Police casework recordkeeping in England and Wales: an archival denial of evidence

ABSTRACT

Although policing is a public service, police records are not public records nor can one of the most prominent work product of police forces activities—case files—be easily found in public record offices or institutional archive services. Little research has been undertaken on what documents police casework (evidence to the evidence). The whole record of police investigation encompasses textual and artefactual material, making them complex documents worth exploring under the archival lens. This article establishes a landscape of police forces’ archival practice in England and Wales, through analysis of grey literature formalizing national recommendations on police IRM, especially archiving in the public interest. The study also includes a survey of current practice of what police forces loosely call ‘archiving,’ through a questionnaire (sent under FOI requests) to all 43 forces in England and Wales. Findings showed that there was little to no awareness of inter/national archival practice standards, in official discourse and in current practice, which correlates with little to no practical archiving of police case files in the public interest. These findings suggest that the absence of actualized police casework archives may result in an archival silence.

KEYWORDS:

• Archives
• artefacts
• case files
• criminal justice system
• public recordkeeping

Introduction

In recent years, there has been a dawning awareness in some quarters of the importance of accountability in police recordkeeping. In 2017, Bishop James produced a report for the House of Commons, highlighting the quasi-impossibility of ‘real accountability’ for an organization wielding tremendous power, albeit in a fragmented, disconnected, and sometimes misinformed way.¹ A set of recommendations for change insisted on ‘allowing the public to hold us to account,’ and a ‘police duty of candour,’ which in effect is not currently achieved.² Concerns were voiced at the time ‘that police forces in England and Wales are not subject to the Public Records Acts [PRA] […] the documentary evidence they hold is poor, and forces are under no legal obligation to retain records of national importance.’³ As of 2023, police forces have not been brought under PRA, and even if they had, the Bishop James Report still feared it ‘may not be sufficient to address the issues identified.’⁴ This was further observed by Angela Sutton-Vane in a recent blog post for the Campaign for Records by the Archives & Records Association (ARA), which actively calls for ‘better records management in public life.’ In a resonating echo to the 2017 report, she observed an array of issues in police archives management. From acquisition for ‘haphazard reasons’ to access (or lack thereof as researchers are denied), her post depicts a situation far from the rigour and formality of a recordkeeping practice in the public interest. It also sets the scene for a world where we are unable ‘to access those records for any type of research,’ nor do police forces operate as a ‘symbiotic,’ ‘accountable, open and integral all public-facing, publicly funded bodies’ (to reuse some of Sutton-Vane’s words). Clearly, there was a push for change in 2017, when a Public Authority (Accountability) Bill was drafted, no doubt in response to the Bishop James Report, as it insists on ‘transparency, candour and frankness,’ and on ‘enabling victims.’⁵ But it has not yet passed. In 2023, the Government published its response to the Bishop James Report and boldly announced a new Code of Practice and APP (Authorized Professional Practice) dedicated to IRM, ‘ensuring valuable and historic documents cannot be destroyed without good reason.’⁶ But this is still early days, and so far, neither documents explain what ‘valuable’ or even ‘historic’ means nor how to proceed with ‘archiving.’

Meanwhile, as local authorities, police forces manage their own archives in a decentralized way, even though there have been attempts to nationalize the keeping of casework materials.⁷ Historically, they were managed by the Forensic Science Service (FSS) and predecessors, as agents of the Home Office.⁸ However, the FSS was ‘never a comprehensive’ archive, just ‘the largest,’ according to a 2021 FOI request to the Home Office regarding the archiving of forensic case material. And this is because, any material created and used by police forces remained theirs, so the FSS was akin to a private archive service. In 2012, the FSS closed, and Forensic Archive Ltd (FAL) took whole collections of material, but also sent back unquantified volumes to their original owners and local police forces.⁹ Some were sent to other policing agencies, some were lost or destroyed; no inventory was made at the time. Since then, FAL’s holdings have not been accruing (or rarely as ‘a last resort archive’) and is ever sending back materials to police forces while retaining the ‘historical archives’ of the FSS as its ‘legacy body.’¹⁰ What is confusing, however, is that FAL is a public body with ‘statutory powers in respect of the preservation and production of files and materials from the archive,’ whereas it does not actively acquire materials nor does it make them accessible to the public.¹¹ FAL was a temporary measure and as such has been under review since 2016; and what is now apparent is that we have a mix of multiple private repositories (police forces) and one public authority, all holding archival materials that ‘do not come under the [Public Records] Act.’¹²

Hence, the lack of dialogue with local archive repositories and the difficulty in understanding how police casework archives are kept, by whom and whether it is appropriate. To this day, and even though overarching police records management policies and guidance have emerged in the last five years, practice is clearly decentralized. This has contributed to more opacity than ever, and even to ‘extensive failures.’¹³ Extensive loss of material has been confirmed, with lack of storage resources, specialize training or role provision identified as factors,¹⁴ and a current situation, whereby the public is still not afforded the accountability it is due. This paper will focus on police casework archives, understood as the organic accumulation of real evidence and records used or made to prove, within a CJS context, and retained by their creators after proceedings are over. This material is evidence, its sole purpose, and primary value within the CJS—the creator’s—environment. Through policing processes, they have acquired evidential value in the archival sense: that is, they have the ability to evidence, both individual cases and the organization investigating them, its inner workings, successes and failings. However, that quality may then be lost, renewed, or transformed as they cease to be of use to their creators and criminal justice practitioners. That transitional moment will be firstly examined through an epistemology of archiving attitudes and what is considered best practice as to the ‘archiving’ of evidentiary materials by their creators. A survey of the 43 police forces in existence in England and Wales, as well as their individual heritage practice, and relationship with formal archive services will complete the analysis. The aim is to understand what happens to evidentiary materials once their creators no longer deem them valuable, and what is police forces’ understanding of archival concepts and/or their awareness of core archival functions. Then, findings will be discussed under the lens of archival theory, examining policing ‘archiving’ practice within the conceptual framework of archival values and principles.

Literature review

The topic of police archives has been mostly addressed by legal scholars, with the main research trend lying in the work of Katherine Biber. She has been researching creative reuses of evidentiary materials, questioning current practices in English-speaking countries, often on an ethical level.¹⁵ The situation Biber often describes is evidentiary materials existing, mostly as collections, and the notion of an archive as preconceived, one that is, irrelevant of whether materials sit within the creator’s realm or have exited it. Indeed, most of the uses and reuses of evidentiary materials charted by Biber would not have been possible had there been an ‘archival sensibility.’¹⁶ One, she displays through her research, deriving an understanding of archival theories from post-modernists Derrida and Foucault to historians Stoler and Steedman. Thus, watermarking her analysis is the concept of ‘notional archive,’ as police ‘archives’ can be understood to fit only in the archivist’s definition of a fonds, that is, an organic accumulation of materials by a single creator.¹⁷

Others in Biber’ school of feminist legal theory have established the absence of true evidential value of ‘crime’s archives.’ In a legal sense, it expires the moment a trial (or possibility to use in a trial) ends. What this means in a documentary sense is that materials can no longer authenticate what they were created to prove anymore, as was demonstrated by Kate Rossmanith.¹⁸ Consequently, what is challenged in this body of work is the very archival quality of evidentiary materials, from the Schellenbergian idea that ‘the value of the record is because it originates in the archive,’ to holistically asking Briet’s famous question anew: ‘what is a document?’¹⁹ Biber et al.’s most recent publication suggests evidentiary materials possess intrinsic ‘evidentiary attributes’ and ‘paratextual qualities’ allowing them to be a document and the evidence of something at the very least, if not the document of their creators. This is a very distinctive stray from archival theory, one that focuses indeed on use and reuse by secondary stakeholders. It also confirms that there is no definite answer in literature as to what is evidence and what is a document.

As Australian legists have studied creative reuses of police casework archives, English ones focused on the legal imperative to retain exhibits after a trial and how this is done practically. McCartney & Shorter initially revealed a global single-minded approach that can be summarized as: retain-review-dispose; and later, the largely negative outcomes this creates for the appellate system and overall accountability of the police.²⁰ This seems to stem from ‘a keen requirement to try and get rid of it as possible,’ rather a surprise when the term ‘police archives’ prevails and connotes permanence. The confusion as to what is archival, what is a document, what is evidence, is apparent in police forces practice as shown in this study, but it also goes unnoticed by the authors. Indeed, considering holdings ‘dating back to the 1930s,’ the authors term them ‘archives’ for records that can alternatively be firmly anchored in primary value (e.g. awaiting reuse by their creators for retrial), or that are retained for information sharing across the CJS (e.g. typological samples).²¹ Information sharing beyond the creator’s remit and out to others brings these materials closer to an understanding of secondary values, thus into the realm of ‘real’ archives, in place of the ‘archives’ as (mis)understood by McCartney & Shorter.

Archival theory itself tends to not address the topic directly, perhaps because police casework archives are not public records. Or because, as case files, they are notoriously difficult to tackle in practice and equally frustrating to theorize or research, if we consider the most recent endeavour to be Peter Gillis in 1978.²² Tangentially, Juan Ilerbaig’s work on specimens as records in natural history draws on Geoffrey Yeo’s definition of records to include the non-prototypical, which could apply to police casework archives.²³ Here, the concept of a document encompasses ‘instruments’ for the conduct of activities, etc., where the materiality of specimens cannot be separated from their recordness. Allowing for a conceptual opening here, what is documented is something not quite as specific as traditional archival theory would have it (i.e. the creator, their functions, and activities). There is a rewriting of the relationship between record and event at play, much like what Jennifer Meehan theorized when looking at the definition of evidence in archival theory.²⁴ Evidence is the relationship between two facts, the ‘evidentiary capacity of records’ lying in the archival process documenting that relationship.²⁵ However, Meehan focused on textual records, not artefactual hybrids, which implies that much remains to be studied regarding the epitomic materialization of the relationship between two facts, hence the ultimate recordness of police casework archives.

Materials and methods

The methodology used in this study combined two approaches: a systematic review of grey literature and a survey. Initially, an analysis of the current national guidance derived from the three ‘policing’ acts was conducted to establish the official discourse and expectations as to the management of casework products, i.e. files and evidentiary materials. Documentation retained for analysis was the National Digital and Physical Evidence Retention Guidance and the Retention, Storage and Destruction of Materials and Records relating to Forensic Examination, both published in 2021 by the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC); the codes of practice (FSR-C-100), emitted in 2021 by the Forensic Science Regulator; and two APP by the College of Policing, Review, retention and disposal (2023) and Archiving of records in the public interest (2021).²⁶ This analysis was also leveraged to help define terminology used in the phrasing of a questionnaire, which was sent under FOI requests to all 43 police forces in England and Wales in April 2023 and closed at the end of June 2023.

The FOI mechanism was chosen to ensure a high response rate, with questions designed in a way that relied on the expectation that a force’s IRM processes will be documented. The questions were worded in a way that mixed archival terminology and other terms collected in official policing guidance, in a bid to gauge actual awareness of both, but also leaving room for contradictions to emerge. Opportunity to detail and describe practice was given for all questions; they were:

• (Q1) What is your current position with regard to the following regulations? (respondents were given a list of the five documents mentioned above and the possibility to indicate they were aware or implementing each).

• (Q2) Do you ever appraise and archive case files and materials for their historical significance, value for research or for public interest?

• (Q3) Do you ever provide access to case files & materials to private individuals and researchers, outside the criminal justice system (not for case review, appeals, training, etc.)?

• (Q4) If you rely on an external provider and/or repository for storage or archival/heritage services (e.g. catalogue, access or display), please describe how this works.

• (Q5) If you have an inhouse archive or a heritage centre, do you follow any related guidance or standards (e.g. to inform collection care and conservation, cataloguing, and access provision) and which?

Results

Police information and archives management, in principle

The most generic and national guidance of the five analysed here NPCC-1 acknowledges ‘weaknesses in the review and retention’ practices of police forces and aims at offering ‘clarity’ by creating a typology of evidential records and information in relation to each relevant piece of legislation.²⁷ Evidence is defined as a ‘general term’ and encompasses anything that ‘could potentially form part of the evidence of a criminal offence’ and which is accompanied by a ‘record [containing] information that allows you to identify People, Objects, Locations and Events.’²⁸ The NPCC thus showcases an understanding of documentary value as something conveyed by all of information: contents, but also carrier, format, and context. The guidance features various scenarios under which evidence should be retained by police forces and for how long, but still notes the ‘big challenge’ this backlog may create, deeming it ‘not sustainable.’²⁹ To solve this conundrum, NPCC-1 offers a detailed decision-making tree, tackling each strand of evidence in a clear classification (through crime typology) which informs strict retention schedules. Once retention has expired, ‘the evidence can be released for disposal or authorized for return [to relevant owners].’³⁰ Disposal is triggered by a review process that, the guidance notes, ‘is not outlined anywhere’ and is mostly not performed due to the ‘uncontrollable volumes’ befalling police forces in charge of retention and review processes.³¹ This means that, although the process for managing evidence is rather clear, especially as to what its remit encompasses, there is still some level of uncertainty as to post-IRM activities as the term ‘disposal’ is not defined. Archives or archiving processes are not mentioned in the guidance, apart from a mention of a ‘Forensic Archive Retention stream’ although not explained further here.³²

NPCC-2 deals with forensic work products, in theory a subpart of what was outlined in the more general NPCC-1. Consistently with the latter, it states that ‘forensic case records [should] be managed alongside the evidential material to which they relate,’ confirming our understanding of police case files as the sum of records and evidentiary materials (which can be records or artefacts).³³ This guidance is also very much anchored in primary value management, i.e. in the sole context of forensic examination and criminal investigation; it details at length-related classification systems, retention schedules, and sentencing processes.³⁴ Surprisingly, however, NPCC-2 goes into some greater length, describing what is akin to archival or heritage collections care and conservation, understandably enough for materials sometimes retained for up to 30 years.³⁵ Then again, there is no mention of archive or heritage management standards, and the guidance reiterates that such care is afforded materials solely within the retention schedule. Some provision is made for forensic units to keep certain materials in agreement with the force, mainly for ‘reference purposes, training purposes’ or to improve techniques, which, once again, anchors such practice firmly in primary value.³⁶

Combining guidance to police forces and forensic units, FSR-C-100 regulates how evidence is to be collected, examined, presented, recorded and retained and focuses specifically on forensic examination: i.e. extraction and interpretation of data from samples that may or may not become evidentiary through investigative and legal processes.³⁷ This code refers directly to NPCC-2, defining forensic case files as the combination of records and materials related to police investigation, and the need to ‘control’ them through the processes already mentioned above.³⁸ FSR-C-100 goes a step further still by eventually offering a definition of ‘disposal:’ files can be ‘incinerated or shredded.’³⁹ Thus, the possibility of these passing into the realm of secondary value is not once envisaged, as is also demonstrated by the instance on an IRM strategy intent on (re)usability within the realm of creators only.⁴⁰ And again, ‘archives’ are only ever synonymous with ‘storage facilities’ or an accumulation of ‘documents, exhibits and evidential material.’⁴¹ At a stretch, FSR-C-100 conveys some understanding of core archival functions—especially as the benefit of indexing materials is broached ‘to facilitate orderly storage and retrieval.’⁴² Nevertheless, erring into archival theory is never explicit or even conscious, as summarized by Table 1.

Table 1. Summary of official guidance on managing evidentiary records and materials.

Guidance	Author	Remit	Scope	References:	Archival terminology used
NPCC-1	National Police Chiefs Council	Police forces	Evidence/exhibits Seized items Submitted items Relevant material Generated materials Recovered materials Records Metadata Files Artefacts	NPCC-2	None
NPCC-2		Forensic providers	Forensic materials Forensic case records Case files Collection of records Case materials Case records Items/exhibits Generated materials Recovered materials	NPCC-1 FSR-C-100	Index
FSR-C-100	Forensic Science Regulator	Police forces Forensic providers	General records Case files Technical records Materials	NPCC-2	Archive/storage facilities Archived, archiving the archives
APP Review	College of Policing	Police forces	Records Evidential material Paper records Original physical exhibits	NPCC-1 NPCC-2	Archives, archived records Archiving in the public interest Historical research Historical significance Preserve
APP Archiving			Collection of records Crime files and evidence Materials Historic records	None	Archived records Archiving in the public interest Historical purpose Permanent preservation Sample/selection Conservation and care Cataloguing Public access

At first glance redundant with NPCC-2, APP Review aims at a broader remit and complements NPCC-1. Much like these, it insists on the retain-review-dispose process, on the premise that ‘retaining every piece of information collected is impractical and unlawful.’⁴³ However, this guidance has a broader remit than our first three and extends to police records as a whole. Meanwhile, it outlines a similar lifecycle and process—i.e. though offense/crime typology classification—it seems to indicate a slightly less automatic approach, whereby permanent retention for non-primary stakeholders is possible. If certain policing information—which may include evidentiary materials pertaining to cases but is not limited to them—has ‘historical significance or [is] of public interest, [they] should be archived.’⁴⁴ Unfortunately, the document does not go quite as far as describing how such appraisal might translate, and skips back to the post-retention-pre-destruction review process in detail.

The logical suite, then, would be the last-surveyed guidance: APP Archiving, where ‘archived records’ are defined as having reached the end of their primary value: they no longer ‘support the police [or have] law enforcement purposes.’⁴⁵ Much like its sister APP above, APP Archiving encompasses most policing information and records, including ‘crime files and evidence.’⁴⁶ However, this document is quite different from the other four, as it outlines criteria allowing for selection and permanent retention of some records and materials, in what essentially resembles a collection development policy.⁴⁷ Other archival functions are also touched upon, with mention of British Standards 16,893:2018 and 4971:2017 and due provisions are made for ‘preservation, storage, sensitivity review and cataloguing.’⁴⁸ Access has a large share here, with hints at an open-access sensitivity but, overall, this APP Archiving shows even greater concern for data protection, with information to be redacted ‘before being transferred to the archive.’⁴⁹ And, there ends any archival sensibility, since that last suggestion, seemingly for good practice, compromises the archival integrity of the records, and does not constitute standard archival practice.⁵⁰ This is reinforced by the imperative that any ‘archivist’ is to come from within the force, as only (physical) storage can be outsourced to third-party (non-police-vetted) practitioners, not information (intellectual) management.⁵¹ Such posturing might explain the document’s contradictions or impracticalities, e.g. the fact ‘archiving’ should be done by collection, while the retain-review-dispose process must be done per case (crime/offence typology retention schedule).⁵² As such, APP Archiving, in conjunction with the first four, is not enough to get a clear picture of policing archives management practice, and we note a general indecision if not reluctance to engage with archival principles when dealing with police archives.

And, in practice (FOI questionnaire results)

Overall, 12 forces declined to respond to the survey questionnaire or were too late; they are not included in the findings. Those who responded to most questions in time were included (31). It is worth noting the overwhelming majority of responses originating in information and disclosure management, as there were seemingly no archivists mentioned as respondents.⁵³ Instead, they all held positions in data protection (or data risk & assurance), compliance, or Freedom of Information teams, with titles ranging from officer, advisor, or analyst to researcher or decision-maker. There were no archivists or records managers mentioned in responses. Table 2 provides some details on exclusions and/or reasons for the absence of response and indicates where answers were cross-referenced when they were contradictory or inconclusive by themselves (indicated with ‘?’).

Table 2. Summary of police forces’ responses.

Force	Responded to:
	FOI survey	Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4	Q5
Avon and Somerset Constabulary	Still working on request
Bedfordshire Police	✓	✓	✓	✓	?	?
Cambridgeshire Constabulary	✓	✓	✓	✓	?	?
Cheshire Constabulary	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
City of London Police	✓	No information held (n.o.h.)
Cleveland Police	✓	✓	✓	n.o.h	✓	✓
Cumbria Constabulary	✓	✓	✓	✓	?	?
Derbyshire Constabulary	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
Devon and Cornwall Constabulary	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
Dorset Police	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
Durham Constabulary	✓	Response exceeds fees limit
Dyfed-Powys Police	High number of requests
Essex Police	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
Gloucestershire Constabulary	High number of requests
Greater Manchester Police	Too late
Gwent Police	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
Hampshire Constabulary	✓	✓	✓	✓	n.o.h.	✓
Hertfordshire Constabulary	✓	✓	✓	✓	?	?
Humberside Police	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
Kent Police	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
Lancashire Constabulary	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
Leicestershire Constabulary	Formulation of new information not allowed
Lincolnshire Police	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
Merseyside Police	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
Metropolitan Police Service	Too late
Norfolk Constabulary	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
North Wales Police	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
North Yorkshire Police	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
Northamptonshire Police	✓	✓	✓	✓	?	?
Northumbria Police	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
Nottinghamshire Police	Too late
South Wales Police	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
South Yorkshire Police	✓	✓	✓	✓	?	?
Staffordshire Police	n.o.h.
Suffolk Constabulary	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
Surrey Police	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
Sussex Police	Still working on request
Thames Valley Police	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
Warwickshire Police	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
West Mercia Police	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
West Midlands Police	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
West Yorkshire Police	✓	n.o.h.			✓	✓
Wiltshire Police	Too late

Responses to Q1 showed that most police forces are implementing current policing-led IRM guidance, including regarding case files and evidentiary materials (Figure 1). Up to 94% of respondents acknowledged some degree of awareness or implementation of the first four sets of recommendations. However, APP Archiving was considered implemented, whether partially or wholly, by less than half. A clear majority of police forces indicated awareness only of this policy, which may be due to its unpublished status as several commented. The latter, added to others, made up for a ratio of 16% among responding police forces who indicated an appetite for ‘more work to be done around this’ or ‘to follow in due course,’ or wanting ‘help with consistency of practice,’ suggesting either reluctance or a perceived inadequacy of currently available guidance regarding archiving in the public interest.

Figure 1. Summary of forces’ position towards official guidance (Q1).

All but one force replied to Q2, with 21 (65.6%) declaring that they appraise case files and related materials for historical significance and/or in the public interest. One of them declined to answer initially, but their other responses (and previously mentioned inhouse policy) acknowledged an ongoing relationship with a public archive, hinting at formal appraisal practice. Among the 21 appraising forces, five highlighted a scarcity of actualized occurrences of archival appraisal, and one force admitted appraisal ‘as a one-off’ only; a further three recognized the need for better practice. This means that 38% of those who practice appraisal indicated room for improvement. Added to the 11 who stated they do not perform appraisals in the public interest, this makes up for more than half of the responding cohort acknowledging gaps in their archival practice. More concerning is the fact that responses to Q2 indicated a misunderstanding as to what ‘archiving in the public interest’ means with for instance one respondent stating their appraisal practice is irrelevant to their ability to disclose materials to the general public. Another resumed their practice to ‘scanning old files,’ while a third respondent acknowledged not considering the public interest when appraising, and a fourth, that only internal input was sought out when considering what is indeed of public interest.

Q3 further illustrated uncertainty as to the purpose of archival practice by police forces, with 18 respondents indicating that public access to case files and materials is provided. Another 12 answered negatively, while two declined to answer altogether. Cross-referencing these answers with Q2 revealed that 38% of all respondents practice some sort of ‘archiving in the public interest,’ all the while not providing access to said public. More particularly, two forces stated that these materials are meant to be accessed only from within the force; one acknowledging the impossibility to disclose as a barrier to appraisal in the public interest. Nine respondents to Q3 indicated data protection legislation as a main reason not to provide public access or to only release information over the actual files. Further, of those who answered in the positive, 12 mentioned the need to review access provision on a case-by-case basis. This, we interpret as a sign of good archival practice or at the very least flexibility, perhaps subconsciously aligning with current recommendations from archive professionals and guiding bodies.⁵⁴ Eight confirmed this interpretation by declaring or demonstrating a desire for improved openness whether by providing information when records are closed or partial access when the whole is not restricted completely, etc. Several used the phrase ‘if we can,’ indicating again, as revealed from Q1, a willingness for better practice. Generally, however, Q3 hinted at a lack of awareness as to the ‘how’ of archival practice to further public access, by highlighting obscure and unmapped protocols.

Q4 aimed at assessing storage arrangements of each police force’s historical cases and evidence materials (Figure 2). Five respondents declined to answer, reducing the pool to 27 forces on this occasion. Seven indicated relying solely on external providers for storage and third-party contractors in all cases; while nine forces have a single inhouse repository. The most interesting responses came from the 11 who have mixed arrangements of inhouse archives and either an identified institutional repository (six)—ranging from public libraries to archive services, history centres, and external non-police museums; third-party storage providers (four) or FAL (one).⁵⁵ Thus, over a quarter of Q4 respondents have fully externalized storage of case file archives. Over a fifth have some sort of relationship with an external heritage or archives institution. Over a third relies solely on inhouse archives. Further analysis of responses revealed that, overall, forces retained control of these ‘archives’ in most configurations, which clearly indicates a desire to ‘keep to themselves.’ The only exception is when public institutions come into play, introducing a clear separation of knowledge and procedure. This could be confirmed by the fact that none of the respondents used Q4 to indicate formal knowledge of or reliance on heritage/archives management standards or recommendations (when the question was designed to encourage description of procedures).

Figure 2. Respondents’ arrangements for archives management.

Q5 further sought to assess reliance on guidance and standards from the heritage/archives professions for those forces who have an inhouse archive (Figure 3). Unfortunately, contradictions with regard to other answers (Q1-Q4), or perhaps misunderstanding the question, led to only 19 usable responses. Eleven forces mentioned guidance cited in Q1 and/or MOPI, from which some of the guidance is derived.⁵⁶ The other eight indicated awareness of or indeed implementation of other recommendations, for instance, through museum accreditation (one) or through the Collections Trust’ Spectrum (three). None of them identified archives standards or guidance by name. However, for four police forces, it was interpreted that they may have some awareness of those, e.g. through their relationship with a public archive for at least two of them. The remaining two forces mentioned ‘guidance from Museums & Archives Professional Associations’ and ‘various national archive recommended practices,’ unfortunately without commenting further.

Figure 3. Respondents’ alignment with (archiving) standards.

Overall, Q4 and Q5 combined were useful to showcase some degree of awareness about collections information and collections care and conservation, if not implemented practices in half the responding cohort (16). This finding is summed up nicely by one force’s ‘current project to improve care, conservation, cataloguing and access provision’ and another force’s ‘storage provisions in place for specific items that require specific handling processes such as temperature control.’ The most interesting findings from this part of the survey, however, were the seemingly growing awareness of the NPCC Heritage Portfolio (three forces). This figure is more difficult to substantiate as for instance the West Midlands Police Heritage Manager was instrumental in designing some of the Heritage Portfolio tools, and yet they are nowhere mentioned in this force’s response to the survey.⁵⁷ Further research beyond the survey also revealed that Thames Valley Police Museum renounced their accreditation in favour of becoming ‘part of the NPCC Heritage Portfolio.’⁵⁸ It is indeed difficult to gauge awareness of this Portfolio, thus this finding is interpreted here as confirming reluctance from police forces to engage with archives standards (as supported by responses to Q4 and Q5), in favour of heritage recommendations.

Discussion

Confused and contradictory: police “archiving” discourse and practices

Having looked at available recommendations and guidance, whether indicative or mandatory, what is becoming rather evident are gaps and overlaps in the way police archives should be constituted. At first glance, for instance, both APP Review and APP Archiving complement one another. They follow the overall process of evidentiary materials moving from primary value to the end of their lifecycle, and on to what could be perceived as secondary value. However, APP Review (2023) never mentions Archiving (2021) and certainly does not hint at any other document that could streamline this ‘archiving’ process. Due to this omission, the guidance is rather vague as to what ‘archived [for] historical significance’ means in practice.⁵⁹ It could mean requesting an ‘extended period of retention,’ which seems rather contradictory as archival retention is usually permanent.⁶⁰ What is more, ‘extended’ implies both an absence of sentencing (appraisal) and a sense of finitude in retention. This again keeps materials firmly within the realm of primary value, a paradox in the context of ‘archiving’ and the ‘wider public interest.’⁶¹ We would argue further that both APP are weak on collections information and collections care and preservation, when they should be described here to advance IRM purposes. Guidance is generally too intent on destruction as disposal to facilitate any natural progression on to the realm of archiving in the public interest. As a result, APP Archiving inevitably falls short of both its remit and purpose, and we would advance that its implementation by police forces may well be precarious.

Similarly, NPCC documents add to the confusion. For instance, NPCC-2 openly operates in conjunction with FSR-C-100 and NPCC-1.⁶² It hints at some acknowledgement of APP Review, but never mentions the APP Archiving (although both were published in 2021), which is rather contradictory with the focus on long-term collections care and conservation.⁶³ Quite ironically, however, both NPCC documents seem to carry some awareness of ‘weaknesses’ and ‘a lack of national guidance to support forces.’⁶⁴ What is essentially a report serves to confirm gaps in policies, an overabundance and complexity of material/records typology (and definitions given to them), of sources and regulations, as well as national/local disagreements.⁶⁵ The latter discord seems to have prompted some forces to alternatively focus on information (contents) or records and materials (carriers) in how they are to be managed.⁶⁶ Another outcome of this situation is seemingly a narrowed focus on intake of materials, over reviewing holdings in a way conducive to better management.⁶⁷ In the end, this observation could be seen as a symbol for what this analysis has made obvious: a reluctance to consider evidentiary materials as archival in absolute, or at the very least, some confusion as to why do it and how to achieve it.

In practice, the survey of almost three-quarters of English and Welsh police forces certainly seems to confirm the analysis of available guidance. While most implement police IRM recommendations, there is some confusion as to what archiving in the public interest entails and clear acknowledgement of the gaps in knowledge and practice this produces. Overall, genuine concern and care for historical holdings and desire for more openness transpired throughout the survey, as did a general lack of understanding if not awareness of what good archival practice is. This could be explained through the predominance of force-managed holdings and rarity of collaboration with public archive services, which amounted to less than a fifth. Similarly, only a quarter acknowledged alignment or understanding of professional standards, with a clear majority favouring heritage-led ones, such as Spectrum. This tends to show a phenomenon of heritagization of police archives, link to the mixed natures of the fonds (records plus artefacts are the document of police casework), which should be further researched.

Is heritage management archival practice, too?

Several police forces—either in response to our FOI questionnaire and/or during anecdotal interactions with the author—mentioned the NPCC Portfolio had developed a benchmarking tool, soon to be followed by a ‘manual of guidance to help with consistency of practice.’⁶⁸ A document, NPCC Heritage maturity model was indeed sent to police forces in 2021 to self-assess how they manage collections of historical holdings; this concluded at the end of 2022.⁶⁹ It provides a framework to review police forces’ capacity ‘to identify, preserve, protect and share police heritage for current and future generations.’⁷⁰ Clearly derived from the Collections Trust’s Benchmark 3.0 tool—although this will not be addressed in detail here—the NPCC version is built along four streams: governance, people and organization, digital and technology, and data and collection. It shows five stages, from initial to optimized practice. In this sense, it is similar to current recommendations as to archives management outlined in TNA’s Archive Service Accreditation Standard. However, they do not compare as NPCC-3 is indeed shying away from IRM and only intent on supporting ‘an efficient, active and successfully managed heritage service.’⁷¹

Even with regard to heritage management, which logically requires some specialist expertise, there is no desire to ‘branch out’ as the model promotes a workforce that is ‘part of the force’s business as usual,’ and leadership cascading down from senior business owners only.⁷² Throughout, what stands out is risk aversion (‘legal and ethical responsibilities,’ ‘protection,’ ‘criticism,’ ‘financial penalties’), the urge to ‘understand,’ and the imperative to ‘utilize’ heritage, all of which confirming survey findings of a circular practice, still very much anchored in primary value, by the force, for the force.⁷³ This is probably why collection development is no more addressed by NPCC-3 than by APP Archiving. Nor is selection or appraisal, suggesting overall retention, albeit of artefacts (as heritage) only. There is an insistence on viewing collections as either data/information (APP Archiving) or artefacts/material collections (NPCC-3), with the former necessarily ‘scanned’ as ‘good’ archival practice, thus promoting an absolute separation of contents and carriers.⁷⁴ This is reinforced by APP Archiving’s view of ‘archiving’ staff as data controllers, not as recordkeepers or archivists, nor even as curators!⁷⁵ And, this is what both grey literature and the practice survey reveal: a focus on utilitarianism, where information is separated from original carriers and whereby materials are valorized for their memorial or display qualities only, in a single-minded way that deprives them of their documentary attributes. Thus, there is no real understanding of archival functions such as collections information or collections development, which results in a practice pre-empting contextualization, thus actual archival practice.

Archival denial

Overall, the situation observed with would-be police casework archives is not uncommon. At any rate, it is not surprising and only part of what we could call the problem with case files, in an echo to Gillis’ eponymous article on Canadian archival acquisition practices.⁷⁶ Closer to home, and as described in TNA’s own appraisal policy for case files, this seemingly impossibility of case file archives is very much tied to the issue of ‘each individual document [having] little importance by itself.’⁷⁷ It is indeed only as a whole that their value to the constitution of discourses on sociohistorical phenomena can emerge; something that has been called ‘variations in historical value’ often at series level.⁷⁸ As such, an ‘all or nothing’ approach to selection for permanent retention prevails, sometimes leading to the disposal of entire ‘case file series, because of their massive nature,’ but also fuelled by storage and preservation issues or pressures.⁷⁹ These precepts of archival theory tend to echo what was observed through this research, in both grey literature and in the discourses of queried police forces. Also demonstrated here is the tension between such pressures and the ‘important role [as a] major source’ these case files represent in terms of inclusion and diversity, leading to a standardized approach that retains materials which ‘would give the greatest amount of information in the smallest amount of space.’⁸⁰ It has certainly been noted by one National Archivist (for those police records that are in public recordkeeping) that there is ‘a commitment to keep every multiple murder case file rather than files for every murder.’⁸¹ Unfortunately, due to their confidential nature—and ongoing custody with their creators, we cannot reach a similar conclusion for case files, here.

Indeed, we can only guess at would-be casework archives, in an environment that seems to deny secondary value as an absolute or at least in archival terms. What this research uncovers is the very real risk of such archives containing few archival documents, as the demonstrated tendency towards heritage management without proper collections information practice may mean separation of items or indeed whole series based on format. Textual records were shown to often be considered for the information they carry, more than as carriers themselves with material imperatives. Artefactual components of case files are depleted of any documentary value through single-minded heritagization management strategies. As such, once the ‘archiving’ process as we have analysed it here begins, the original document loses integrity, and quite possibly, some authenticity, thus its ability to evidence (as opposed to ‘be evidence’ which was its purpose in active state, i.e., the sole primary value). Because only part of the original document is considered for its display potential or storytelling/visual support, it loses its inexorable capacity to relate between facts or propositions impartially. It is no longer a reliable and usable whole. We would argue that what is being ‘archived’ thus is no longer a record or even a signal of policing practice. What remains ‘sit[s] in a sort of limbo, governed by a wide variety of schedules which include archival limitations’ as Gillis already had observed for what he called ‘investigatory files.’⁸² Gillis perceived that ‘there is in the end no agreement on how such material will be made available to the public as an archival source.’⁸³ He implicitly prophesized this paper’s findings, i.e. the difficulty of police casework files to be made into truly public archives. Whether this is an impossibility or a systemic anomaly could be further explored by gathering feedback from local archives as to their dealings and interactions with police forces; this would provide a more exhaustive picture of the current situation.

Conclusion

This paper presumed to research one of the most obvious incarnations of evidence, an essential concept of archival theory, in the form of police casework files, which were chosen for their complex and seemingly indissociable combination of textual records and artefactual materials. Initial questions included: can materials (both record and artefactual) used as criminal case evidence be archived? Is there such a thing as archives of police investigatory work made through the process of ‘archiving,’ a term largely used by police forces themselves? Or do they merely exist as the result of accumulation by creators and users? As non-public records and in their current custody by police forces, can the record of police activity be kept, and is there such a thing as secondary value for holdings remaining with their creators?

An attempt at answering some of these questions was charted through analysis of governing authorities’ and police forces’ general understanding of archives and their archival process, as well as their incarnation in related practices of information and informational materials management. Other results were obtained through a survey querying police forces’ management of their historical case files and related materials. Combined findings revealed the impossibility to determine with precision what ‘archiving’ means for police forces and their governing bodies. No direct reference to archival theory, related standards of practice, or even any archival sensibility could be determined. Analysis further revealed a dominant stance favouring a heritage management approach which amounts to what was termed a clear archival denial, as the record of police investigation is seldom kept (or accessed) in the public interest, thus never fully crossing over to secondary value. Timid attempts to improve this situation were noted, but most seem again to veer towards decontextualized heritagization, making respect des fonds impractical, thus pushing further away the possibility (the ideal?) of actual theory-and-standard-based archival practice for police forces.

Further research would be required as this area has not been explored fully yet, and it would be beneficial to gauge the impact of implementing both APP Archiving and recommendations from NPCC-3. A full-scale survey of actual holdings, whether still in police custody or in public archives, might also complement the picture drawn here. It could confirm some of our findings and indeed establish a correlation between the refusal of an archival sensibility for police forces and actualized gaps in their ‘archiving’ practice.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Camille Moret

Camille Moret manages Loughborough University Archive. She is currently working on the re-cataloguing and futureproofing of the University institutional records, and is researching artefactual archives and the heritagization of multicomponent records as an archival practice phenomenon. Camille has a MA History and Aesthetics of Cinema and a MLitt Archives and Records Management. Her career encompasses visual media and broadcasting archives, as well as education and care providers’ archives. She is also a guest lecturer in audio-visual archives management at the University of Lille in France (GERIICO).

Notes

1. The House of Commons, “The Patronizing Disposition of Unaccountable Power,” 6.

2. Ibid., 7–8.

3. Ibid., 83.

4. Ibid., 84.

5. Bill 163 2016–17.

6. HM Government, A Hillsborough Legacy, 57.

7. Casework materials or case files are the work product of police investigation and encompass both exhibits (which can be artefactual physical items or documentary material) recovered or seized, and the records (associated information) generated by the police to interpret and correlate the facts tied to the investigation. Real evidence is a term solely used in the context of the trial, as it must be acknowledged that not all exhibits will be used. Hence, our choice of the term casework materials, as inspired by the 2012 FOI Request to the Home Office regarding the transfer of material to the FSS.

8. STC, Forensic Science, §93.

9. McCartney et al., “Police Retention and Storage,” 129.

10. Ibid., 130.

11. Ibid. §101.

12. Home Office, A review, §65; §99; §66; Gonzalez-Polledo, et al., “Archives, Promises, Values … ,” 13.

13. McCartney et al., “Police Retention of Investigative Materials,” 96.

14. Ibid., 104.

15. Biber, “In Crime’s Archive”; Biber et al., “Evidence and the Archive.”

16. Biber et al., “Evidence from the Archive,” 578.

17. Ibid., 7.

18. Rossmanith, “Plots and Artefacts.”

19. Biber et al., “Evidence from the Archive,” 589; Biber et al., Law’s Documents … , 10.

20. McCartney et al., “Police Retention and Storage,” 130; McCartney et al., “Police Retention of Investigative Materials,” 104.

21. Ibid., 129–132.

22. Gillis, “The Case File.”

23. Ilerbaig, “Specimens as Records,” 463–82.

24. Meehan, “Towards an Archival Concept of Evidence,” 127–46.

25. Ibid., 131.

26. Hereafter respectively abbreviated NPCC-1, NPCC-2, FSR-C-100, APP Review, and APP Archiving.

27. NPCC-1, 5.

28. Ibid., 10.

29. Ibid., 14.

30. Ibid., 13.

31. Ibid., 17.

32. Ibid., Figure 1.

33. NPCC-2, 1.2 ;9.2.

34. Ibid., Appendix 1 – Process for Retention.

35. Ibid., Appendix 3 – Storage Guidance for Retention.

36. Ibid., 10.1.1.3.

37. FSR-C-100, 80.

38. Ibid., 36 ;93.

39. Ibid., 36.

40. Ibid., 65.

41. Ibid., 43; 88.

42. Ibid., 88.

43. APP Review, 22.

44. Ibid., 22.

45. APP Archiving, 5.

46. Ibid., 6.

47. TNA, Archive Service Accreditation Standard, 8. “The archive service has a clear policy on collections development, covering the acquisition (passive and proactive accruals), appraisal and deaccessioning of material.”

48. APP Archiving, 10.

49. Ibid., 9.

50. TNA, Access to Public Records, 6–7.

51. APP Archiving, 10.

52. Ibid., 6; APP Review, 10.

53. This is not to suggest there should be archivists in police forces as a general rule. Rather, this highlights the incongruity of professional discourse about ‘archiving’ and ‘police archives’ not being emitted by archives professionals. If anything, the job title itself is almost non-existent as staff in charges of ‘police archives’ are usually police forces personnel, so ‘police archivists’ are nominal roles.

54. TNA, Access to Public Records, 7.

55. McCartney et al., “Police Retention and Storage,” 132. While it was estimated that in 2021 ‘750,000 case files were still held at FAL,’ the latter no longer appears to be the repository of choice in our survey responses, hence its exclusion from later discussion.

56. College of Policing, Management of Police Information (MOPI).

57. Corinne Brazier, Email Correspondence (09/06/2023).

58. PC Colin Boyes, Email correspondence (20/06/2023).

59. APP Review, 22.

60. Ibid., 4.

61. Ibid., 4; 22.

62. NPCC-2, 10.1.1.2.; 16.

63. Ibid., Appendix 3. e.g. nitrate film stock is mentioned while the longest possible retention for evidential materials is 30 years (putting oldest records of evidentiary materials in the 1990s), an aberration when it is commonly known that such film base was no longer used from the 1950s onwards.

64. NPCC-1, 5.

65. Ibid., A ‘lack of understanding as to the difference between records and physical evidence’

66. Ibid., 9.

67. Ibid., 5.

68. PC Colin Boyes, email correspondence (20/06/2023); Corinne Brazier, email correspondence (09/06/2023).

69. Hereafter abbreviated NPCC-3.

70. Ashforth, Heritage Maturity Model, 1.

71. Ibid., 1.

72. Ibid., 2–3.

73. Ibid., 11.

74. Ibid., 2; 3. The benchmarked third stage, akin to good practice, is to routinely ‘scan and store data and artefacts’

75. APP Archiving, 10.

76. Gillis, ‘The Case File’

77. TNA, (OSP48) — Case Files, 3.

78. Gillis, ‘The Case File,’ 33; TNA, Ibid., 3.

79. Gillis, Ibid., 35; TNA, Ibid., 3.

80. TNA, Ibid., 3. Original quote from the Grigg Report paragraph 109.

81. Taylor., ‘Access to Records of Crime,’ 101.

82. Gillis, “The Case File,” 35. His subject was, more generically, case files from a public archive’s perspective.

83. Ibid., 37.