Case Studies of Cell Site Analysis - Defence

Forensic Mobile Services are expert in reviewing the processes used by the Law Enforcement Agencies (LEAs) during any investigation into Serious Criminal Activity and the reports supplied to them by any expert witnesses they might have employed.

One does not always find that the same high standards one might reasonably expect from one expert to another or indeed from an investigating LEA have been achieved.

Compliance with the processes required under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, by which communications data is obtained by the LEAs, and the manner in which surveys have been carried out and the data analysed and interpreted, as well as the content and quality of the other sides’ reports and the opinions expressed within them should always be subject to scrutiny.

A pragmatic and honest appraisal and report will be provided by Forensic Mobile Services without recourse to unnecessary and ultimately futile ‘nitpicking’.

Beside those questions with regard to experience and the methodologies used, there is always the possibility of simple error on the part of the expert concerned, which might well results in a faulty conclusion having been reached.

Equally, there may have been failures by the LEA in adhering to the lawful processes prescribed under RIPA in their acquisition, use and retention of the communications data obtained during the investigation.  

There is also the possibility that an alternative interpretation might be available, or even that the overall enquiry with regard to the use of communications data was inadequate. (This is especially true today when the LEAs need to save money).

Not to be ignored in today’s straitened times is the increasing tendency displayed by some Law Enforcement Agencies to seek to carry out surveys and interpret the data for the Courts themselves.

This is understandable at the level of intelligence gathering, or even evidentially where reference is made to the use of cells in one City and then in another to merely show that a mobile telephone had clearly moved between those Cities.

Such ‘in house’ work by an LEA, should not however go unchallenged at the evidential level especially where surveys have been carried out and/or survey data is produced and linked to data and the mapping of telephone movement as interpreted by the LEAs themselves. An acknowledged expert in the field should be used.

Law Enforcement Agencies do not have the expertise or the background necessary to provide an impartial ‘expert’ opinion with regard to such matters and FMS identified serious flaws in both of the cases (from different Forces), submitted by Defence representatives for review thus far.