The government is struggling to reverse the damage to the criminal justice system resulting from the politics of austerity with an economy damaged by the cost of COVID-19 and Brexit. Its willingness to tap expertise outside the Labour Party’s traditional leadership, especially for the prison crisis with the appointment of Lord Timpson as a minister and former Conservative Justice Secretary, David Gauke, is an encouraging sign of fresh thinking in Petty France. What is not so clear is the extent to which the government might also be willing to identify ways of dealing with the criminal justice system’s myriad problems by another route than the traditional top-down approach to identifying options for policy change.

Anticipating the 2024 change of government, academics from Northumbria University and the University of Derby conducted research to help inform UK policymakers on the use of digital forensics and digital evidence across the criminal justice system. This research, Digital Forensics within the Criminal Justice System: Use, Effectiveness, and Impact, was presented to senior officials at the Home Office-led Forensic Science Reform Programme Board in 2024 and may have had some impact on some of the post-election briefing prepared for incoming ministers.

An innovative and holistic research project

With the assistance of the Home Office, our team captured the everyday experiences of digital forensics within the criminal justice system, from the initial point of criminal investigation to trial and appeal. Participants in the study included representatives from regional police forces, the National Crime Agency and those involved in counter-terrorism, Digital Forensics Unit police investigators, HM Prison and Probation Service, independent digital forensics practitioners, the Crown Prosecution Service, and solicitors and barristers with experience of both prosecuting and defending.

The design of the project was initially presented to Exchange Chambers’ Serious Crime and Fraud Forum in spring 2023. Later that year, the research team undertook a series of interviews, focus groups and surveys with participants. The project brought together stakeholders who would not ordinarily interact, or who would only interact within the court, to facilitate frank discussion of their experiences of digital forensics. These candid and open inter-stakeholder conversations produced rich research findings, leading to the report’s recommendations.

The central findings are categorised into three themes (with a fourth speaking directly to the Home Office’s Impact of Forensic Science Project, the purpose of which was to develop a model to allow the impact of forensic science across the criminal justice system to be measured).

1: Digital forensics literacy

All participants in the research reflected how, across the criminal justice system, there is a general and fundamental lack of knowledge and understanding by those not intimately involved in digital forensic practice. The Report suggests this lack of digital forensics literacy ultimately contributes to:

  • the backlog of devices waiting for examination;
  • a misunderstanding of data and analysis during investigations and through to trial;
  • an inability to properly assess reliability and admissibility of digital evidence;
  • poor evidence communication;
  • discontinued prosecutions; and
  • the very real risk of miscarriages of justice.

2: Technical and practical challenges

A range of technical and practical challenges were identified by participants which included:

  • insufficient resource to address the volume of digital forensic material;
  • lack of appropriate resource, combined with ever-increasing volume, with repercussions across essential processes such as the communication, transfer and presentation of digital forensic data and evidence, disclosure, and other regulatory requirements;
  • digital forensic activity not being undertaken in a timely or efficient manner;
  • an insufficient number and distribution of appropriately trained digital forensic practitioners within Police Digital Forensic Units and independent private providers; and
  • an insufficient number and distribution of Digital Media Investigators, key to assisting police investigators in developing an appropriate, proportionate and successful digital forensics strategy.

3: Digital evidence and admissibility

A major challenge identified was around digital evidence and its admissibility, with many participants reporting limited attention paid to whether digital forensic evidence would ultimately be admissible. A crucial finding was that little, if no, attention is paid to whether different forms of digital forensic evidence are fact or opinion, or the underpinning reliability of the evidence and its limitations. Unsurprisingly, the rules of disclosure and challenges/failings of the disclosure regime regarding digital forensics was also raised by participants – both lawyers and investigators.

Recommendations

The recommendations of the Report are mapped to the central identified three categories of challenges.

Digital forensics literacy
  • All data and outputs provided by Digital Forensic Units and external digital forensics practitioners to police investigators must be supported by sufficient explanation to allow their significance and limitations in the context of the investigation to be understood.
  • The creation of regularly updated interactive digital literacy training packages designed for individuals anywhere within the criminal justice system delivering knowledge and understanding of both the capabilities and limitations of digital forensics processes and the data produced.
  • Digital literacy training packages developed for lawyers should be equally available and accessible to the Crown Prosecution Service and defence representatives. To ensure accessibility, Crown prosecutors must be provided with an appropriate allocation of time to attend and engage and the cost to defence representatives must be reasonable or funded by the state.
  • Consultation with the judiciary, Royal Society and Royal Society of Edinburgh, to ensure that any future judicial primer encompassing digital forensics addresses the limitations in digital forensic literacy identified by the Northumbria University Digital Forensics Project.
Technical and practical challenges
  • A significant increase in and strategic deployment of suitably trained Digital Forensic Unit Investigators to address the extensive backlogs, increase the current level of activity and prepare for the inevitable continued increase in demand.
  • A significant increase in and strategic deployment of Digital Media Investigators, in police forces and other investigative agencies
  • Establishment of a process which encourages and enables effective communication – upstream and downstream – between Digital Forensic Unit practitioners, police and the Crown Prosecution Service.
  • Development of an effective, modern, data platform for the storage and sharing of digital forensics at all stages of the criminal justice process.
  • A review of whether strategic investment in policing co-access to digital forensic resources (equipment and personnel) would address the challenges of, amongst other areas, keeping pace with the advances in technology required by digital forensic practitioners.
Digital evidence and admissibility
  • Bespoke training for police officers and Digital Forensic Unit practitioners on the criminal rules of evidence and procedure applicable to digital forensic evidence, specifically centred on matters of reliability, fact and opinion evidence, disclosure and admissibility.
  • An urgent review of current practice in the admission and presentation of digital forensic evidence in magistrates’ courts to address non-compliance with the rules of evidence and the Criminal Procedure Rules.

The research team will be presenting at several conferences over the following months, and welcome feedback and opinion on the report. 


Research team

The Northumbria University Digital Forensics Project research team comprised Dr Cerian Griffiths, Associate Professor at Northumbria University and academic member of Exchange Chambers, along with Northumbria University’s Emma Piasecki, Philip Anderson and Professor Tim J Wilson, and University of Derby’s Dr Sophie Carr. The team would also like to thank John Jones KC from Exchange Chambers for his invaluable input and support. The full report can be viewed here.