Thanks for including the CDR link - and highlighting the fact that these records do not include any measure of RSSI, which is key to my appreciation of what can/cant be achieved in terms of assessing consistency of records with statements.
I am interested to find that you would/do consider clutter/foliage and even terrain models, and the Doble quote is particularly interesting regarding its mention of rain-covered leaves and their potential pertinence. I appreciate that in discussing the path loss from a single MS to BTS we are looking at a limited set of the overall system features and functionality (and that 3G has a whole set of different aspects/issues than GSM), but this has been a helpful focus.
Thank you for an interesting and useful discussion.
Phil.
Thanks for including the CDR link - and highlighting the fact that these records do not include any measure of RSSI, which is key to my appreciation of what can/cant be achieved in terms of assessing consistency of records with statements.
I am not suggesting you cannot get engineering information and other composite records (it largely depends as to the type of case under investigation), but the historical records seen in evidence do not contain received signal strength indicator (RSSI).
I am interested to find that you would/do consider clutter/foliage and even terrain models, and the Doble quote is particularly interesting regarding its mention of rain-covered leaves and their potential pertinence.
Cell site analysis has never been about going to site, running tests and forming an opinion from the results that coverage from a particular Mast is detected there; ergo it is consistent with the mobile phone in question being there. That coverage may not have been there previously. That could be because, in a dense urban setting, a new building but with no vegetation/foliage in the area can can produce a radio barrier. The reverse of the above scenario, of course, demolishing a building can generate coverage in area where it was not there previously. So that is one reason for landscape clutter/models.
Another is taking the good point you raised at the outset Phil about seasonal effect (Spring and Autumn), this can be analogous to the new build/demolished building scenario. Freeman raises the issue of attentuation through vegetation having marshalled the propagation data he writes in Radio System Design
"The curves represent the approximate average for all types of woodland for frequencies up to 3GHz. When the attentuation inside such woodland become large (i.e., > 30dB), the possibility of diffraction or surface modes has to be considered (Ref 14)." Reference 14 refers to Attentuation in Vegetation CCIR Rec. 833, RPN Series, CCIR, Geneva 1992.
This is why I drew reference to a Pine Wooded area. Firstly, because during my radio tests signal strength dropped by 33dB relative when testing one side of the wooded area and the quality indicator nearly dropped through the floor. The other side of the wooded area introduced a surprise. It came up in a case near Kings Lynn some years ago where Vodafone coverage had swept over the flat lands of Cambridgeshire and upto the wooded area in Kings Lynn presenting itself as usable coverage in a gladed area of the Pine Wood, close to the location of interest.
So cases like the above also require the examiner to equally have awareness about and know the difference between 'back-stop' and 'hard-limit'.
Hope that provides just a little further clarification for clutter/foliage.
I appreciate that in discussing the path loss from a single MS to BTS we are looking at a limited set of the overall system features and functionality (and that 3G has a whole set of different aspects/issues than GSM).
Yes, absolutely hard handover -v- soft handover; cell boundary -v- cell breathing; near/far effect -v- diversity etc etc etc
UK Criminal Evidence DelaysIt is the lawful duty, so we are told, of the prosecution to look at, examine and retain a copy of all evidence (e.g. tests and results) and to conduct an assessment of risk, which is the principle enunciated in the "Golden Rule" by none other than Lord Bingham.
Greg
Whilst I cannot in anyway challenge your encyclopedic knowledge of mobile phone technology I have to suggest that your interpretation of the prosecution duties is a little unclear.
The prosecution put forward whatever "evidence" they consider is sufficient to mount a successful prosecution.
Other than that the duty of disclosure is principally governed by -
* the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 as amended (the Act)
* the Code of Practice, issued under section 23 of the Act (the Code)
* Parts 25-28 of the Criminal Procedure Rules 2005 (the Rules)
* the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 (Defence Disclosure Time Limits) Regulations 1997 issued under section 12 of the Act (the Regulations).
The CPIA which dictates how the police deal with "material" states that the police must retain "relevant material" which is defined in the Code as anything that appears to an investigator, or the officer in charge of an investigation or the disclosure officer to have some bearing on any offence under investigation or any person being investigated or on the surrounding circumstances unless it is incapable of having any impact on the case.
As a police officer I am not that familiar with the term "golden rule" but I know that Lord Bingham did qualify it with "If material does not weaken the prosecution case or strengthen that of the Defendant, there is no requirement to disclose it. For this purpose the parties’ respective cases should not be restrictively analysed. But they must be carefully analysed, to ascertain the specific facts the prosecution seek to establish and the specific grounds on which the charges are resisted. The trial process is not well served if the defence are permitted to make general and unspecified allegations and then seek far reaching disclosure in the hope that material may turn up to make them good. Neutral material or material damaging to the Defendant need not be disclosed and should not be brought to the attention of the court.”
So whilst I understand your frustration with the disclosure process and your high standards in terms of evidential requirements, it is simply not correct to say that the prosecution have a duty to reveal all that you suggest. It is not the duty of the disclosure officer to go through in detail all the notes of a prosecution expert that the expert has gathered during the course of their work. The expert has a duty to the court to reveal anything that would assist the defence or weaken the prosecution case and that should be clear from the expert's statement.
I can see that it would be useful for experts to come up with some common form of standard evidential template so that everyone is working to that same standard and you would all then receive the same package of information regardless of which side you are on.
regards
Harry
Harry
The Golden Rule has already been set out and although it is appreciated the comments you make are your observations they are not in context with the principles of the Golden Rule. These are not rules I made, I am just following them.
The Gleeson principle supercedes the points you raised as does the Golden Rule. The Golden Rule walks 'hand-in-hand' with the Gleeson principle. Defence examiners or experts wishing to avoid being taken to task by their clients for failing to advise them to ensure to ask for the evidence are opening themselves up for trouble. CPR2005 doesn't impact on the above principles.
The use of the argument using isolationism inferences such as "your high standards" is a tired old hoary spectre, stagnated and stale. It is not good psychology, but flawed. It implies that no one else is working to high standards accept me; hardly an endearing comment to imply about other FF members at first instance.
The standards are high because they were set that way to ensure fairness and fair trials and we all are simply working to those standards, we didn't invent them or create them. But of course as a matter of conjecture as we, or I, work to high standards does that mean by implication you are suggesting you work to low standards? Do you see where I am coming from Harry?
Moreover, by definition, and just as a discussion point, maybe the computer and mobile forensic industry would love to see the rule or the rule of law that ever instructed or consented to the evidence being used that was intended to be generated to low standards.
Harry,
As a serving officer/investigator like yourself, I agree with your comments concerning duty of disclosure. However I do not believe that by mentioning Trews standards you were being disrespectful to other FF members, and undoubtedly your standards (along with every other serving officers/investigators/examiners) will be as high as those of Trew and others in the forensic community!!!
Regards,
Jacko.
Yeah, have to second that Jacko.
Greg, I think you're being a little bit harsh on Harry, I don't think he was implying anything in particular.
Harry, look forward to any further comments and welcome to the site.
Jamie
Harry,
As a serving officer/investigator like yourself, I agree with your comments concerning duty of disclosure. However I do not believe that by mentioning Trews standards you were being disrespectful to other FF members, and undoubtedly your standards (along with every other serving officers/investigators/examiners) will be as high as those of Trew and others in the forensic community!!!
Regards,
Jacko.
Then why mention standards in the first place?
Yeah, have to second that Jacko.
Greg, I think you're being a little bit harsh on Harry, I don't think he was implying anything in particular.
Harry, look forward to any further comments and welcome to the site.
Jamie
Jamie
My comments are not aimed at being, a little or intentionally, harsh on Harry. I know Harry from another forum he knows me well enough that I am not having a personal dig at him.
Harry, to echo Jamie's comments, "Harry, look forward to any further comments and welcome to the site.".
OK
Jamie and Jacko
Thank you for your words of welcome and support, I am however not at all troubled by Mr Smith's remarks.
Harry
The Golden Rule has already been set out and although it is appreciated the comments you make are your observations they are not in context with the principles of the Golden Rule. These are not rules I made, I am just following them.
Greg as I said I am not really familiar with this "Golden Rule" but as far as I can see the Golden Rule says that "any material held by the prosecution which weakens its case or strengthens that of the defendant, if not relied on as part of its formal case against the defendant, should be disclosed to the defence".
If this is the case it simply echoes what the CPIA states, and the paragraph which I quoted was a direct lift from Lord Bingham's own qualification of the golden rule.
I just get the impression from the terminology you use that your knowledge of disclosure is at best sketchy, I would be surprised if you said that you had read the CPIA Manual of Guidance and Codes of Practice. You are an expert witness and have probably worked both for the prosecution and defence but what you haven't done is act as a disclosure officer in any case, yet you purport to talk with authority about disclosure. I don't intend that in any perjorative sense as I wouldn't expect you as an expert witness to have such a detailed knowledge of disclosure.
As a police officer I have been required to attend two weeks of courses on just disclosure, I have acted as disclosure officer in many cases involving complex disclosure issues such as third party disclosure , PII, large volumes of material, LPP material and so on.
Almost everything I said in my post is a direct quote from the Manual of Guidance, Statute, or the case law you refer to, so to suggest that
The Gleeson principle supercedes the points you raised as does the Golden Rule.
defies reason.
It is the lawful duty, so we are told, of the prosecution to look at, examine and retain a copy of all evidence (e.g. tests and results) and to conduct an assessment of risk, which is the principle enunciated in the "Golden Rule" by none other than Lord Bingham.
I'd like to see where it says this.
As for
The use of the argument using isolationism inferences such as "your high standards" is a tired old hoary spectre, stagnated and stale. It is not good psychology, but flawed. It implies that no one else is working to high standards accept me; hardly an endearing comment to imply about other FF members at first instance.
If that is your perception then I cannot dispute it, but you have read far more into that than was intended. We all work to different standards, either because of our intellectual ability, or because we chose to, or because we have to in order to get the work done. I am sure we all try to work to a minimum acceptable standard but some people will stick at that whilst others will go higher.
The simple matter of fact is that disclosure is intentionally a staged process but one which consequently involves delay.
It is intended to be fair to both sides so that the prosecution cannot hide evidence of advantage to the defendant but also so that the defence cannot make unwarranted and unreasonable requests for disclosure.
Whilst cases have shown that the police have intentionally hidden evidence it is not unknown for the defence to request massive disclosures to earn fees for reading it, and with a view to intentionally delaying proceedings.
regards
Harry
Harry, good you came back, pleased you did.
The disclosure points you raise are interesting and remarkable; thanks for clarifying your views on them. I would add that although you indicate that I speak with authority, nice of you to say so, but I am simply a messenger passing on the authority of those who actually have authority. I didn't make those rules I am observing them.
Regarding piecemeal disclosure (and maybe some like the appeal of a manyarna approach to evidence) it does draw out matters causing lengthy delays when there is nothing piecemeal in obtaining call records and mast details, as most mobile operator evidence is in electronic format these days for quick delivery and the operators indicate they have it if it is requested.
I fully appreciate that those obtaining evidence would want to finesse what they are getting, so when you get e.g mast details it would make sense to ensure getting details about whether the masts have changed or not before sending someone out to conduct radio tests - that is if you want to avoid the potential risk of 50% or greater obtaining false positive readings. Perhaps asking to know about mast changes in advance is not so much implying a high/low standard, but more an action of pragmatism to demonstrate a standard is being met.