Evidence work · our position, Plymouth
Device forensics and CCTV recovery have been included in the Forensic Science Regulator's statutory Code since 2 October 2023, and ISO/IEC 17025 is the standard set by that Code. We do not hold this accreditation. What the Code covers is criminal work in England and Wales. Civil claims, family cases, employment matters and insurance work fall outside it. Which side your matter falls on is decided 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 applies to a named scope, so when asking about accreditation, ask about the scope | No. No UKAS schedule stands in this laboratory's name |
| Criminal matter, or civil one? | The statutory Code reaches only the criminal side | We advise you which it is, and when to instruct somebody else |
| Who runs it, and who signs it off? | Under the civil rules, reports have to name whoever carried out the examination | A single named examiner, and that same person signs |
| Will the limits go in writing? | Any limit missing from your report is one the other side will find for you | They go into the report itself |
| Which method, and can it be run again? | No-one can verify an examination that was never documented | Documentation of how the examination was performed, hash values, and notes taken at the bench |
Call us and tell us as much or as little as you like. The call costs nothing. It needs to establish what the matter is: what happened, which devices and accounts are involved, and what question the evidence has to answer. That defines the scope. One written figure follows from it, and you get that before anything is opened.
A hardware write blocker is inserted into the data path before any file is read, and an exact sector-by-sector copy of the original is taken behind it. Not a byte on the original shifts. The courts focus on this point first, and it is one that can be demonstrated rather than just stated.
MD5 and SHA-256 are generated as the image is created, then again from the finished file. Each item receives its own exhibit reference. Notes are typed at the bench while the work is going on, rather than reconstructed from memory two weeks later.
Each step is listed in order, along with the tool used and its version, so a second examiner can repeat all of it. Where the material answers nothing, or answers only with a qualification attached, the report says that as well.
Anything the other side can't check is something to argue over. So we put together a bundle that can be checked: exhibit references, the images each finding was read from, every handover with its date, hash values, and the notes made during the examination. Their own examiner can repeat the work and reach the same result.
How small the regulated field is: in its annual report for 2024/25 the Regulator reported 33 organisations providing DIG 300, which is the recovery of CCTV and video. Three of these are commercial providers, one is a government body, and twenty-nine are police forces. Indicative compliance across the group was 59%. DIG 301 (specialist video analysis covering speed, distance and identification) was provided by 43 organisations; compliance was 19%; and no organisation holds accreditation for the specialist analysis sub-activities. Therefore the total number of commercial suppliers for this regulated activity across England and Wales is just three companies.
An employment matter. The accreditation position formed part of the opening section of the report, above the method, rather than being buried in a footnote. The solicitor acting for the opposing party reviewed it, raised two questions about the imaging, and did nothing further. By the time of the hearing, nobody was arguing about when the files had moved.
No. There is no ISO/IEC 17025 accreditation here, and there is no UKAS schedule in this laboratory's name. It appears on page one of every report we produce. Nothing prevents us from carrying out the work, and a court will still read what we write, but the other side are entitled to know, so we place it up front rather than wait to be asked.
Not on that ground alone. Under the 2021 Act, failure to follow the Code does not of itself mean anybody is liable for anything. The Code is admissible in evidence, and a court can take account of the failure.
The Forensic Science Regulator Act 2021, at section 11, ties the regime to criminal investigation in England and Wales and to evidence used before a criminal court there. All civil claims, family cases, employment tribunals and insurance matters 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 case falls.
No. The police framework for video evidence sets a boundary between viewing footage as part of an investigation and analysing images (speed, distance, height, comparing a face or a vehicle), leaving the second to specialists operating under ISO 17025. Our role is to recover the footage, convert it and hand it over with the continuity record. We give no opinion on what a measurement proves.
It is a reasonable thing to ask anybody, including us, and the true answer should be on the table before any work starts, not afterwards. Begin here. The first look is free, and what you tell us goes no further.