Evidence work · our position, Plymouth
Device forensics and CCTV recovery came within the Forensic Science Regulator's statutory Code on 2 October 2023, and ISO/IEC 17025 is the standard that Code sets. We do not hold it. What the Code governs is criminal work in England and Wales; civil claims, family cases, employment matters and insurance work all lie beyond it. Which side your matter falls is something we settle with you on the first call.
A quiet word first?
0800 6890668
| Ask this | Why it matters | Our answer |
|---|---|---|
| Accredited, and for what exactly? | Accreditation only ever covers a named scope, so the scope is what to ask about | No. No UKAS schedule stands in this laboratory's name |
| Criminal matter, or civil one? | The statutory Code reaches only the criminal side | We tell you which, and when to instruct somebody else |
| Who runs it, and who signs it off? | Under the civil rules a report has to name whoever carried out the examination | A single named examiner, and that same person signs |
| Will the limits go in writing? | A limit missing from the report is a limit the other side will find for you | They go into the report itself |
| Which method, and can it be run again? | Nobody can check an examination that was never written down | The method in writing, hashes, and notes taken at the bench |
Ring us and say as much or as little as you like; the call itself is not charged for. What it has to settle is the shape of the matter — what took place, which machines and accounts it reaches, and the question the evidence must answer. That is the scope. One written figure follows from it, and you have that before anything is opened.
A hardware write blocker goes in line before any file is read, and a sector-by-sector image comes off behind it. Not a byte on the original shifts. Courts test that point first, and it is one you can demonstrate rather than simply assert.
MD5 and SHA-256 come off as the image is made, then again from the finished file. Each item carries its own exhibit reference. Notes get typed at the bench while the work is going on, rather than reconstructed from memory a fortnight afterwards.
Each step is set out in order, with the tool named and its version given, so a second examiner can repeat the whole of it. Where the material answers nothing, or answers only with a qualification attached, the report says that as well.
Anything the other side cannot check is worth arguing about. So the bundle is built to be checked: the exhibit references, the images each finding was read from, every handover with a date on it, the hashes, and the notes written while the work was going on. Their own examiner can repeat the work and land in the same place.
How small the regulated field is: in its annual report for 2024–25 the Regulator counted 33 organisations doing DIG 300, which is the recovery of CCTV and video. Of those, three are commercial providers, one is a government body, and the remaining twenty-nine are police forces. Indicative compliance across the group came out at 59%. DIG 301 — the specialist video analysis covering speed, distance and identification — was counted at 43 organisations, compliance ran at 19%, and not one organisation holds accreditation for the specialist analysis sub-activities. Which puts the whole commercial side of this regulated activity, across England and Wales, at three companies.
An employment matter. The accreditation position opened the report, set above the method instead of tucked into a footnote. The solicitor acting on the other side read it, raised two questions about the imaging, and took it no further. By the time of the hearing nobody was arguing about the dates the files had moved.
No. There is no ISO/IEC 17025 accreditation here and no UKAS schedule in this laboratory's name. It sits on page one of every report we produce. Nothing about it bars us from the work, and a court will still read what we write, but the other side is entitled to know, so we put it up front rather than wait to be asked.
Not on that ground alone. Under the 2021 Act, failing to follow the Code does not by itself render anybody liable to anything. The Code is admissible in evidence, and a court is free to take the failure into account.
The Forensic Science Regulator Act 2021 anchors the regime, at its section 11, to criminal investigation in England and Wales, and to evidence put before a criminal court there. Civil claims, family cases, employment tribunals and insurance matters all sit beyond that boundary. Most of what reaches this bench does, and on the first call we say which side of that line your own matter falls.
No. The police framework for video evidence draws a line between viewing footage as part of an investigation and analysing images — speed, distance, height, comparing a face or a vehicle — and leaves the second to specialists operating under ISO 17025. Our part is recovering the footage, converting it, and handing it over with the continuity record. We give no opinion on what a measurement proves.
It is a fair question to put to anyone, us included, and the honest answer belongs on the table before the work starts, not after. Start it here. The first look is free, and what you tell us goes no further.