conducting investigations. They also learn working rules from colleagues.
These working rules enable investigators to understand the situations they are faced with and provide a framework which helps them to understand the material they gather. Working rules are an efficient means of decision making and generally present few problems although they do have a number of limitations which investigators should be aware of, if they are to avoid making inappropriate decisions.
The resulting range of working rules that investigators have depends on their personal experience. As the unique experience of each investigator contributes to the working rules they acquire, there will be considerable variation in the way that different individuals make decisions during investigations. Some variation is inevitable, and even desirable, but this can cause difficulties in designing and implementing audit regimes and judging individual performance.
This may lead to difficulties in describing how a particular decision was reached. Investigators may refer to these decisions as being based on hunches, gut reaction or intuition, and are unable to explain the rationale behind them, making it difficult for others to understand the decision-making process.
Racism, sexism or homophobia can influence the thought process without the individual realising the effect that they are having. For example, an investigator attends the scene of a domestic burglary and decides not to conduct house-to-house enquiries in the vicinity because of an assumption that no-one will tell them anything worthwhile.
This can result in a situation where they only gather material that supports their view, thus reinforcing their opinion that their view is correct. This will lead investigators to ignore alternative lines of enquiry or sources of material. Investigators should avoid taking too firm a view on any point until they have gathered the maximum amount of material.
Where information levels are low, well developed hypotheses can be powerful tools and their use is discussed in 5. Investigators should maintain an open and objective approach to gathering material and be prepared to challenge their own reasoning behind a decision.
Using the investigative mindset and challenging personal perceptions will assist the investigator in avoiding availability error. Whilst no one can rid their mind of these ingrained flaws anyone can learn to understand the traps and compensate for them Hammond, A polite but disregarding approach by investigators may potentially cause victims and witnesses to become unhelpful or apathetic to the investigation or subsequent criminal proceedings.
All occupational groups develop and use such rules and in reality there is no effective alternative. Investigators must, however, be aware of the potential pitfalls, and actively challenge their personal perceptions and understanding.
There is no process map that will assist the investigator to develop the mindset, it is a state of mind or attitude which investigators adopt and which can be developed over time through continued use. It involves applying a set of principles to the investigation process. This will enable investigators to develop a disciplined approach which ensures that the decisions they make are appropriate to the case, are reasonable and can be explained to others.
This will enable investigators to identify any characteristics particular to the source which may determine the way it is examined, eg, whether special measures are available to assist victims and witnesses. For further information on special measures see 3. Understanding the nature of the source will assist investigators to determine what the source can contribute to the investigation and to explain its characteristics and relevance to others See example.
Understanding the Source of Material Example: When examining CCTV images, investigators should know the camera from which the image was taken, the type of equipment that was used and the timescale of the images such as, time lapse or continuous loop. They should know the location shown in the image and the area immediately around it so that they can determine where people in the image are coming from and going to. They should identify any blind spots in the area covered by the camera eg, behind vehicles, in doorways , know the time the image was taken and how these factors relate to the offence being investigated.
This information will enable investigators to interpret the material shown in the image accurately, explain the image to others and justify their interpretation of it. The recollection that victims and witnesses have of events will fade or become contaminated by versions of events they later hear from others and so it is essential that all of the material they can provide is obtained as early as possible.
The same principle applies for many other sources of material. Careful planning is required to ensure that the examination reveals all the available material that the source can provide. Investigators should work through Checklist 4, and in complex or difficult cases should consider producing a written plan before commencing the examination to ensure that important points are not overlooked. In some cases there will be legal or policy requirements that govern the method of examination.
In other cases there will be technical requirements that must be met. Some examinations, such as video interviews and the viewing of CCTV tapes require specialist equipment which may have to be booked in advance. In other cases the examination of material may require the use of experts such as forensic scientists or pathologists. Access to specialist equipment and expert support is usually governed by force policy and investigators should familiarise themselves with this when planning the examination.
In the case of a victim or witness interview this will include consideration of whether the location is suitable and meets the requirements of relevant legislation and ACPO Investigative Interviewing Guidance see xxxxxxx xxxxxxx.
The examination of other sources may only require that the location is adequate in terms of the volume of material to be examined, the level of security required and the need to house any specialist equipment. If investigators do not have the necessary knowledge to enable them to draw inferences from the material, they should identify and arrange access to any additional knowledge. The extent to which any area is relevant to a particular examination is determined by the source and its characteristics.
Account In interview situations, victims, witnesses and suspects are encouraged to provide an account of their knowledge of, or involvement in, the incident. When examining other sources of material, the account will be interpreted by the person carrying out the examination. For example, an investigator may infer that the offender entered the scene of a burglary through the window because it has been forced open from the outside, or that a person seen in a CCTV image may be the offender because they are wearing a distinctive item of clothing as described by a witness.
They should also consider alternative explanations, see 5. The degree of difficulty involved in inferring an account from a source largely depends on the nature of the source, any legal or procedural considerations relating to how the material must be treated, and the level of material that investigators already have.
The more material investigators have about a crime, the easier it will be to draw inferences about the contribution a source can make to the investigation. Where the source of material is a victim, witness or offender, an account should be obtained using the ACPO Investigative Interviewing Guidance, see xxxxxxx xxxxxxx.
This may involve testing it against other material already gathered or identifying actions to acquire further material to clarify it.
A good number of the people stuck in the queuing traffic could be witnesses to the events that led up to the collision and once they are turned around or filtered passed the scene and drive away they may never be spoken to again. A house to house strategy or information seek in this scenario could be as simple as an officer being tasked to walk the queue and ask basic questions of the vehicle occupants and note registration numbers of the vehicles.
One of these vehicles could end up being a suspect when further information unfolds in the investigation. Another golden hour principle could be that of digital evidence. This is so true in vehicle system forensics where a vehicle may contain an abundance of digital material important to the investigation but it is allowed to be eroded by it not being preserved properly and strategies put in place to deal with it and preserve it.
We spoke about driver interviews in a separate blog. This is another golden hour opportunity, you have the opportunity to speak to the driver straight after the collision and to effectively interview them in order to identify where some of your other golden hour enquiries need to be made.
Consider the driver tells you the route they travelled to the scene as it a probing interview rather than just asking about the collision itself. This now links back to the CCTV strategy and that material can be recovered as a result of a driver interview carried out soon after the collision.
If they are not interviewed for weeks later then what if they tell you information of their involvement that you did not know and because of the time passed you are unable to recover that material but it was available in abundance at the time. Another golden opportunity missed. There are other areas to consider in this golden period where material is in abundance and needs capturing and we are sure you have your own examples.
0コメント