Streamlined reporting of forensic evidence in England and Wales
| Author | Oriola Sallavaci |
| Published date | 01 July 2016 |
| Date | 01 July 2016 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/1365712716643549 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
The International Journal of
Evidence & Proof
Streamlined reporting of forensic
2016, Vol. 20(3) 235–249
ª The Author(s) 2016
evidence in England and Wales:
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
Is it the way forward?
DOI: 10.1177/1365712716643549
epj.sagepub.com
Oriola Sallavaci
Anglia Ruskin University, UK
Abstract
Streamlined Forensic Reporting (SFR) is a case management procedure recently introduced in
the criminal justice system in England and Wales. It involves a proportionate use and staged
producing of the forensic evidence at court, by means of abbreviated forensic reports,
depending on whether the defence will agree or take issue with the forensic evidence that the
prosecution intends to rely upon. SFR aims to achieve an early identification of the real issues in
the case and to reduce costs and delays associated with the use of forensic evidence in criminal
proceedings. This paper analyses the most significant aspects of the SFR procedure. It argues
that, while SFR offers several advantages, the inappropriate use of SFR and case fragmentation
in terms of investigation and preparation of forensic work within the background of cost-
cutting pressures, could threaten the delivery of justice and the role of forensic evidence in
criminal proceedings.
Keywords
case management, Criminal Procedure Rules, criminal proceedings, forensic evidence,
streamlined forensic reporting
Introduction
The criminal justice system in England and Wales has undergone criticism for being inefficient, costly
and for tolerating unnecessary work (Ministry of Justice, 2012). Its complex structure and the great
number of bureaucratic processes involved lead to lengthy delays in many cases and over-extended
proceedings. While it is perceived by the public as ‘overly bureaucratic and confusing’, other identified
problems include: failures to reach the correct outcome; lack of flexibility in how cases are dealt with
and need for greater professional discretion; cases not proceeding on schedule; lack of transparency and
responsiveness; poor technology; and wasted investment (Ministry of Justice, 2012: 12–13).
Corresponding author:
Oriola Sallavaci, Anglia Law School, Anglia Ruskin University, Bishop Hall Ln, Chelmsford, Essex CM1 1SQ, UK.
Email: oriola.sallavaci@anglia.ac.uk
236
The International Journal of Evidence & Proof 20(3)
In response to the ongoing criticism, in recent years the UK government has initiated a number of
reforms aimed at delivering ‘swift and sure justice’ in the interests of the victims, witnesses and the
public (Ministry of Justice, 2012; see Ministry of Justice, 2014, 2015). Examples of these programs of
reform implemented by the judiciary are the Early Guilty Plea Scheme and Effective Case Management
Scheme for Crown Court cases and the Transforming Summary Justice Initiative for magistrates’ courts.
According to the government, these schemes seek to improve public confidence in the criminal justice
system by tackling delay and waste and increasing accountability and transparency (Ministry of Justice,
2012: 5–6). Their main objectives are that low-level, straightforward cases which are uncontested are
dealt with promptly and in an efficient manner and that guilty pleas are secured earlier in the prosecution
process. Improved case management in the earlier stages of the proceedings is expected to reduce
paperwork, resources and process times as well as to alleviate some of the burden on victims of crime
and witnesses, including experts, who will not need to attend proceedings. It needs be emphasised,
however, that at the heart of the government’s overall plans for reforming the criminal justice system is
cost cutting, as part of a broader strategy for tackling the financial deficit.1
Within this broader reform framework the government introduced Streamlined Forensic Reporting
(hereafter SFR), a revised case management procedure for producing forensic evidence in criminal
proceedings. SFR has been promoted as a procedure which enables investigators, prosecutors, defence
and courts to comply with the Criminal Procedure Rules, especially the overriding objective which
requires that criminal cases be dealt with justly, efficiently and expeditiously. The objectives of SFR are
to reduce costs and delays associated with forensic evidence where such evidence adds no value to the
administration of justice and to ensure compliance with the court case management requirements set out
in Criminal Procedure Rules Part 3, rule 3.2 and 3.3 through early identification of real issues (CPS:
2015a: 4).
SFR is based on a previous Criminal Justice initiative known as DNA and Fingerprint Staged
Reporting 2004. SFR was initially piloted across all London criminal courts (except the Central Criminal
Court) in 2011. By October 2012, 4,200 criminal cases involving fingerprints, DNA and firearms
evidence had been produced for court in SFR format. The reported results showed an increase in early
guilty pleas, fewer discontinued cases and reduced forensic costs (CPS, 2015a; see also CPS, 2015d).
The government actively promoted the adoption of SFR across the criminal justice system, which was
ultimately rolled out in April 2013 (see Ministry of Justice, 2012). SFR is currently used by all police
forces in England and Wales, but not uniformly for different types of evidence. SFR is used for
fingerprint identifications, DNA, drugs, footwear, toxicology, marks and traces, firearm/ballistic and
digital analysis results (CPS, 2015b: 4). However, it is expected that the current scope of SFR will be
expanded to other crime and evidence types and that most forensic evidence in the future will be
delivered by way of a SFR. The main aspects of this procedure will be analysed below and the main
areas where its impact is expected to be more significant will be highlighted.
The SFR Procedure
SFR aims to take a proportionate approach to forensic evidence. It requires that forensic experts prepare
different types of forensic reports for different stages of the proceedings, depending on whether the
defence will agree or challenge the forensic evidence that the prosecution intends to rely upon. It aims to
achieve either an early agreement with the defence on forensic issues, or to identify the contested issue at
an earlier stage in the proceedings. There are four report types within the SFR process, each having its
1. Ministry of Justice, 2012: 20. While reforms are indeed necessary, it is debatable whether focusing on inducing early guilty
pleas will achieve the aim of delivering ‘sure justice’. The contested criminal trial is of central importance in the structure of the
criminal justice system. Having increasingly undergone challenges over the past decade, it is only to be expected that contested
trials will become even more infrequent occurrences in the future. On these challenges and more generally on the goals of the
criminal justice system see Duff et al., 2007.
Sallavaci
237
own standard form: the initial forensic investigation report; the SFR stage 1 report; the SFR stage 2
report; and the SFR crime investigation statement (see CPS, 2015b: 5). Out of these, the SFR stage 1 and
stage 2 reports are the most important and will receive greater attention in this article.
During the investigative process, the SFR initial forensic investigation report is produced for an initial
assessment of forensic exhibits with the purpose of establishing a forensic strategy, interview or enquiry.
This report, which is usually produced by the police forensic services (or other forensic providers
instructed by the police), is not intended as evidence but the findings are disclosable to the defence.
These initial findings are based on the existing framework of circumstances i.e. case information
available at the time the report is made (CPS, 2015b: 6). The SFR crime scene investigation statement
provides information relating to the forensic results in the stage 1 SFR process (see below). It links the
forensic exhibits used for analysis on stage 1 to the crime scene. It is a form used to accompany the
photographic images of the crime scene and forensic exhibits (CPS, 2015b: 8).
The SFR stage 1 forensic result report is one of the most important within the SFR procedure. In all
cases where a suspect has been charged, the SFR Stage 1 report provides the defence with the results of
forensic testing on which the prosecution proposes to rely and requires the defence to state whether they
agree with or contest those results. The SFR Stage 1 report gives the defence only two alternatives:
1.
to sign a section 10 Criminal Justice Act admission to the facts contained within SFR stage 1 which
implies that the defence agrees with the forensic results presented by the prosecution; or
2.
to respond by identifying the issues which require further forensic analysis, thus generating the
production of SFR stage 2 by the prosecution team (see below).
SFR stage 1 is intended as an evidence type report. It is considered sufficient to be used by the police
investigator during the pre-charge phase of the investigation; for the Crown Prosecution Service (hereafter
CPS) at the charging stage; at magistrates’ court hearings; at Crown Court hearings including preliminary
hearings, plea and case management hearings, pre-trial reviews and mention hearings. SFR in the Crown
Court is addressed by prosecution and the defence, and overseen and managed by the judge. If the SFR
stage 1 report is agreed, it is admissible. If it is not agreed and...
To continue reading
Request your trial