By James Simons-
Academics from the University of Exeter have discovered a flawed tool used by police forces in the Uk to conduct risk assessments which actually slows down investigations carried out by the force.
The study led by Dana Wilson-Kovacs(pictured) and Jen Wilcox from the University of Exeter revealed the incompatibility of the tool with the needs of police or other stakeholders in the criminal justice system, the study found.
Professor Wilson-Kovacs said: “Rather than being a dispassionate and objective decision-making tool, the Matrix requires human input, interpretation, and discretion.
“This creates blurred lines of ownership and accountability, a fragmented operational understanding of what digital forensics can achieve, what information is needed to process submissions, and the difficulty of justifying Matrix-driven decisions to policing stakeholders.
“This leads to tensions between digital forensic units (DFUs) and operational units and demonstrate the need for more systematic approaches to how this type of internal demand is managed.”
The study is part of an Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC)-funded project on the development and application of digital forensics in policing in England and Wales.
Researchers carried out 270 hours of ethnographic observations at four DFUs affiliated to four police forces in England, 67 semi-structured interviews with stakeholders from these forces, including 12 digital forensics and senior forensic managers, an additional 14 with digital forensic managers from other forces, and numerous informal discussions with digital forensic practitioners, forensic and police managers and various other government and police stakeholders.
The tool used by many forces – the Case Prioritisation Matrix – has forced digital forensic practitioners and police officers to take on additional activities that affect the speed of their work.
The research also shows how a lack of centralised guidance and monitoring nationally has resulted in “considerable uncertainty” about how forces in England and Wales should deal with multiple, changing priorities and the surge in requests for digital forensic examination.
“Lessons are rarely shared between forces, and even within the same constabulary, evaluation of risk assessment processes and foresight are often missing,” say researchers.
The study is calling for an updated understanding of risk and prioritisation , and a better forecasting of internal policing demand, needed to address the growing demand for digital forensic analysis and ensure justice to victims. Ninety per cent of all cases in England and Wales carry a digital element.
Digital Forensic Examinations
Researchers analysed how police requests for in-house digital forensic examinations have been organised in 35 forces in England and Wales between 2012 and 2022.
Since 2012, many of the forces analysed have used the Case Prioritisation Matrix, which was designed by the then National Policing Improvement Agency to evaluate cases submitted for analysis.
However, a rise in requests for specialist digital forensic examinations and several socio-legal changes in the past decade led to stakeholders questioning its usefulness and seeking alternatives.
The risk assessment tool orders cases using a specific understanding of risk based on the most frequent type of offence. This approach results in offences where risk is either not recognised or diminished by the algorithm used, being given less importance.
“Not only do officers need to improve the ways in which they submit information to digital forensic units, but also digital forensic mangers spend a considerable amount of time gatekeeping officers’ submissions for analysis to adjust the tool’s scores and accommodate for legislative changes and other policing priorities,” the study says.
Of the 35 forces analysed, 25 relied on this risk assessment tool. Many of these forces were considering, developing, or implementing other instruments for assessing digital forensic-related risk. Most participants in the forces that used the tool criticised its effectiveness and lack of alignment with the needs of officers, the Crown Prosecution Service or child protection services.
Participants argued that its scoring mechanism and categories did not reflect the increase in the demand for digital forensic examination related to other crime types and made new types of offences difficult to risk assess because it left ‘too much open to interpretation’.
Digital forensic gatekeepers often described the scenarios covered by the tool as “too narrow”, as it does not include offences such as harassment, stalking and suicide, or accounts for new categories, such as up-skirting.
Developments and legislative changes since the tool was adopted in 2012, such as bail conditions, hearing dates, the impact on victims, and Crown Prosecution Service pressures to undertake rapid digital forensic analysis needed for remand, were reportedly difficult to incorporate into its use.