This website is intended to create debate and inspire research within the forensic community around forensic intelligence. We also offer consultancy services and advice to organisations where forensic intelligence could positively enhance their business and encourage the proactive use of forensic intelligence.

Let's work together as a cohesive, collaborative team to promote proactive forensic intelligence, prevent crime, protect the public and bring offenders to justice.

Criminalistics forensic science is a forensic science that has long played a supporting role to law enforcement by providing intelligence and evidence to combat criminality and provide supporting evidence for law courts. Crime scene examinations and trace evidence are typically utilised to explain what has happened in a scene, this assists the jury, and court officials make judgements of culpability. Given the investigative possibilities and potential value of Forensic Intelligence (FORINT) in the fight against terrorism, it is puzzling why proactive FORINT is not employed to its full potential.

Nonetheless, there is a strong argument that FORINT should not be confined to reactive, but as a proactive means of gathering actionable intelligence for the 'deterrence and reduction of crime' (Almog, 2014), in the prevention of attacks, and in early intervention of terrorist planning. However, Ribaux and Caneppele (2018) suggest the forensic personnel who work in this environment are only permitted to offer opinions to an investigation if the opinion which they express is based on existing evidence, and the evidence is 'confined to technical and scientific considerations (e.g., the cause of a technical failure, cause of a fire, etc.)’ Conversely, FORINT offers a tangible and unique means of collating information from forensics for the identification and prevention of terrorism and criminal activity. Vogel and Legrand (2014) discuss how, in 1989, Birkett, deliberated on the indexing of forensic data from numerous crime scenes to assist in the linking of crime scenes and the identification of suspects, though the concept of 'FORINT’ first presented by Ribeaux and Margot (1999). Ribeaux and Margot 'aimed to show that the study of inferences drawn by investigators during problem-solving is a useful approach to analyse how forensic science data should be integrated into criminal intelligence.'

As forensic science and related technologies develop at pace, new collection techniques, analytical methods and processes enable data to be collected and analysed accurately, promptly and at reducing costs. 'Such approach [es] can not only resolve crimes that might be unresolvable otherwise but also save time, manpower and resources. Furthermore, they may prevent certain crimes from being committed in the first place' (Almog, 2014).

Unfortunately, forensic practitioners appear to be unwittingly undermining the progress and development of FORINT; awareness and education of practitioners are therefore likely to be beneficial. Ross (2015) reports ‘forensic scientists do not routinely supply relevant intelligence for several reasons:

• It does not comply with traditional quality assurance;

• There is a reticence among forensic scientists to disseminate 'soft' information for fear it will be engaged in a Court process; and

• There is a lack of awareness about the needs of partners in policing.’

Though there is a strong case for the use and development of FORINT in the fight against terror 'it is not easy to convince policymakers of the importance of proactive forensics' (Almog, 2014). Policymakers are nervous about utilising methods and sources which they cannot verify and trust. Milne (2012) comments that 'forensics is often viewed by crime intelligence analysts as the domain of the Crime Scene Investigator. This compartmentalisation of thinking can and has led to disastrous failures in major investigations.' Buckley (2014) argued that police officers have an alarming lack of understanding of this 'dark art' and the encompassing sciences involved in forensics, 'and in many cases overwhelmed by the technical aspects of it, and most forensic scientists have little, if any, experience in relation to intelligence management.' He further suggests that police staff and law enforcement policymakers are risk-averse and therefore tend not to be influenced by the 'unproven' features of FORINT; they take the path they understand best, traditional policing.