Skip to main content
 
 
 

Provision of Footwear Evidence: Did you know?

Provision of Footwear Evidence: Did you know?

History

Prior to its closure in March 2012, the Forensic Science Service (FSS) had nearly 70 qualified experts in the area of footwear mark comparisons.  FSS scientists undertook extensive training and mentoring to do this type of work and their findings were quality checked by another expert prior to a report or statement being issued.  Footwear evidence is now produced by private forensic science providers and by in-house units in police forces.  The number of people providing the prosecution with information or 'evidence' in this area is now much higher and their level of training, experience and expertise appears much more thinly spread.

The changing role of police footwear units

Many police forces initially set up footwear units purely to provide basic intelligence to investigators and to screen out ineffective submissions to forensic science providers.  This work was traditionally carried out in-force by staff without specialist knowledge.  Some forces have extended this role to the provision of 'evidential' statements, but not publicised the fact that the staff doing it may not be true experts in this field.  The police staff employed to undertake these roles receive training from various sources, however, almost without exception, the training is not to the same 'expert' level as that required by staff working within the major forensic science providers.  Some of these individuals now give evidence in court.

The National Policing Improvement Agency (NPIA) has taken the lead on providing training for police staff in this area, but much of this training has not been delivered by recognised experts in the field and trainees may feel that they return, virtually unsupported, to isolated units after having only a few weeks of training.  With the demise of the FSS and the changing forensic market, some acknowledged footwear experts have migrated into various police forces.  Many feel relatively isolated or are operating in roles with far more responsibility than they formerly had or were trained for.  Some forces also do not have sufficient 'experts' for the 'evidence' they produce to be independently checked.  Whilst having an in-force footwear examination capability saves time and makes intelligence much speedier, it also appears to save a force a considerable amount of money.

Keith Borer Consultants is increasingly encountering prosecution statements from individuals who are clearly not experts in this area of forensic science and we have found a number of cases where the prosecution footwear evidence has been inaccurate or unreliable when checked.  Some of these deficiencies have been brought to the attention of the Forensic Regulator.

Footwear examination – the comparison stage

Footwear examinations involve two clear stages, first the comparison of the scene marks and the footwear and, secondly, the estimation of the evidential value of the correspondence found between them (i.e. the interpretation of the evidence).  Keith Borer Consultants has encountered problems with comparisons, such as poor or no photography of the scene marks, poor comparison techniques and lack of contemporaneous notes.

Footwear examination – the interpretation stage

Having carried out a comparison, a competent footwear scientist should be able to explain why they think the correspondence is significant and to justify the strength of opinion they have assigned to the evidence.  They should be able to describe the effects of pattern variation and frequencies, size and wear variation and the significance of the correspondence in damage features and explain how this helps to discriminate footwear of different pattern types and within a pattern type.

The NPIA maintains the National Footwear Reference Collection (NFRC) and provides the police and some forensic providers with electronic access to this.  Police forces often have very extensive local collections of footwear impressions they have taken from suspects in custody.  This type of information gives an indication of the relative frequency with which a particular pattern of shoe occurs within people suspected of involvement in crime within a particular area.  This data has its limitations and needs to be used sensibly, for example pattern frequency of shoes from people suspected of burglary may have little relevance in a rape case, nevertheless the evaluation of such data forms part of the interpretation process.

Similarly, by reference to hard copies (i.e. test impressions) of a range of different sizes and states of wear for a particular pattern, a scientist can see, for example, how a size 7 is different to a size 8 over the area of the crime scene mark, or how the shaped blocks on a shoe sole change with wear.  By using all of this information, a good scientist can tell if a pattern is unusual, if only a small size range of shoe could have made the scene mark, and if the wear correspondence is highly distinctive or common to most shoes of a particular pattern.  Worryingly, KBC has encountered problems with the evaluation of evidence and, in some cases, there is little evidence of any interpretation as such, merely a statement of an evidential strength in the case notes with no explanation as to how it has been reached.

In our experience only around 10% of footwear comparisons provide conclusive evidence that a particular shoe made a particular scene mark.  So for 90% of cases, the level of evidence obtained is only supportive.  There is no universally accepted method or formula to determine the evidential strength of the observed footwear mark correspondence.  The evidential significance depends on the degree of discrimination you are likely to obtain over the area of a scene mark in terms of pattern, size and wear.  For some marks/patterns, the discrimination is high and the evidential significance great, for others it is low and the likelihood of a coincidental match much greater.

Court of Appeal – impact on interpretation

Following the landmark judgement in the case of R v T ([2010] EWCA Crim 2439) in October 2010, many footwear examiners now state that they carry out their interpretations on the basis of their 'experience and expertise'.  In truth, some people have very little of either, but this is not often apparent from the various types of reports/statements produced.  As footwear mark comparisons can be done to many levels/standards, it is vital to ensure that the true value of the 'evidence' is established.

Points of note

Many people can do a reasonable comparison of the crime scene marks and the suspect’s footwear, given a degree of training, but assigning any evidential strength to the observed correspondence and being able to explain and justify it is a very different matter.

Asking some simple questions about a person’s training and their true level of experience and expertise can be very illuminating.  Even accepting that your client’s footwear corresponds to a degree with a crime scene mark, what you really need to know, in some detail, is whether the same mark could have been made by another pattern of shoe, or could have been made by a shoe two sizes larger or smaller than your clients shoe, or whether a significant percentage of shoes of this pattern type would have more or less the same appearance in terms of wear, as your client’s.  With answers to these questions, one can then move onto the rather arguable issue of the evidential strength.

Alan Henderson, Forensic Scientist

Tweets by @KBCforensics 

Subscribe To Mailing List

To unsubscribe click here

What our customers say...

  • Your report is fantastic and much appreciated.

    Private client - April 2019
  • We have been using your services for a number of years and have always been very happy with the service provided.

    Solicitor - April 2019
  • Service was excellent throughout.

    Solicitor, August 2020
  • No question was too silly and everything was explained so clearly and easily; great customer service.

    Private instruction, September 2020
  • Value for money.

    Solicitor, May 2020
  • Simon Bunter is as good an expert as I have ever worked with.

    Barrister, December 2019
  • We have used KBC on many occasions in the past and have always had a reliable service.

    Solicitor, April 2020
  • Quick, efficient and professional.

    Solicitor - February 2019
  • We have always received professional and high standards of services. Reports are produced promptly and communications responded to without delay.

    Solicitor, September 2020
  • I was able to have a meaningful conversation with a specialist when obtaining a quote for the work.

    Solicitor, June 2020
  • Fast service; timely response to communication.

    Solicitor, January 2020
  • Extremely good customer service and continuous contact/support.

    Solicitor, November 2019
  • Quick, professional, friendly, comprehensive.

    Prison Governor, June 2020
  • I have had the pleasure of the assistance of Mike Appleby on a number of occasions now and he is an excellent man to have around. 

    Counsel, March 2020
  • Really happy with all aspects of this case and would definitely recommend this company. Thank you.

    Private instruction, September 2020
  • I have to thank you for all the help you have given me in preparing for this and in giving your evidence, which I think was very convincing and went a long way to this acquittal. 

    Solicitor - March 2019
  • Alan Henderson was a very knowledgeable witness, clearly very familiar with his subject matter and capable of explaining it too. I would not hesitate to use him in the future.

    Barrister, August 2019
  • I found the quality of the report very high, and I am aware that Dr Davey had to work hard to hit the deadline because of other commitments.

    Solicitor – January 2019
  • Communication and speed of delivery of information was, as always, excellent.

    Solicitor, April 2020
  • Consistently reliable. Reports are very easy to read.

    Solicitor – July 2019
  • I used Andrew Dampier for a cell site case and he was exceptional.

    Barrister, November 2020
  • I found Mr Prime to be a very good natured and competent expert witness who presented well in the witness box.

    Barrister – July 2019
  • Easy access to experts; excellent communication and advice, as required.

    Solicitor, September 2020
  • Extremely prompt service.

    Solicitor – July 2019
  • Excellent reports within Legal Aid rates.

    Solicitor, November 2019
  • Eager to assist at very short notice and very helpful on the phone.

    Solicitor – May 2019
  • Quick, expert and accurate.

    Solicitor, July 2020
  • We have used your services for some time and are very satisfied.

    Solicitor, November 2019
  • We have been instructing KBC for the last 20 years or so, and they are listed as our first choice on our database. I have never had any cause for complaint and the experts have always acted with integrity and professionalism.

    Solicitor – January 2019
  • Always a pleasure working with you guys; our first choice for instruction.

    Solicitor, November 2019
  • Many thanks for your very helpful and professional report.

    Solicitor – June 2019
  • Found the service to be extremely helpful, given the timeframe in which the report was required.

    Solicitor, January 2020
  • I have worked with Mr Donnelly in many cases over the years and his expertise, presentation of written work and ability in the witness box is second to none.

    Counsel, November 2020
  • Prompt and Professional and produces excellent reports.

    Solicitor, September 2020
  • Mike Appleby's exceptional quality was noted by all of the Counsel involved in the case. It is always a pleasure to watch someone, who is good at something, doing it and doing it well.

    Barrister, December 2019
  • Good service, prompt, efficient, have used many times in the past.

    Solicitor, April 2020
  • There are times when DNA evidence can be a little dry, but Mike Appleby's presentation and delivery to the jury was pitch perfect.

    Barrister, December 2019
  • I will definitely use Dr Schudel in the future and will be recommending him to my colleagues.

    Counsel, March 2020
  • A thorough analysis, with well set out conclusions.

    Solicitor, July 2020
  • I was delighted by Mrs Tweedy's professional and thorough approach.

    Mr Saltrese - September 2019
  • I am very impressed by your service.

    Solicitor, February 2020
  • Overall helpful and efficient service.

    Solicitor, September 2019
  • It is always easy to contact KBC and to get a prompt reply.

    Solicitor – July 2019
  • I was told you were the best at what you did. I honestly believe I got what was required.

    Private client, July 2020
  • Mr Armstrong was very professional and presented his analysis to the Jury in a very helpful way.

    Barrister – July 2019
  • Prompt attention to dealing with queries and providing information and reports.

    Solicitor, March 2020
  • Prompt and efficient handling of initial enquiries and arrangements to inspect Prosecution exhibits.

    Solicitor - March 2019
  • Thanks to Sarah Morley for her help: her evidence was very important in bringing this case to justice and it is greatly appreciated.

    Solicitor - August 2019
  • There is no question that your input was instrumental in persuading the Defendants to alter their stance.

    Solicitor, September 2020
  • Knowledgeable, helpful and polite.

    Solicitor, June 2020
  • Karl Ebejer was always prompt with responses and was very helpful.

    Solicitor, August 2020
  • We were kept updated throughout the process and the report was provided promptly.

    Solicitor, January 2020
  • Please pass on my thanks to Emma Youngson for the speed at which she completed the report; I am very grateful.

    Solicitor - July 2019
  • I was very impressed both with the clarity of Dr Davey’s report to the layperson, and her even-handedness. The objective tone of the report and the fact that the opposing party’s expert agreed with the analysis gave Dr. Davey’s evidence a huge amount of credibility. I would recommend her to anyone in need of similar evidence and have no doubt that her evidence was vital to us winning the case.

    Diarmuid Laffan, Barrister - June 2019
  • Excellent, as usual.

    Solicitor, September 2020
  • Reasonably priced compared to other experts.

    Solicitor – May 2019
  • Just a very high quality, professional service.

    Solicitor, December 2019
  • Mr Beatson was very helpful and professional, clearly with a wide range of knowledge and understanding.

    Solicitor, March 2020
  • Mr Dampier made an incredibly complicated matter easy to understand.

    Barrister, February 2020
  • Mr Armstrong impressed throughout the trial as a real expert in his field. It was apparent too that Mr Armstrong was entirely impartial.

    Counsel, March 2020
  • Simon Bunter is extraordinarily knowledgeable, remarkably efficient and a wonderful communicator. I cannot recommend him highly enough.

    Barrister, December 2019
  • Prompt provision of report and prompt reply to queries.

    Solicitor, November 2019
  • Very fast, professional, easy to instruct.

    Solicitor, November 2019
  • Mr Ebejer was always very professional and friendly.

    Solicitor, August 2020
  • Easy to find on Google and seemed like decent, legitimate company at decent price.

    Private client - March 2019
  • Always try to instruct, if possible, due to excellent service provided.

    Solicitor, September 2019
  • Mr Brown was an impressive witness. As far as I am concerned, you can give him full marks all round.

    Counsel, March 2020
  • I would like to thank you both for all your help on this case, and the tasks you had to perform at short notice.  Your assistance was greatly appreciated.

    Solicitor - May 2019
  • Please pass on my gratitude to Mr Marryat for being able to compile a report in such a quick turnaround. Much appreciated.

    Solicitor, August 2019
  • Very quick turnaround, with attention to detail and helpful comments.

    Solicitor, January 2020
  • Thank you for getting back to me so quickly. This is exactly what we needed.

    Solicitor – July 2019
  • Both our client and I were very impressed by your expert evidence. I will be singing your praises for years to come.

    Solicitor – July 2019
  • We find you reliable and expeditious.

    Solicitor – July 2019
  • Service had a quick turnaround and any queries were quickly addressed.

    Solicitor - March 2019
  • Clear information about cost, speed and efficiency of report.

    Solicitor - March 2019
  • I can say that I am very satisfied with the service I have received from KBC, starting with my initial phone call and interaction your colleague when I made my initial enquiry, right up to the report being received. I would certainly use KBC again and would recommend you to my colleagues.

    Solicitor, January 2020
  • I have instructed you for many years and always find yourselves to be helpful, efficient and reports are prepared in an easy to digest format.

    Solicitor, October 2019
  • Swift service.

    Solicitor, March 2020
  • We have used KBC for many years: always helpful, plenty of experts & LAA seems to be happy with estimates for CRM4 application purposes.

    Solicitor - August 2019
  • Helpful, speedy and good quality.

    Solicitor – May 2019
  • Easy to use BAC calculation form, fast turn around.

    Solicitor, September 2019
  • Regular contact, advice on hand via phone if necessary, prompt and efficient.

    Solicitor, August 2020
  • Mr Prime reported to us with great efficiency and presented his evidence to the Jury in an extremely persuasive manner.

    Counsel, March 2020
  • Quick, efficient service and a well-prepared report.

    Solicitor, July 2020
  • We are very grateful to Mr Marryat for all the hard work he has done for us.

    Solicitor – June 2019
  • Mr Appleby was truly excellent. While giving evidence it was plain that he has achieved the perfect blend of clarity and authoritative charisma.

    Barrister, December 2019
  • Thank you for your hard work in this case and for the prompt responses. 

    Barrister, March 2020
  • I am really grateful for your assistance in this case; I am sure it made the pivotal difference.

    Solicitor – May 2019
  • Mrs Allan gave extremely clear evidence.

    Barrister – July 2019
  • The Evidence given by Mr Dunnill resulted in the trial of issue being found in the client's favour, thereby avoiding immediate custodial sentence.

    Barrister, August 2019
  • We would be extremely grateful if you could thank Ms Gray again for her incredible report.

    Solicitor - March 2019
  • Jenny Gray was excellent and very helpful throughout.

    Barrister, November 2019
  • Your service was exemplary.

    Solicitor – January 2019
  • Brilliant communication, my emails were promptly answered.

    Private instruction, September 2020
  • Telephone communications were very helpful when we were not able to contact the expert directly. The call takers were knowledgeable as to the case and what was required and answered any queries we had.

    Solicitor, September 2020
  • Easy to contact, quick responses (particularly in the current circumstances), very helpful staff.

    Solicitor, April 2020
  • I found the service to be very professional throughout.

    Solicitor, October 2019
  • Efficient and very responsive.

    Solicitor - April 2019
  • Quality service, helpful staff, prompt reports.  Our company has used Keith Borer Consultants for many years.

    Solicitor - February 2019
  • Complete satisfaction with services.

    Solicitor, September 2019
  • Jenny Gray acted with the utmost integrity throughout. This was noted in open court by the judge hearing the case.

    Solicitor, October 2019
  • I chose this company, as the first point of contact was extremely helpful.

    Private instruction, September 2020
  • Quick and efficient; and well laid out report.

    Solicitor, November 2019
  • Excellent client care and service.

    Solicitor, August 2020
  • Clear communication, very good advice, good quality of forensic report.

    Solicitor – January 2019

Keith Borer Consultants is a division of Orchid Cellmark Ltd, a company registered in England at 16 Blacklands Way, Abingdon, OX14 1DY.

Registered No. 4045527; VAT registration No. GB 750 0292 64

Website developed by Problue Solutions