Reviewing Murder Investigations: An Analysis of Progress Reviews From Six Police Forces

• NCJ Number: 206704
• Author(s): Catherine Nicol; Martin Innes; David Gee; Andy Feist
• Date Published: 2003
• Length: 6 pages
• Sale Source: Great Britain Home Office
• Publication Format: Document
• Publication Type: Research (Applied/Empirical)
• Language: English
• Country: United Kingdom
• Note: Home Office Findings No. 218

Annotation

This paper presents findings from a United Kingdom study on investigative issues raised in reviews of 34 unsolved homicide investigations, focusing on investigative weaknesses and strengths.

Abstract

In attempting to improve the investigative quality of murder enquiries, the police service of England and Wales has conducted reviews of investigations. The reviews aim to identify and develop investigative opportunities to progress the investigation; act as a form of quality assurance in relation to both the content and process of an investigation; and identify, develop and disseminate good investigative practice. This paper presents findings drawn from a study of investigative issues raised in reviews of unsolved homicide investigations and focuses on identified investigative weaknesses and good practice. Twenty-eight day review documents of 34 unsolved murder investigations were obtained from 6 forces and analyzed using content analysis in order to identify areas of good practice and investigative weakness. The study highlighted a range of frequently recurring themes within murder review documents, as well as other important issues about the review process and how they are conducted. Key findings from the study included: (1) review documents invariably consisted of three main components: areas of investigative weakness, areas of good practice, and recommendations for future action; (2) within the review documents, investigative weaknesses fell into six main areas: investigative response, forensic issues, record keeping, information management, staffing and resources, and communications; (3) the most frequently cited weakness was record keeping; (4) the underlying causes of investigative weaknesses were poor judgment, individuals’ lack of knowledge, noncompliance with agreed processes, lack of resources, and management style; (5) under 70 percent of review recommendations related to case specific issues; and (6) at the time this study was undertaken, just under one-third of reviewed cases examined had subsequently been cleared up by the police.