Discussion topic - Memorandum of understanding

MoUs between Police and Fire Service have been in existence for some years now but are they effective? There are still cases coming to court where a breakdown in communication between the two agencies has resulted in miss-trials and cases abandoned at the final hour. In one case to my knowledge a suspect's details were not passed on. That suspect committed a murder some months later. In another case samples had not been taken after a hydrocarbon canine had indicated and frequently the only report of investigation at court is a statement of likely cause or 'confirmation memo' from the Fire Service investigator. There is no investigation report or detailed statement from either agency.
All because the Police and Fire Service failed to communicate effectively.

MoUs outline very clearly the roles and responsibilities of all parties but who reads and fully understands the complexities of these documents and what may be missing from them? The communication breakdown occurs for many reasons: non-compatibility of shift systems, lack of experience, verbal messages not passed on, complacency and over-familiarisation.

Police Officers understandably perceive the fire service to be the experts and when told by a fire investigator that the cause of the fire was most likely deliberate the assumption is often made that the fire has been investigated. What they do not hear and are sometimes not told is that the fire has only been investigated up to that point.

Some Regional Fire Authorities have a closer working relationship but certainly not all. Some regions take a full role and effectively investigate crime scenes. This, I believe, is controversial and may be subject to challenge.

In any event I believe there needs to be a clear and written statement from the Fire Service investigator to the Detective in charge, for example:

"This fire has been assessed by the Fire Service to be most likely of deliberate origin. The Fire Service thus has no further jurisdiction. A full and comprehensive forensic investigation is now required to ascertain the actual cause of the fire and to obtain evidence with regard to any perpetrator. The Fire Service will assist if required. Please contact ..... "

Have other investigators had similar experiences? What are the solutions?
One thing is for certain. It must be resolved. Nationally.

Discussion topic - Investigation beyond level three

The CFOA steering group may touch on this subject and there still exists (just) a group discussing the subject in some detail but I would like to canvass our Group's views.

Let us call it 'Level 4' investigation for now. It clearly encompasses any event that effectively overwhelms the scope and capabilities of existing Level 3 investigations. Note that I did not say it overwhelms the abilities of investigators that work to level three. We all at some point are called upon to deal with incidents that are beyond our current experience but it is that very experience that is key to our effectiveness when stretched in this way.
But can 'Level 4' investigation ability be cost-effectively taught or pre-planned?
Is there a need? Is there the necessary finance?
In the past we have had to learn as we go. Many valuable lessons have been learned and applied at Atherstone for example but further lessons were learned there too.

I tend to feel that there is validity in having an established but necessarily broad procedure but training for such rare events would not be cost effective.
Seminars or travelling presentations of case studies is a good way to pass on lessons but how about a specialist team on standby call?

There is much to discuss and consider so shall we start? Share your views here. Let's get lively and straight-talking. Your pointers and opinions will be passed to the relevant discussion groups and I may precis them for the journal.