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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The problem with most MoU's I have found is that they tend to get forgotten. When initially set up, they work well because everyone was a party to the set-up. Then there's a change of personnell, maybe the team leader changes, or there is a shuffle of the layer above and the priorities change - and the MoU gets lost in the background noise and the changing agendas.
ReplyDeleteThe only way I can see of fixing that is to renew it every time there is a change of personell or at least a review of it between all parties.
Yes. Such documents have a shelf life because that's where they stay! They are also too long-winded.
ReplyDeletePolice and Fire Officers on first attendances have too much new instruction and procedure already to deal with. I once asked a Watch Commander if he had read the latest Operational note on FI (It had recently changed substantially). He said that if it was more than three pages then probably not.
Fire is not a volume crime for the Police so I tend to think that the lead and the driving of these MoUs should come from the Fire Service.
The Fire Service investigator is a specialist. He or she should explain fully the remits and constraints of all parties at any fire scene and such procedure should be included in the NOS of the fire investigation.
I used to carry hard copies with me so I could give a copy to the Police Officer in charge at any incident. None had ever seen it before.
Seems to me the MOU is initially created to break through the political and organisational barriers and not necessarily provide written instruction on operational procedures. With that in mind I would suggest the MOU (between FRS and Police at least) is the starting point that should allow, if not demand, joint training and collective debriefs. We are still getting to grips with doing this effectively for risk critical events, such as working together during the dynamic stages of an incident so trying to achieve this for the closing phase of an incident is still some way off before anybody will convince me this is embedded, as highlighted in David's blog. On a more positive note though we are beginning to define the problem, which is the first step in working towards the solution. It will be interesting to see where this ends up as most organisations tend to suffer from chronic denial and prefer to espouse their areas of strength instead of showing true leadership and discuss openly their shortcomings.
ReplyDeleteChronic denial indeed is often apparent and voiced by principal staff and press liaison officers. But often it is because they are genuinely unaware of what is actually happening on the ground. Those on the ground need to inform up the chain very strongly.
ReplyDeleteJoint training has been standard at Fire college and Gardiners for many years now. Is it working?
Collective debriefs could be extremely useful. Many will recoil at the practicalities of such debriefs but they need not be face to face. A temporary blog for example would be quite adequate, easy to set up, use and monitor.
The idea of Memorandum of Understandings between the Police and FRS' is a good one when the people involved know what their role and remit is in reference to said document. As was mentioned in an earlier post the problems arise when the contents of the document are forgotten or are just ignored due to external factors like cost or resourcing issues.
ReplyDeleteBeing employed (at present) by the Forensic Science Service, I was asked to comment on a draft MOU. I'm not sure if this was a unique opportunity and I do not know if any other forensic fire investigators have been involved in producing MOUs. In my view to have their input would be best practise. However even though most MOUs state that a forensic scientist should be contacted in the event of a fatal fire I think it is common knowledge that it does not happen and a forensic scientist will only normally be called to a fatal fire scene if the case is perceived to be difficult or high profile. In these times of financial austerity it's my concern that the MOUs will continue to be ignored and the FRS FIs will be asked to investigate more high profile cases without the support of FIs from the Police or a forensic provider.
In addition to this I agree with Dave's comment that the Police perceive the FRS to be more knowledgeable with regards to fires and it is my experience that the FRS usually take a leading role, especially in the early stages, even at 'crime' fire scenes. The merits of the FRS' taking a leading role in 'crime' fire scenes could be discussed at another time. However a clear written statement by the first FRS FI to the attending detective indicating exactly what they have or have not done at the scene and their position in relation to the cause and origin of the fire would prevent alot of the problems encountered further down the line like mistrials, CPS dropping cases through a lack of evidence and miss communication.
In the real world the MOU is a good guidance tool, if used correctly, however it seems to me that they rarely are and therefore it is more important for the interested agencies to build better relationships with one another which would allow a given incident to be investigated to the fullest extent dependant on the need.
The more difficult problem is determining how different agencies with different aims and interests build constructive and lasting working relationships.