The delivery of a streamlined forensic report – known as the “SFRY” – is a critical moment in any indecent image’s investigation. After many months of waiting on bail - typically, it will take 9 to 15 months for the police to conclude a forensic examination of the devices seized after the initial arrest and house search of a suspect - the SFRY will document the results of the forensic analysis of the hard drives and devices taken by the authorities.

Although this procedure has significantly speeded up police investigations in many types of investigations, in indecent images cases the SFRY system can be problematic. Indeed, the SFRY procedure can and has - as documented in many BSQ cases below - led to a number of wrongful decisions to prosecute. 

 The SFRY system was introduced as a case management procedure designed to reduce “unnecessary costs, bureaucracy and delays in the criminal justice system.” According to the CPS guidance, the “early preparation of a short report that details the key forensic evidence the Prosecution intend to rely upon“ brings significant benefits to the courts, prosecution and defence by saving court time and unnecessary forensic and Prosecution work. 

No one would question the SFRY system has had obvious benefits in many cases - allegations of drug crimes, fraud or burglary or violence - where often, months after charges had been authorised forensic reports would be served late in proceedings. This led to consequential delays normally after defence lawyers would demand time to instruct their own experts to verify the Crown’s expert conclusions.

 The utility of the SFRY system in indecent images cases is more questionable. Generally speaking, criminal charges in an indecent images case will not be authorised until and after a forensic analysis of a suspect’s hard drives has been completed. Problems arise with SFRYs in indecent images case because, in a drive to save costs and time, these reports normally only include a cursory analysis of the information on a suspect’s hard drive which taken in isolation often provides an incomplete and inaccurate snapshot of their digital footprint.

 Two recent BSQ cases Illustrate the issues that can arise. In both cases the CPS, applying the test in the Code for Crown Prosecutors which requires “a reasonable prospect of conviction” – approved charges against BSQ clients P and L. Clients P and L were involved in separate and unconnected cases in different parts of the country. Both were men of good character with professional jobs who had instructed BSQ privately to act for them. The results of their SFRY analysis purportedly revealed the evidence of a number of illegal images on their devices.

 BSQ’s enquiries later revealed that the decisions to prosecute them were taken in error as they were based on the conclusions of initial SFRY reports that were inaccurate. Many months after the original decision to prosecute, BSQ were later able to persuade Crown offer no evidence and discontinue proceedings against both men. 

 In both cases, it could be argued that their experience showed that the criminal justice system had worked to deliver the right outcome. (Eventually.) These were the sentiments expressed in the closing remarks of the presiding Crown Court Judge in the case of P when pronouncing the decision not to proceed against him. But from P and L’s perspective however it would have been far better for everyone concerned if a full forensic report had been commissioned at the outset rather than an abbreviated SFRY. In their cases, the imperative to save costs and reduce delay had perversely produced the opposite result.

There may well be many other accused persons in indecent images cases who are not as fortunate as P and L in having lawyers who vigorously challenge the evidence in a SFRY presented by the Crown. Anecdotal evidence provided to BSQ shows that suspects in indecent images cases who assert their innocence often have their entreaties dismissed by the police and can feel that they are not taken seriously even by their own lawyers. As P and L’s case studies show, a rush to judgment in these situations may not always be warranted.

P and L were represented by BSQ partner Roger Sahota acting as solicitor and counsel.

You can find more information about our indecent images solicitors defence services, see our practice page.

If you are accused of an indecent images offence and require legal representation, please contact our London offices on 020 3858 0851.