Police Station Forensics

Hello on. Welcome to this presentation on behalf of Data Law on this is a 20 minute at bite sized webinar in relation to advising clients on forensic issues at the police station. Strange that my name is Colleen Beaumont and I waas before I retired a defence solicitor in private practice like PlayStation forensics 12 points to consider one. The provision of intimate sob ALS, this is, you know, is Section 62 on 65 of the Peace in Criminal Evidence Act at 1984. Intimate samples require the suspect written consent and without his or her written consent no samples of an intimate nature that may be taken, Of course, if he or she is a volunteer and they are volunteering to the taking of the samples that that's absolutely fine, They give their consent. Of course, if they don't give their consent, then we have to advise them that adverse inferences may be drawn from their failure or refusal to comply with the request through an intimate suburb. I mean, maybe that on occasion you would want to advise the time not to provide in commit samples because you would not want him or her Jamaican begin shoe link with the victim stroke a complainant. This, of course, is why they're requesting intimate samples are not with a view to finding the suspects being a, but rather to perhaps finding evidence off the victim or complainant on the suspect himself. Pull herself to the provision of non intimate samples. These are covered in sections 63 65 of pace. Of course, non intimate samples do not work Quiet consent if he's that, or he's there being detained as a suspect in a recordable events. Now, course if they if there's a request for these samples and the person is there was a fallen here, and it may be that if they will not voluntarily provide the samples that an officer might seek to arrest non intimate samples. If I were the officer in the case on the suspect was refusing to provide intimate samples, I'd be looking at the types of non intimate samples that I could take that might link him with the victim in the case. I think the two that most obviously come to mind now fingernail scrapings. I might find the victim's d n a under his finger, please alternatively head hair, which, of course, I can take as I can take all non intimate samples using reasonable force if necessary, under Section 117 of pace. Of course, there can be no adverse influences from his failure or refusal to provide non intimate samples because the law and title steep police to take these non intimate samples by reasonable force if necessary. And so they're going to have it as a piece of real evidence. They therefore don't need the adverse influence, which, if you think about it, is the fullback position for the prosecutor if they cannot get the actual evidence. Three fingerprints on the Section 61 of Pace. But it's the same, really, as in relation to the provision of non intimate Sal Bones. The trigger is that the suspect is under arrest and is being detained for a recordable offense on matches with non intimate samples. It may well be that the fingerprints on the mouth swab are merely being taken in order that they can go on the database off what we call no offender profiles. I think there are some seven million people on this database at the moment now, don't get me wrong. It might be that request for a non intimate sample off the fingerprints is for evidential purposes during the proceedings themselves. If this is the case, of course, a gay the samples can be taken at using reason force. No consent is required. Fingerprinting and sawbones. Now, a lot of clients thes things arrive at the station as volunteers, and they also leave as volunteers pending further enquiries pending further investigations. No home bail. And it may well be that their fingerprints on a non intimate salable was not taken from them. In this regard, you need to look at, shake you to a excuse me, shed you to a at the back of pace. There are various different scenarios in which that the police can invite a person back to the police station in order for his or her fingerprints on a non intimate sample to be taken. One of the most healthiest ones is where the decision has Bean made that he or she will be prosecuted for the offence in question, or they have Bean informed that there may be a prosecution reported for the question off prosecution. In those circumstances, that person can be invited back into the police station for the samples to be taken. And of course, if they refuse, then of course, there is a power to arrest and take them to the police station in order to take that thing points. And in order to take unknown, intimate sample that might I just ask you, please, you probably haven't ready. Do have a look. A shake you to a at the back of pace. As I say, it gives a number of different scenarios in which a person may be in Bike it back to a police station in order for fingerprints and they non intimate sample to be taken on the basis either that no samples were taken from them on their visit to the B station because they were there was a volunteer. All samples have been taken from them, but for one reason or another, those samples are effective on the peace. What wire? New ones. I won't say more. Have a look, Please, that shaking to a 0.6 x rays and ultrasound scans. I don't think this crops up very offered at the police station, but do have regard to Section 55 a of pace X rays and ultrasound scans that may be taken on inspectors authority is required. The expected must have reasonable grounds for believing that the person who's being arrested that may have swallowed a class A drug on WAAS in possession of it with the appropriate criminal intent before his arrest. X rays and ultrasound ultrasound scans on a bit like intimate samples and cannot be taken by force. Consent is required because can't consent is required? Get the X rays and ultrasound scans on no carried out adverse influences. That may be cool time in just same way as adverse inferences may be drawn from a failure or refusal to provide intimate solvents. See Section 55. Nothing's in pleasures of footwear, and I know the piece of have built quite a large database of footwear impressions on the trigger for the police to have the right to take footwear impressions set out in Section 61 a of pace must have bean detained in consequence off his arrest for a recordable fence. It's the same trigger, isn't it? In relation to taking a non intimate sample from him. It's the same trigger in relation to taking fingerprints from him arrested and detained for a recordable offense. If you're not sure, War, what is and what isn't recorded events, and I can tell you that all events is that carry a term of imprisonment off whatever generation are deemed to be recordable offences. There were also a few non imprisonment offenses. Would you also deemed recorded one such as begging or persistent begging. Nine photographs, the photographs of suspects. I think it's routine. Isn't it the suspect to be and they graft? Would you believe Section 64? A. Of pace. The sexual merely refers to a person who is detained at the station doesn't even need to be detained for a recordable offense. It just says detained at a police station. And no consent is the I missed off number eight testing for the presence of Class A drugs Sections 63 63 c. The face. I don't know whether or not this is happening in your piece station. I know in some police stations they don't seem to all the doing it in other police stations. It's done as a matter of course. The trigger for the request for a sample to test for class A drugs is that the person has bean arrested because we do have now drug testing upon arrest or the person has bean charged with a trigger events. So arrest all charge for a trigger offence will give What are the trigger offenses when I can tell you there the acquisitive dishonesty offenses under the Theft Act, we're talking burglary on my talking there, handling saving goods, those sort of Spencer's. They are also offenses under the Florida Act. They are also offenses under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 in relation to Class A drugs. Now does he or she have to provide this sample to test for the presence of class A drugs that the answer is known? It cannot be taken by force. However, you must draw to the attention of the blind and section 63 c of pace. It is a criminal offence to fail to provide without good cools a sample to test for the presence off class eight months summary only, and it carries three months imprisonment in the magistrate school. It may be that for one reason or another, the time does not wish the peace to know whether or not. He has class a drugs within his system, in which case make sure advise him or her properly. Your consent is required. There may well be a charge. If you fail without, would calls to provide a sample. I'm struggling to see what your good calls would be for a failure to provide a simple mouth swab, because that's what it is. And, of course, there's nothing very sophisticated about the testing offic. It's tested in the police station, and, of course, it will kiss four opiates. It will test for UK herring things of that nature glass, eight lives Okay, retention, a biometric material, fingerprints and Vienna. This was all changed by the Protection of Freedoms Act 2000 and 12. No, in a nutshell, the legislation serves that if your client has a previous conviction or previous caution than his fingerprints on DNA could be retained forever. In other words, he doesn't get the benefit of the legislation if he already has a previous conviction or a previous caution. However, if he's never been in trouble with the police before or then, the Protection of Freedoms Act 2000 and 4 may assist as follows first thing you need to know whether or not you're dealing with a qualifying events or known qualifying things. Qualifying events is are contained within Section 65 A of pace, and they tend to be the more serious offenses. Assault occasioning actual bodily harm is a qualifying defense. Let's assume that that you provide with your client at Papi Station as a villain here. He or she might be a school teacher. The peace would like to interview them about on a soap a B H on one of their peoples. No, if that person is arrested for the events off a th the police with the consent off the commissioner for the retention or destruction. A fine mix, too, may be able to retain the samples for a period off three years. But the commission is consent is required. If all they do is arrest this particular person, if they go into charge this particular person, then the samples could be became for a period of three years. No consent at the commissioner is required. If this person is convicted of the events or accepts a caution for the events than the D, any sample on the fingerprints can be retained, the life you have it. If it's an acquittal, the maximum period or retention is three years. Why? Because they have three years once a judge known quality Find defenses. Common assault. Seems to me from the legislation that everything is dependent upon the outcome of the case, assuming he's never been in trouble before. Has no previous convictions or portions. If he accepts a caution all if he's convicted, the non qualifying events common a soaked retention forever. If, however, he doesn't accept precaution on, he isn't convicted at this non qualifying events. It seems to me that his biometric material should be destroyed. And if you have such a case, it might be worth writing a letter to the superintendent of your local police station saying he seems to qualify for destruction under the protection of freedoms at 2000 and 12. Would you please ensure war that his biometric material is destroyed on? Would you please let us know that it has been destroyed, never a word or two about voice recognition as opposed to visual recognition. Now voice recognition doesn't really get much of a mention in the police station codes of practice Advil one. The only mention I could be Liam. Mention of that fine was tucked away Cody Annex B. Powerball 18 in which a witness to an identification procedure may May asked to hear a voice, but they shall be asked before anyone speaks whether or not they can make a visual identification. Now it may be that voice recognition is an important issue because this person has bean sending or making off seen telephone calls or bomb hopes calls things of that nature where the voice is going to be far more important than visual recognition or identification. If you get one of these peace, do have a look at the leading cases in this area. They're all available. If you google them, it's hers. A dumbest, um, and Stegman Roberts on Rob Got. If you read those four cases, you you know all you need to know about voice recognition. Struck identification on finally 0.12 facial mapping. Occasionally the crown call upon the services off. They face your mapping expert to give an opinion as to whether or not this was the suspect in question. It might be that video isn't very clear. It might be that the person was wearing some sort of crash element on only part of their face that waas visible. You won't come across it very often. But if you do have a look at the Attorney General's reference number 2 2000 and two and there's your two probably leading cases on it. The case of stock Well, and the case of Look away, look away where they are. The's 20 minute webinars come to a conclusion very swiftly does today. I hope you found that have interest. I know that data law have a number of these. And if you did, I thought your company again in the not too distant future on another one of these weapon Els concerning criminal law. This is calling Beaumont. Say thank you for watching. Thank you for listening to me Goodbye.