Evidence work · where we stand, Hull
On 2 October 2023 the Forensic Science Regulator's statutory Code reached device forensics and CCTV recovery, and the standard it sets is ISO/IEC 17025. We do not hold it. That Code governs criminal work in England and Wales. Civil, family, employment and insurance matters sit outside it, and we tell you at the start which side yours is on.
Ring us, in confidence
0800 6890668
| The question | Why it is worth asking | The answer we give |
|---|---|---|
| Are you accredited, and for what? | Accreditation is granted for a defined scope, so the scope is the answer | No. There is no UKAS schedule in our name |
| Is this matter criminal or civil? | Only the criminal side is inside the statutory Code | We say which, and say when to go elsewhere |
| Who does the work, and who signs it? | The civil rules make a report name whoever ran the examination | One examiner, named, and the same one signs |
| Will you write down what you cannot do? | Limits left out of a report are limits the other side gets to find | They are written into the report |
| What method, and can it be repeated? | An examination nobody wrote down is one nobody can check | A written method, hashes, notes as we work |
It begins with a conversation in confidence, and there is no charge for it. Three answers shape the rest: what happened, how far it reaches — the machines, the accounts — and what the evidence has to prove. Between them they fix the scope. The scope fixes the one written price, and you have that before any device is touched.
Before a file is read, a hardware write blocker goes in line and a sector-by-sector image comes off. Nothing on the original moves. That is the first thing a court tests, and it is a thing you can demonstrate rather than assert.
MD5 and SHA-256 are taken as the image is made and again off the finished file. Every item carries an exhibit reference. Notes are typed at the bench while the work runs, not assembled from memory a fortnight later.
What was done is set out step by step, with the tool and the version named, so another examiner can run it again. Where the material would answer nothing, or answer only in a qualified way, that goes in the report too.
A report nobody can test is worth little. So the bundle carries the working with it: every exhibit, the images it was read from, a log of each handover, the hash of everything, and what was written down at the time. The other side's expert can repeat it and land where we did.
How thin the regulated market is: the Regulator's annual report for 2024–25 counts 33 organisations carrying out DIG 300, the recovery of CCTV and video. Twenty-nine of them are police forces, one is a government body, and three are commercial providers. Indicative compliance across that group was 59%. For DIG 301, the specialist video analysis that covers speed, distance and identification, 43 organisations were counted, compliance ran at 19%, and no organisation at all holds accreditation for the specialist analysis sub-activities. So the commercial side of regulated CCTV work in England and Wales is three companies.
An employment matter, and the report opened with the accreditation position, above the method rather than buried in a footnote. The solicitor on the other side read it, put two questions about the imaging, and left it there. By the hearing, the dates the files moved were not in dispute.
No. We hold no ISO/IEC 17025 accreditation and there is no UKAS schedule in our name. It is on page one of every report we write. It does not stop us doing this work, and it does not stop a court reading the report, but it is a fact the other side is entitled to have, so we hand it over first rather than waiting to be asked.
Not by itself. The 2021 Act says a failure to follow the Code does not on its own make anyone liable to anything. The Code is admissible, and a court may take the failure into account.
Section 11 of the Forensic Science Regulator Act 2021 ties the regime to the detection and investigation of crime in England and Wales, and to evidence in criminal proceedings there. Civil claims, family proceedings, employment tribunals and insurance matters fall outside it. That is most of what reaches this bench, and we say plainly which side yours is on.
No. The police framework for video evidence separates investigative viewing of footage from image analysis — speed, distance, height, facial or vehicle comparison — and puts the second with specialists working under ISO 17025. We recover footage, convert it and hand it over with the continuity record. We do not offer an opinion on what a measurement shows.
It is a fair question to put to us as much as anyone, and the honest answer belongs on the table before the work begins, not after. Log a job. The first look costs nothing, and what you tell us stays private.