Working together

1989 FIRTH MEMORIAL LECTURE

Working together PETER IMBERT

Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, New Scotland Yard, Broadway, London, United Kingdom SWlH OBG

In choosing the title "Working together", there were two main strands I wished to tackle in my talk: namely the police working with the public, and the police working with the support services. The importance of the latter should be emphasised because the police can only give the public a satisfactory service in detecting, evaluating and prosecuting crime by working together with forensic scientists, police surgeons, pathologists, scenes of crimes officers, photographers, lawyers, and many others. With regard to the police need for forensic specialists, it is interesting that the late JB Firth, writing in the first ever editorial of the Society's Journal, was saying that if the need warranted it the scientific resources of the country could be brought to bear on a criminological problem [I]. What he did not touch upon, but what is relevant today, is the question of resources and the setting of priorities within those finite resources. His view, when he said that such scientific resources could be so used, did not embrace just the forensic science laboratories set up by the Home Office (excellent though they are), but, if necessary, other government laboratories, industrial research and technical laboratories and even the individual specialist. One of the main reasons for the Forensic Science Society continuing to flourish today, as I perceive it, is that its membership is drawn from many professions both in the public and private sector. This flourishing of the Society undoubtedly both feeds off, and contributes to, the high esteem with which the rest of the world regards the standard of forensic science in the United Kingdom. Your Society was formed in 1959, a year that itself was an anniversary of some interest to police officers and forensic scientists. It was the centenary of the birth of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, the author who gave us Sherlock Holmes; Conan Doyle had been born in Edinburgh of Irish parents just a hundred years earlier in 1859. Sherlock Holmes like all of us had his strengths and weaknesses. They were listed by his friend, Dr Watson, in "A Study in Scarlet" [2] and some of them, in Watson's eyes, were: knowledge of Literature-nil; knowledge of Philosophy-nil; knowledge of Astronomy-nil; knowledge of Chemistry-profound. We are a little broader today. At least one Metropolitan Police scientist is a graduate astronomer, and another is studying philosophy. I'm not sure about JFSS 1990; 30(1): 45-52

45

literature; I know we have a few novelists on the police side but I have yet to discover any great poets within the organisation. Holmes, if he had ever lived, would have been a man ahead of his time. Besides having a specialist knowledge of chemistry, he gave great emphasis to shoeprints, even though he didn't know about techniques involving static electricity and the other modern methods which scientists and scenes of crime officers have today.

International co-operation on drugs For all his cleverness, Sherlock Holmes was a drug addict and I wonder why Conan Doyle created him in that way. Was Doyle himself a drug addict or did he just have a fascination for drugs? Holmes, we are told, took both morphine and cocaine, but although opium was already a problem in Victorian times, governments were not too clear in their policy towards it. Opium was recognised as a social evil, but that didn't prevent us going to war with the Chinese to protect the right to trade, knowing full well that the profit was very much enhanced and facilitated through the opium dealing. It was through this that Britain gained its foothold in Hong Kong at that time. Whereas governments were ambivalent then, they are certainly more clear in their attitudes now. The United States, Britain and other countries are providing military and naval support for Colombia, which has been brought to a sorry condition by drugs activities. And the need to take an international view of criminal dealings in drugs is probably one of the main reasons why the Soviet Union has made overtures to join Interpol. It is no longer news to say that drugs are at the root of much criminality, from petty offences through major fraud, day to day violence and murder. Indeed, it is hard to think of areas of criminality not touched or enhanced in seriousness by drugs. An expert readership hardly needs reminding that the drug problem grows and grows; I understand very well what the consequences are for the drug analysts. Apart from the relentless battle to keep up with the work, recruiting and training people at the necessary rate is a gigantic problem. And, behind all these cases that you examine in your laboratories are the hard-pressed police officers endeavouring to keep up with the trafficking and, with other agencies, often dealing with the social consequences of addiction, just one of which is the addicts' involvement in other crime to obtain the cash to purchase more drugs. The entire organisation of drug intelligence operations and drug investigations has changed over the past decade and is, and must be, still changing. One aspect of this was the long campaign to give the courts power to confiscate profits made illegally on drugs. Thanks to public support that option is now available. Another development in the fight against drugs was the formation of the 46

JFSS 1990; 30(1): 45-52

National Drugs Intelligence Unit (NDIU) in August 1985 as a centre for the systematic collection, evaluation and collation of information relating to drug trafficking. It was formed to provide the National Drugs Intelligence Co-ordinator with drug-related intelligence to assist the co-ordination of the operational activities of the police service and HM Customs and Excise, both nationally and internationally; it was also to provide strategic intelligence of drug-related matters to HM Government and facilitate the exchange of information concerning drug trafficking with overseas law enforcement agencies. At the time of the formation of the NDIU, drug investigative wings were attached to Regional Crime Squad officers because of the increasing involvement in drug trafficking by those cross-border and highly mobile criminals who were the traditional targets of the Regional Crime Squads. Liaison officers were also posted in overseas capitals. A cohesive lawenforcement strategy to oppose this burgeoning crime was beginning to emerge. Although it is now much better there is still some way to go. In the Annual Police Foundation lecture, I said that I did not believe the time to be right to consider a European police force (as had been suggested by, amongst others, Chancellor Kohl, of West Germany), nor should we lightly countenance the merging of forces into regions or into a national police force. This could undermine the basic concept of local identity and accountability and dilute the feeling of ownership which many communities have in their own police force. I did, nonetheless, propose that, with 1992 coming perilously close, the time had arrived for there to be a federal or national overlay for the collection and evaluation of crime and criminal intelligence and for the investigation of the most serious of national and international crime. Such would include organised crime, terrorist-related crime, drug trafficking and serious food contamination and extortion cases. One might give thought to the role and structure of the forensic science service should this come about. I noted with interest the statement at the UN General Assembly in New York on 2 November 1989 by Mr Tim Sainsbury, Parliamentary Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, when he said that whilst the present UN drugs bodies perform a valuable role, the UK believes that a single unified body to tackle all aspects of the drugs problem is the answer. I said above that the drugs problem and our response to that problem is changing. It is, as the Parliamentary Under Secretary said, a worldwide problem that cannot be solved by tackling it in one country alone and we need to consider what more can be done to strengthen international co-operation. However, that doesn't only apply to drugs but to international fraud, to terrorism and, I fear, to food contamination and extortion cases as well. With the ease of international movement and the closeness of 1992, can we be sure that the laboratory procedures here in the UK are wholly compatible with those in other countries, particularly in JFSS 1990; 30(1): 45-52

47

Europe? Will the standards and procedures adopted for the examination of drugs, or, say, terrorist paraphernalia, in this country be accepted on the Continent? Would the standards of proof required in, say, a French or German court covering the examination of an exhibit, be acceptable here or will you have to apply a different procedure and duplicate your foreign colleagues' tests, if it is possible, for the benefit of courts in this country? I am aware that forensic scientists are giving thought to this.

Public support and DNA profiling I think it is worth repeating my view that the overwhelming responsibility of the police is to protect and serve every member of the community, and I see no conflict in applying that responsibility and role to the scientific community. Whilst acknowledging the realities of life and the violence so often faced by police officers, I raised in the latter part of 1987 the issue of the style of policing. In order to establish what our customers, the public, expect of us, police and civil staff officers in the Metropolitan Police consulted widely internally and externally with Members of Parliament, with consultative groups, representatives of minority ethnic groups, local authorities, with Church leaders and many others. From this process we formulated and published a Statement of Common Purposes and Values, a succinct statement which set out the desired style of policing and emphasised the importance of the police-public partnership and the need to treat all people equally. The programme we have set ourselves in the Metropolitan area will not be easy, but success will be more likely if police and public alike remember that the foundation stone of policing in this country is embedded in the consent of the community. In saying this I readily realise the dilemma that will be set for the public on occasions before they grant consent. For example, modern advance in forensic science, like DNA profiling, offers the potential for individuals to be identified more quickly and more costeffectively. But will Society want to move towards collections of DNA information being held on everyone so that rapists, murderers and terrorists can be identified, or the innocent person eliminated from enquiries more effectively? DNA profiling poses important questions for us all. Science has now improved our ability to solve crime and Society can be given the benefits. But, as so often is the case, difficult choices will have to be made. Cost is undeniably one factor. And civil liberties questions would certainly arise as they have done before, because the basic issue is not all that dissimilar to suggestions made in the past about fingerprinting. A t the moment the only DNA profiles stored are those from casework, but perhaps it is time to start looking at other options. No attempts are yet made to collect DNA evidence from all sexual 48

JFSS 1990; 30(1): 45-52

offenders, or all people convicted of violent offences. Changes in the law would be necessary and methods for collecting samples would have to be worked out. We know that several states in the USA are working on, or have passed, legislation to allow for the collection of blood samples from convicted sex offenders so that their DNA profiles can be used in databases. California, Colorado, Nevada, Virginia and Washington have gone along that route. In the United Kingdom the technology is in place and Parliament has shown an interest; indeed the Home Affairs Select Committee report in February this year was very encouraging and went so far as to say that they saw no objection in principle to taking a sample for DNA testing, providing that the law was suitably amended, in respect of serious crimes against the person. They recommended that the Home Office, the Forensic Science Service and police should preserve all the available information collected in DNA profiles to date and keep in mind the need to expand the use of the technique as its sophistication develops.

I am told there are many different ways of carrying out DNA profiling. All of them are excellent, but the results from one method, I understand, cannot be compared with results from another. It was important, therefore, to get Europe to agree on a standard method-and to do it quickly before the laboratories in all the different countries started working in different ways. The first meeting to discuss the issue was held in Sunbury-on-Thames on 15 October 1988. The final details were agreed at the meeting at The Hague on 6 October 1989. In a little less than 12 months laboratories in Denmark, Italy, Norway, Switzerland and West Germany had reached agreement with the Home Office laboratories and the Metropolitan Police Forensic Science Laboratory (MPFSL). I understand the Belfast and Strathclyde laboratories are now considering a move in the same direction, as are various laboratories in Sweden and France. This is wider than the European Community; it is truly European and I congratulate the forensic science community on its success and on the speed with which all was accomplished. Collaboration between police and forensic scientists An example of collaboration which time and again is having success in the most serious forms of crime is what we call the Serious Crimes Unit. I know there is some question about the name, but leaving that aside, their results are extremely impressive. For those not familiar with the Serious Crimes Unit at the MPFSL, this is a group containing scientists, forensic photographers and fingerprint specialists who work as a very loosely-knit team on major cases. Using a range of chemical and other advanced methods they are able to find fingermarks which traditional methods simply cannot find. These methods are admittedly expensive and demanding in manpower, so there is no question of using them at everyday crime scenes. But when we have terrorism to investigate, or especially gruesome or nasty offences of JFSS 1990; 30(1): 45-52

49

other kinds, as police officers we need all the help we can get. It is staggering and enormously encouraging to discover how successful these modern techniques can be. Certainly I hope they soon become more widely available throughout the United Kingdom and beyond. As I said before, although real success like this is always a pleasure to see, what I particularly want to bring out in this instance is the benefit of good collaboration across the disciplines: first-class scientists, photographers and fingerprint experts working together. The criminal, no matter where he is, is our common enemy and we will only defeat him if we work together. A talk to forensic scientists under the title of "Working Together" would not be complete without a mention of what is known colloquially as the Byford Scientist. The name was coined after Sir Lawrence Byford, who reviewed the Yorkshire Ripper investigation when he was HM Chief Inspector of Constabulary. His proposal was that some of our most experienced scientists should be trained for a special role. To control the drain on laboratory staff, this special role was to be restricted to series of major crimes involving two or more adjacent police forces when an officer of Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) rank has been nominated, through agreement of the Chief Officers concerned, as the Officer in Overall Command. Sir Lawrence Byford's idea was that in these very demanding cases, a scientist would be attached to the investigating team and would be there to advise on all aspects of the scientific investigation. But he or she would not be part of the scientific team examining the evidence. The concept of the permanent scientific adviser was that of a laboratory-on-twofeet able to advise on the scientific courses of action and put them into effect.

I know that scientists have since been attached to various investigations. Probably the most infamous of these was the case of the "Fox", in which the Head of Biology at the Huntingdon Forensic Science Laboratory, Graham Craddock, was attached to the investigation. It may be instructive to review the achievements in the Fox enquiry. A total of 83 crimes committed over a period of approximately 6 months was cleared up. The scientific adviser brought a scientifically trained mind to bear on the problems of a major investigation and as a result of his work and that of the casework forensic scientists, various scenes of crime were linked together by toolmarks, shoemarks, body fluids and fibres. The type of vehicle used by the rapist was identified from small particles of paint and from damage to, and the amount of room between, trees in a copse where the vehicle had been parked. I am very encouraged to hear now that we have gone further and a few scientists are starting to attend courses at Bramshill Police Staff College alongside senior detective officers who may one day find themselves in 50

JFSS 1990; 30(1): 45-52

positions of overall command. One of the Carousel courses at Bramshill is on "The Management of Serious and Series Crime Investigations". It can only be a move in the right direction for the scientist to attend the same course, and to become familiar with a command centre ahead of a real event. I can see that the police officers on the Bramshill course will also benefit. Scientists usually do contribute as lecturers, but with a scientist on the course as a fellow student there will be an added incentive for the police officer in particular to question what science can really contribute and in what circumstances it might pay to request the attachment of a scientist to a major enquiry. It will not surprise me if some of those police officers eventually request the attachment of the same scientist with whom they developed a relationship on the Bramshill course. The whole concept of the Byford Scientist is very challenging from the police point of view and the presence of police officers and scientists on the same training course is a positive step towards encouraging closer mutual collaboration. I am a strong believer in the need to make police activities more open and accessible. When I was Chief Constable of Thames Valley Constabulary I was criticised strongly for allowing television cameras to see how rape victims were treated. It was put to me that instead of improving our image we had scored an own goal. But we must now look and see what has transpired. Partly as a result, we now have rape suites and women have choices about who will examine them. If they want a woman doctor, that is a wish we now try to take into account. Progress in more sensitive dealings with rape victims has also led to a better approach with child victims of sexual abuse. I know the forensic science community has done a great deal to help the police improve the quality of customer service in these areas and would like to say that the police service greatly appreciates all your past and continuing efforts. Since then we have had a series on forensic science and another on the Flying Squad. At present a series is being produced in which cameras are going to murder scenes and will follow the investigation through to a conclusion. As with "Duty Man", which was a very popular series on HM Customs and Excise, we do run into problems about how much it is wise to reveal about our working methods. There is no right answer, but I do know that most of our police officers and members of civil staff are enthusiasts for their work and committed to the jobs they do. It is most important, in my opinion, to let the public see this. They like to see it and I think it gives them some reassurance. We must be careful, of course, not to undermine our ability to solve crime, but on the whole I remain convinced that these gestures of police openness are well worthwhile. As the theme of the Autumn Scientific meeting is Fire Investigation, it would be appropriate for me to include a few words on this topic in my JFSS 1990; 30(1): 45-52

51

address. I have been pleased to see the progress of the liaison group comprising fire brigade officers, police officers and forensic scientists in my own area, the Metropolitan Police District, in recent years. Members of the Metropolitan Police Forensic Science Laboratory and the London Fire Brigade have already talked about liaison between our two services and I shall merely accord my support for this excellent example of working together. I am sure that I can safely say that co-operation between fire brigade, police and forensic scientists in London has never been better.

Conclusion There is increasing pressure on police forces in the United Kingdom to demonstrate "Value for Money" in the use of all their resources, with particular emphasis on manpower. Having talked about successes and developments in fields as diverse as our approach to the drugs problem nationally and internationally, the Byford scientist, the Serious Crimes Unit, the applications of DNA profiling, and also touching upon liaison between the fire, police and scientific services in fire investigation, it is encouraging to think that the use of these initiatives may help ultimately to reduce pressures on manpower and increase overall police effectiveness. The common theme in what I have had to say has been to do with the partnership between the police and those associated with forensic science and what I believe to be the common aim of both sides to give the public the service they deserve. Finally, I think it appropriate to give the answer to a question that was put to me some time ago by the Director of the Metropolitan Police Forensic Science Laboratory and some of his senior colleagues: "What is it that the police most want from forensic scientists?". We could, of course, list many things but perhaps one thing is more important than any other. We want you to remain impartial. Not easy I know; you too get caught up in the excitement of the chase, but it is absolutely essential that you retain your objectivity. I know that you will, but I add my support to the comments made by a former president of the Forensic Science Society, Dr WJ Rodger when, in an earlier JB Firth Memorial Lecture, he said that the full potential of forensic science should be directed towards convincing the guilty and protecting the innocent [3].

References 1. Firth JB. Criminal aspects of forensic science in Great Britain. Journal of the Forensic Science Society 1960; 1: 3. 2. Doyle AC. A Study in Scarlet. London: Penguin Books Ltd, 1981. 3. Rodger WJ. Forensic science-policy option. Journal of the Forensic Science Society 1986; 26: 69-78. 52

JFSS 1990; 30(1): 45-52