At face value?

Michael C. Bromby on the use of facial mapping and CCTV image analysis for identification. The technique of comparing CCTV photographs of an offender with images of a suspect is known as facial mapping. Experts in this field have been providing reports to provide evidence identification evidence, principally in criminal cases, for the past ten years in the UK. Exculpatory evidence can be led if marked differences are apparent from expert analysis that cannot be explained. In contrast, similarity cannot indicate identity unless the presence of unique identifiers can be established. Other forensic techniques of identification such as DNA analysis or fingerprint comparisons can prove identification, however facial mapping alone cannot provide sufficient proof in most cases. The significance of similarity must be taken into account to support other forms of evidence. Types of Identification When identifications are made, two types are apparent: eye witness accounts and forensic trail evidence. Eyewitness descriptions maybe insubstantial or unreliable; identification parades are only possible when the witness has had good opportunity to view the offender; and composite face reconstructions have been shown to provide only a likeness of the offender, thereby acting as a prompt for recognition. The confidence of the eyewitness bears no relation to the accuracy of identification. In examining forensic trail evidence, Locards Exchange Principle states that every contact leaves a trace. This is applicable to fingerprinting, DNA, glass and fibre evidence. CCTV footage as evidence contains no contact, but there is most certainly a trace. The images of the offenders face can be identifiable, provided that the quality of the recording is sufficient to appreciate the details of the face. The image, unlike the memory of an eyewitness, can be replayed and analysed by specialists and the arbiters of fact: the judge and jury. Many establishments, commercial retail outlets in particular, employ CCTV systems to monitor their premises to detect and deter crimes of theft, assault, etc. Should the same video tape be used daily and overwritten many times, the quality of the recording may often be so poor as to render the evidence as worthless for the purposes of identification. The tape can be subjected to image enhancement by experts and compared using facial mapping techniques. Facial Mapping Techniques Facial mapping is the comparison of two images one from the crime scene, and one obtained of the suspect. There are several methods available to the expert; generally, the heads of the subjects must be of the same angle to be of any comparative use as indicated in figures 1 and 2 below. A head may move in any of three directions, therefore the tilt, roll and yaw of the head must be similar if comparisons are to be made by overlaying grid-lines or superimposing images.

Figure 1. Image from a CCTV camera of an offender

Figure 2. Image taken of a suspect in custody.

continued

Images can be cropped or scaled to allow the comparisons to be made. The comparison will not be on of numeric distance but one of the relative similarities and differences between the two images. Removing the need for numerical measurements prevents complications arising from perspective and the distance from the camera to the subject. A qualitative assessment also prevents the need for complicated statistical matching of population samples and the thorny issue of probability. The computerised overlaying of grids to align facial features both horizontally and vertically is commonly used, as are overlays, tracings, wipes and other computerised techniques. A report will generally contain multiple comparisons taken from different angles and from other sources of video footage. This will provide increased support for the opinion of the expert. A description of how the images were compared and a description of the two images and their contents will follow, noting any similarities and any differences together with reasons as to why one might expect these findings. The final opinion will often take the format of a sliding scale with a verbal description of each level, as exemplified in table 1. A report may conclude that if two people were recorded under poor lighting conditions and on similar tape and camera equipment, it would often be difficult to distinguish one from the other. Material of this quality rarely provides conclusive proof of identity or otherwise. If there are any features, which are considered unique or characteristic to the defendant, such as blemishes or deformities, and these are identified on the offender, then this is seen as strong support that the two people are probably one and the same. Level 1 2 3 4 5 6 Description Lends no support Lends limited support Lends moderate support Lends support Lends strong support Lends powerful support

Table 1. Typical levels of support offered by facial mapping practitioners. Reproduced courtesy of The Unit of Art in Medicine, University of Manchester. Appeal Court Cases In R v Stockwell [1993] 97 Cr. App. R. 260 it was contested that image comparisons were solely for the jury to evaluate. The Lord Chief Justice (Lord Taylor) maintained that where identification was an issue, particularly if a disguise was used, expert evidence was admissible. It was noted that a jury, as in all cases involving expert witnesses, is not bound to accept an expert opinion as fact. In Stockwell the Court of Appeal also found that an expert witness may express an opinion which may also be the ultimate issue in question. The technique of facial mapping was directly criticized in R v Clarke [1995] 2 Cr. App. R. 425. It was proposed by the defence that such evidence should have been excluded under s. 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE). This section deals with the exclusion of unfair evidence should the prosecution propose to rely on evidence that may have an adverse effect on the fairness of the trial. The court concluded: We can see no other objection in legal principle to this category of evidence, but we say immediately, of course, that the probative value of such evidence depends on the reliability of the scientific technique (and that is a matter of fact), and it is one fit for debate and for exploration in evidence. The validity of the facial mapping technique was explored on voir dire and upheld. The opinion evidence in the two cases above was supported by other forms of identification evidence. The case R v Hookway [1999] Crim LR 750 rested on expert opinion alone for the purposes of identification. Vice President Rose concurred with the crown court opinion that there was a prima facie case which could be presented to a jury. The expert witness stated that his findings were consistent for both frontal and side profile images. His findings were very powerful
continued

support for the assertion that the offender was the appellant. Few cases, however involve such high quality images to enable an expert to form such supporting conclusions. The case Church v HMA [1996] S.L.T. 383 was heard under Scots Law. The requirement for corroboration of evidence by a second independent source would prevent cases such as Hookway from reaching the courts north of the border. The evidence presented in Church was the testimony of four eyewitnesses and CCTV footage which was broadcasted on national television (Crime Stoppers), 11 February 1993). This appeal for identification resulted in Alan Church noticing the apparent similarity between himself and the assailant, making a voluntary visit to the local police station and being detained following further investigations. Three eyewitnesses were able to make a positive identification of Church at an identification parade and expert evidence was also adduced. From the trial at first instance two independent experts maintained that the images were too poor to work with. On appeal, two other experts noted significant differences in the two images they compared on behalf of the prosecution. A further expert for the defence advised that the quality of the images were still too poor to enable any conclusions to be drawn. The number of experts and large quantity of images, of which some experts did not have access, caused considerable confusion as to the validity of facial mapping techniques in Scotland. Video footage of a suspect, often from custody cameras, can be searched for an instance whereby the head is correctly aligned. Consent from the suspect is generally required, as highlighted in the case R v Loveridge (and others) [2001] 2 Cr. App. R. 29. CCTV footage of the applicants was unlawfully arranged by the police using cameras at the magistrates court, which was subsequently used for image comparison. The appeal case cited article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights and s.41 of the criminal Justice Act 1925. The latter prohibits photography and video filming in court. Lord Woolf concluded that no unfairness was caused to affect the trial, whilst taking care not to approve or encourage such practices. Summary Stating the observed similarities and differences, including reasons why one might reasonably expect to find differences (lighting levels, differences in angle, time lapse, etc.) produces an indepth study of the images which the jury can then evaluate. Inexplicable differences can prove that the two images are of different people, similarity on the other hand can only add support to other forms of evidence. Reports commissioned by the defence may often result in a change of plea should the expert opinion suggest a strong degree of similarity between the offender and the accused. This can decrease the time taken to hear the case and may result in a reduced sentence on a summary hearing. Changes to the law in respect to disclosure of evidence by the defence as highlighted by David Corker (New Law Journal, 22 November 2002) and the government White Paper Justice for All para. 3.58 may result in fewer expert reports being commissioned should the accused not wish to enter into plea-bargaining. The National Crime Faculty keeps a list of practitioners who specialise in this area, currently around eleven experts are listed, who produce between 500 and 600 expert witness reports annually. Further statistics and information will be available concerning the usage of facial mapping following the association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) review of identification guidelines later this year. This article appeared in the NLJ Expert Witness Supplement February 28 2003 Michael C. Bromby, The Joseph Bell Centre, Division of Law, Glasgow Caledonian University. Email: m.bromby@gcal.ac.uk - Ends -