This two day course has received exceptional feedback reports each time it has been delivered and covers all aspects of role of the Accountable Officer, the course Aim being;

 To equip delegates (Accountable Officers & those supporting accountable officers) with the knowledge & skills necessary to identify, assess and develop information required to comply with and to fulfil their obligations under current legislation.

 This course highlights not just the role but the legal responsibilities that accompany that role

The next course is due to run on the 12th & 13th June 2012 at the Holiday Inn, York.  This fully inclusive course includes delivery by a current practising Accountable Officer.

The all-inclusive cost is £950 + VAT, reductions do apply to those not wishing to stay at the hotel and for multiple booking.  All bookings confirmed before the end of February get an extra night accommodation free.

To find more details, or to book a place follow this link

The seminar will take place on Thursday 1st March 2012 at the Sporting Lodge Inn, Warrington Road, Leigh WN7 3XQ, commencing at 9.30am and concluding at 4.30pm.

The programme for the day is;

9am Arrival. Tea and Coffee to be served

9.30am Surveillance, Privacy and the Law relating to investigators – Graham Gooch. Graham is a former detective superintendent and university lecturer who is a specialist in human rights issues relating to investigations

10.45am Tea and Coffee

11am Interviewing Witnesses – an update Graham Jones. Graham is a former detective officer and police trainer who has lectured extensively on issue relating to the interviewing of witnesses and suspects

11.45am Internet Investigation – an update regarding recent developments

12.30pm Lunch

1.30pm Recent Updates in Forensic Science including the cases of Steven Lawrence and Amanda Knox – Sue Carney. Sue is a forensic scientist and was formerly head of body fluids for the Forensic Science Service at the laboratory in Chorley. Sue now runs her own forensic science consultancy company.

3pm Tea and Coffee

3.20pm ‘There is no property in a witness?’ Legal and practical issues regarding approaching witness for ‘the other side’ – Mick Turner. Mick Turner is a former detective superintendent and university lecturer who now runs Sancus Solutions an investigative training company.

430pm Close

We understand that there is pressure on budgets today and have priced this seminar at £75 plus vat which includes lunch. If you want to reserve a place please contact Sancus Solutions on enquiries@sancussolutions.co.uk or on 01772 977606

They have issued a useful checklist for the Courts when dealing with young witnesses. Experienced interviewers will be familiar with much of the content but it is a handy piece of work setting out what witnesses and those looking after their interests should expect when attending to give evidence.

Timetable response and make orders as necessary

• Information provided about development/ health/ concentration span?      Child’s competence is assumed if capable of intelligible testimony (may      need intermediary) but need not give readily understood answers,      appreciate difference between truth and lies or understand need to tell      truth at court
• Is child unlikely to recognise a problematic question or tell the      questioner that (s)he has not understood? Consider assessment by      intermediary, even if one was not used at interview
• Ensure dates to avoid are obtained for child’s exam dates or other      important events; intermediary; specialist witness supporter
• Outstanding disclosure/ PII issues?
• Has defence received DVD of interview? Playable and audible?      Timetable for editing (schedule for child to see edited version)?      Transcript?

Trial timetable

• priority fixed listing, not behind another trial or as ‘floater’
• If live link is not available in all courtrooms, fix courtroom when      trial date is set
• Early start to child’s evidence (ensuring opening/ preliminary      points will be finished). Schedule start to questioning while child is      fresh. No other matters listed beforehand
• Schedule e-in-c (DVD and any additional questions) and      cross-examination, seeking time estimates from advocates. Take account of      child’s concentration span, breaks, length of DVD
• Consider whether child should watch DVD at a different time from      jury (if so, child is sworn immediately before cross-examination, asked if      (s)he has watched DVD and if contents are true). What protective measures      should be put in place for alternative viewing e.g. presence of      independent person asked to report to judge
• Waiting on standby? Staggered arrival times if more than one child
• Build in time to meet the child. Prosecutors are expected to do      this and defence advocates may find it useful. It is up to the judge      whether to meet the child with the advocates
• Schedule ‘ground rules’ discussion about questioning (recommended      in any young witness trial but required in intermediary cases).      Adapting questions to individual witness takes time and thought. It is      therefore preferable to discuss ground rules before day of trial

Consider which special measure or combination of special measures is necessary

• Is judge satisfied that child has made informed preference based on      demonstration of live link/ screens? Judge can permit opt out of primary      rule (recorded e-in-c and live link) and secondary requirement (screens) –      consider quality of evidence, age and maturity, ability to understand      consequences of testifying in court, relationship with accused, offence      etc.
• Specify person independent, with whom child has relationship of      trust) to provide emotional support in live link room: child’s wishes must      be taken into account
• Evidence in private in sex offence cases, or if reasonable belief      that someone has sought or will seek to intimidate child
• Combined special measures? Where there are specific reasons, some      judges turn off or screen defendant’s monitor e.g. where child wants to      use live link but fears being seen by defendant
• Remote live link? From other court or non-court facility or using      police equipment where child is anxious about confronting defendant/      supporters at court; or facilities make it difficult to keep child      separate; or where intimidation is a concern. What evidence needs to be at      remote site?
• Witnesses over 18 who made a DVD statement when under 18 are      eligible for SMs

Judge is expected to be aware of arrangements for

• Familiarisation visit(s) to the court and memory refreshing before      trial
• Protected access to court building, waiting room, link room or      screens in courtroom
• Escorts during breaks and separation arrangements when relatives      are also witnesses
• Child’s welfare e.g. need for asthma medication

If there is an application to vacate a trial due to court reasons

• Can another judge take the trial on the original date or can the      trial be heard elsewhere, taking account of witness/ defendant views?
• Can a trial with a lesser priority be vacated instead?
• Re-list trial in shortest possible time if postponement is      unavoidable

Directions to both advocates at ‘ground rules’ discussions

• Adapt questions to child’s developmental stage, enabling this      child’s ‘best evidence’
• Ask short, simple questions (one idea at a time)
• Follow a logical sequence
• Speak slowly, pause and allow child enough time to process      questions (for younger children, almost twice as much)
• Allow full opportunity to answer
• Avoid question types which may produce unreliable answers. ‘Tag’      questions (e.g. ‘He didn’t touch you, did he?’) are particularly complex.      Put more directly e.g. ‘Did Jim touch you?’ (and if the answer is ‘yes’)      ‘How did Jim touch you?’ (Use name not pronoun)
• Avoid allegations of misconduct without reasonable grounds. Being      accused of lying, particularly if repeated, may cause a child to give      inaccurate answers or to agree simply to bring questioning to an end
• Do not ask children to give their address aloud unless for a      specific reason
• Do not ask children to demonstrate intimate touching on their body.      Use a body diagram
• How child is to be questioned about matters arising from third      party disclosure
• How defence case is to be put. For younger children, inform jury of      evidence believed to undermine credibility, but do not necessarily address      in detailed cross-examination (see R v Barker [2010] EWCA Crim 4)

At trial

• Check all directions are in place and all child’s needs catered for
• Check that equipment is working and DVDs are compatible
• Check that defendant cannot be seen over live link before child      enters live link room
• Ensure that the child can see all of the questioner’s face over      live link
• Ensure duration of cross examination is appropriate to the nature      of the case and the age and attention span of the child and does not      exceed the estimated time without good reason.

Monitor questioning

(Where ground rules on cross-examination are necessary ‘there is a duty on the judge to ensure that limitations are complied with’: see R v Wills [2011] EWCA Crim 1938).

• Is tenor, tone, language and duration developmentally appropriate      to this child?
• Prevent questioning that lacks relevance or is repetitive,      oppressive or intimidating
• Be alert to possible difficulties in understanding and ask advocate      to rephrase

Explain to the child

• The need to tell the truth. Don’t guess or leave anything out
• You won’t get into trouble if you don’t know the answer
• Say if you don’t understand (do not rely on the child to tell you)
• How often breaks are planned. If you need a break, just say so
• Tell me if you have a problem of any kind (some courts use coloured      ‘signal’ cards in the live link room for this purpose)
• I can always see you over the live link even when you can’t see me      (one reason why some children fail to tell the judge about a problem).

At the end, thank the young witness for giving evidence.

The  course runs on the 21st & 22nd February 2012 at the De Vere Hotel, Southampton.  This fully inclusive course includes delivery by a current practising Accountable Officer.

The all-inclusive cost is £950 + VAT, reductions do apply to those not wishing to stay at the hotel and for multiple booking

For full details and booking form follow this link

This does give problems for investigators as reliance has to be placed on experts to provide evidence in many cases, from homicide to road traffic collisions to frauds. The cases highlight the importance of an investigator’s decisions in selecting and using expert witnesses. Failed cases demonstrate not only difficulties with their scientific expertise but their compliance with rules on disclosure.

In this article we will seek to assist investigators by explaining the law relating to expert witnesses and what issues investigators need to consider when making important decisions about selection and use of experts.

It has been recognised by the courts for more than 400 years that there are areas of knowledge which the court or jury need assistance in understanding. This is the reason why experts in their field are permitted to give evidence of opinion as well as fact. Because of this privilege the use of experts is, or should be, strictly controlled by the courts and there is a body of law, rules and guidance with which the investigator should be familiar. The decision as to whether a person is an expert is a matter for the trial judge. There may be a problem with this as research conducted by the City University, London indicates that three out of four judges and lawyers fail to check the qualifications of expert witnesses. Late discovery of the inadequacy of an expert witness may be fatal to the case.

So, how do people become expert witnesses? Experts can become ‘experts’ by several routes. The first, and most obvious, is by formal education and qualification; this can then be reinforced by practical experience. A good example of this course is a forensic scientist who perhaps obtains a science degree at university and then undergoes further training and gains years of practical experience before being allowed to give evidence in a criminal court. Another route may be by training which does not necessarily involve a formal academic qualification. In recent years the expertise of road collision investigators has been recognised and accepted by the courts. In R v Murphy [1980] 1 QB 434 a police constable who was a traffic collision examiner was allowed to give his opinion as to the nature of a collision, the course of one of the vehicles involved and other matters said to be deducible from marks on the road and damage to the vehicles. The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge’s ruling. Provided the judge was satisfied that these matters were within the officer’s expertise, his evidence was admissible.

It is also possible that experience alone in a particular field may be accepted by the courts, as may occur when considering the provenance of works of art or antiques.

A more unusual route is the expert ad hoc. This is a person who is held to be an expert and therefore give an opinion on a single incident. In R v Clare and Peach [1995] 2 Cr App R 333 a police constable had spent many hours studying video recordings of people arriving at a football match and later scenes of disorder in a town centre. He was permitted to give evidence identifying the defendants as people shown on the film committing offences. This was approved by the Court of Appeal on the grounds that as a result of studying the film at length the officer had special knowledge which the jury did not possess. This is particularly relevant now that the product of intrusive surveillance is more frequently used in court.

The most important element for investigators and the experts they employ is that the expert must be independent. The duty of experts is to the court, not the party that engaged them and paid their fee. The courts have come down hard on experts who have forgotten where their duty lay and favoured those instructing them. There are potential difficulties, particularly in long-running investigations where a forensic scientist, or other expert, engaged to advise can come to be seen as part of the team and could be in danger of losing their objectivity.

The purpose of having an expert is to give an opinion on matters in of which the court does not have sufficient knowledge. This will include science, DNA, medicine, pathology, accountancy and many other areas. On the other hand there are a number of areas where the courts have decided that expert evidence is not required and therefore cannot be called.

For example leave would not be granted to call a professor of psychology to demonstrate the likely deterioration of the memory of an ordinary witness. (R v Browning [1995] Crim LR 227) Nor could an expert be called to give an opinion on whether an unidentified person in a photograph is under the age of 16 (R v Land [1998] 1 Cr App R 301). It is usually the defence who try to bring in experts to persuade juries not to trust their own judgement. In R v Masih [1986] Crim LR 395 the defendant was accused of rape. He had no psychiatric illness but had an IQ of 72 which is above sub-normal but only just. His counsel, sought to call expert psychiatric evidence about his client’s ability to appreciate the situation and recognise whether or not the victim consented. Because he had no mental illness and was not sub-normal the trial judge would not admit the evidence and the Court of Appeal agreed. It was a matter for the jury and within their experience.

In R v Turner [1975] QB 834 the defendant was tried for battering a 15 year-old-girl to death with a hammer. He claimed that he had been provoked when she told him that the baby she was carrying was not his and that she had been prostituting herself while he had been in prison. He tried to call a psychiatrist who would say that he was truthful and that he had had a deep emotional relationship with the girl and this was likely to have caused him to fly into a blind rage. The evidence was not admitted by the trial judge and his decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal because there was nothing that was not in the experience of the jury and no expert help was required.

An investigator should think very carefully before engaging an expert. The difficulty arises because once you have an expert’s opinion on any matter it will have a lot of influence on the decision to prosecute and subsequently on the jury. Once the decision to consult an expert has been made it is important that care is taken to instruct an appropriate person. Any lack of care in choosing and instructing an expert means an inquiry may be left with unhelpful or misleading opinion.

It is also essential that the questions asked of the expert are precisely phrased. Because you have an expert, the defence will have their expert to give a possibly contrary opinion. You may then have a battle of experts in the court on something that is only a very minor issue but it diverts attention away from the main evidence in the case and can seriously muddy the waters and mislead the jury.

So, as an investigator, and despite all of this you need some expert assistance. What are the issues you need to consider?

The first, and one of the most important decisions, is which expert to engage. There are a number of sources of help; primarily investigators should consider the database of expert advisers maintained by the National Policing Improvement Agency. The individuals on this list are referred to as ‘advisers’ rather than ‘witnesses’ as their role is very often limited to supporting an investigation rather than giving evidence in court. However, it is always a possibility that an adviser will actually become a witness. The NPIA receive recommendations for the database from a number of sources. These include existing experts and investigators who have worked with the person in the past. Inspector Mark Britt from the NPIA’s specialist operations centre says, “We also proactively seek out individuals with a particular expertise when we recognise that there is a demand that we cannot meet”. An example of this is medical doctors with specialist knowledge of head trauma in children. Inspector Britt can cite numerous examples of cases where expert evidence has been vital, as well as unusual areas of knowledge.

In a recent attempted murder case the hospital doctor initially examining the victim of a stab wound described the injury as ‘superficial’. The investigators were put in touch with a medical illustrator by the NPIA. This expert examined the forensic scientist report which stated that the knife used bore traces of fatty deposits. Using this as well as photographs, the illustrator was able to explain and demonstrate that the knife had penetrated much more deeply than was first thought and that the victim was extremely lucky to have survived.

The NPIA does not accredit or recommend experts. They also publish a handbook ‘Practice Advice On The Management Of Expert Advisers’. A 2011 version of this is now available and is a must read for investigators contemplating the use of an expert.

The NPIA is not the only register. There are a number of commercial organisations, such as UK Register of Expert Witnesses who have some 2,600 potential experts listed on their database. The advantage of this source is that virtually all of it’s members are subject to a vetting process. Lawyers who have previously utilised the expert are contacted and asked for their opinion about the expert in a variety of areas such as report writing and courtroom skills. The UK Register also supports it’s members by providing them with advice and support in relation to legal updates.

Once you have a potential candidate in mind, make absolutely certain that the person is a genuine expert. This may seem a strange point to make but do not forget the case of Gene Morrison from Greater Manchester, who used sham degrees from a fake university in the USA to help him get the work He claimed to offer 20 years’ experience in forensic science, psychological examinations, lie detecting, fingerprinting, surveillance and handwriting analysis. Mr Morrison is now serving a term of imprisonment for fraud. He gave expert reports and evidence in hundreds of cases before he was discovered. If you are thinking of using an expert, other than from the Forensic Science Service or LGC, do not be afraid or embarrassed about asking for references including sight of any relevant qualifications. It is a good idea to speak to any officers who have previously made use of the expert.

You must also be sure that he is an expert in the precise area you require. At the Old Bailey last year in the trial for alleged horse race fixing it emerged in cross examination that an expert from Australia called by the prosecution was not familiar with the rules or culture of British racing. This led to the judge stopping the trial and ordering an acquittal.

Once you have a list of potential experts available to you there are a number of important issues to consider before making your final choice. An individual might be supremely qualified in his particular field but his alone would not automatically make him suitable for use in your investigation. However well qualified in his specialism, unless he has received training on how to be an expert witness, he may not be best placed to advise and present his evidence in court. For example, is he aware of the duties of an expert witness, of the rules of disclosure and the need for impartiality? In the context of expert witnesses he who pays the piper does not call the tune – the expert’s duty is to the court. Despite the majority of the publicity being about misleading statistical evidence Sally Clarke’s conviction for murdering her children was quashed solely because of a failure by the Home Office Pathologist to reveal to the prosecutor the results of some tests he had carried out. The Prosecution are obliged to disclose any expert’s reports they obtain, whether they intend to use them or not. Unfortunately the same does not apply to the defence. They only need to disclose any reports on which they intend to rely. Any others obtained – perhaps with findings which might support the prosecution – do not need to be disclosed.

The fees charged by experts may vary considerably and can be a contentious issue. It is important to establish at a very early stage what the expert proposes to charge. Many experts will quote an hourly rate: investigator should ask exactly what the fee will cover. For example if an agreement is made for a set number of hours work, does this include writing the report an attendance at conferences There are dangers in setting a fixed number of hours; what will happen if the work has not been completed within that time? Is there a likelihood of further costs for scientific tests or examination? If these areas are not clarified when making the agreement the expenditure can very quickly spiral. There is no set guide to what an expert charges. The fee will depend on a variety of factors such as their eminence in their chosen field and rarity of their particular expertise. The UK Register of Expert Witnesses periodically surveys members about their hourly rates. There is a wide difference depending on the professional group. For example medical experts charged an average of £1,163 per day for appearing in court whilst scientist’s fees were an average of £720 per day.

Another often overlooked area is that of confidentiality. Most professional expert witnesses would never countenance speaking publicly about a case they have been involved in without the permission of the senior investigator. However if your case is a high profile one you may not wish to appear in someone else’s memoirs.

Rather than rely on verbal agreements it is advisable to prepare a written contract which clearly covers areas including costs and confidentiality.

Once engaged then the expert should be provided with a copy of the NPIA guidance titled ‘Guidance for Expert Advisers’. This sets out in detail the experts obligations and ensures that they are familiar with their duties.

Once the expert is selected then the investigator must clearly request what is expected. The expert will answer whatever questions are set so there must be careful thought applied to this. All decisions need to be recorded in a policy log. A careful record needs to be kept of all materials supplied to the expert to guard against allegations of selective briefing.

Annexe K of The Crown Prosecution Service disclosure manual gives detailed guidance as to how experts must certify that they are familiar with their obligations, prepare a disclosure index and reveal any potential issues such as convictions or adverse findings by professional bodies which may affect their credibility. The manual can be found on the CPS website.

The law relating to use of expert advisers has recently been included in the Criminal Procedure Rules. These can be found on the website of the Ministry of Justice. These set out the expert’s duties and importantly the contents of the report. This must include such areas as the expert’s qualifications, who carried out any tests and the conclusions. Importantly the expert will also need to disclose any issues that might affect his competence as a witness such as convictions or professional disciplinary findings.

Although there are many instances of experts giving excellent support to the prosecution there have been numerous high profile failures. Perhaps use of experts ranks alongside failures in the disclosure of unused material as the most perilous area for an investigator. When the training for Senior Investigating Officers was recently updated for the Professionalising The Investigation Programme the time dedicated to forensic science was reduced from four days to half a day. Nowhere in the process is there any input on use of experts. Perhaps it is time to look again at this situation.

The authors of this article, Graham Gooch and Mick Turner are former detective superintendents who lecture on behalf of Sancus Solutions on the use of expert witnesses for investigators. www.sancussolutions.co.uk

©Sancus Solutions 2012

So, the witness box can now be an even more forbidding and lonely place for the expert or professional witness that is not prepared for the experience. Proceedings before courts and tribunals can be likened to a theatrical play. All the participants are actors who, essentially, know the script and have read their lines: apart, that is, from the inexperienced and untrained witness who has no set lines and doesn’t quite know what to expect! But for the professional and expert witness in particular, positive impressions are important: a poor performance can undermine confidence and credibility in the evidence that the witness is called upon to give and now can lead to a disgruntled party seeking financial redress through the courts.

Many expert and professional witnesses have never given evidence in court. Often disputes are settled before the case is heard, and sometimes at the door of the courtroom. Those experts who do have experience have usually developed their skills in the courtroom itself, which can be a dangerously hit and miss business. However, there is no mystery to becoming an effective witness. It requires only three things: preparation, preparation and preparation! Positive impressions are created by being prepared and organised, by knowing the courtroom setting where the hearing is to take place, and by a complete familiarity with the factual and opinion evidence that is to be presented.

Without doubt, it is cross examination that potential witnesses are most anxious about. Within an adversarial system (such as we have in this country), cross examination is all about challenging and testing a witnesses’ testimony and about eliciting evidence which is favourable to the examiner’s case. Different advocates approach cross examination very differently. Some take a softly, softly and friendly approach (remember the Chinese proverb, ‘beware the smiling tiger’?); others can be very aggressive from the outset and can seem hostile and critical of the witness. Doubt may be cast on the witnesses’ experience, qualifications, methods and opinions, to the extent that many start to wonder whether it is they who are on trial. But it is important not to take things personally and it’s even more important not to be intimidated. Self-evidently, the witness who presents his or her evidence under cross examination calmly, accurately and with confidence, it is likely to have more influence on the outcome of the case than one becomes openly angry or who bursts into tears and rushes from the court! However, there are ways of dealing with cross examination of whatever type: learning and practicing them is all part of the preparation stage of the process.

The Sancus Solutions Courtroom Skills Course is an intensive, highly practical and experiential form of training. First we examine the stage that is the courtroom, the ‘actors’ to be found within it and the theory, practice and procedure of giving evidence,  thereby demystifying the process.

But the maxim that there is no substitute for experience is as true in the courtroom as in other walks of life. To give evidence effectively requires practical experience. So, with that in mind, the course provides the opportunity for delegates to give evidence in chief and to be cross examined just as they would be before a court or tribunal. Forewarned is forearmed!

Have a look at http://www.sancussolutions.co.uk/training/courtroom-skills/ for more details

The author of this blog, Michael Williams, is a practising barrister and presenter of the Sancus Solutions Courtroom Skills training

The private sector are not forgotten with insurance companies plagued by apparently dodgy claims or large organisations such as Sky needing to protect their valuable products.

However there is only one standard of investigation and whether you are Scotland Yard’s top ‘tec or you are from the local authority enforcing people parking in the correct bays the product of your work will be subject to legal scrutiny. The court environment is often an intimidating place but especially so if you are presenting a poorly investigated case.

The cost of an investigation going wrong can be significant in many ways. How much has it cost to bring the failed case as far as the courtroom? Even worse can be the organisational damage which results from the inevitable bad publicity if things go wrong. Just think of the years of bad press received by the Met following the bungled investigation into the murder of Stephen Lawrence and the cost of defending their actions in the public arena. Only now, some eighteen years later, have Steven’s family received some justice. The story is a long way from finished with the investigators seeking more convictions and the Attorney General announcing a review of what some perceived were unduly lenient sentences.

The prospect of professional embarrassment and even sanction for those involved is also a concern. Not just for the investigators but for managers who are charged with directing investigations.

Perhaps the potential worst outcome touches on none of these aspects. Remember Stefan Kiszko? He was an innocent man who served 18 years in prison for murder of an eleven year old girl before he was finally cleared. The investigation was poorly handled and this contributed to the miscarriage of justice. Now I am not suggesting that most of you who might be looking for investigative training would get involved in such a high profile crime but I am saying that you need to get it right.

An investigation is the search for the truth. There are tried and tested methods and procedures to ensure that the truth is the outcome. Investigative training will cover all of these areas including the relevant laws or procedures, recovering and correctly handling evidence and even how to approach giving evidence.

Witnesses are an important feature of all inquiries and there are methods of planning and carrying out interviews which will ensure that you get the best out of this valuable source of evidence.

A few days in the classroom listening to people who have carried out investigations at the highest level and are experts in their field cannot fail to pay dividends.

Sancus Solutions is a company run by three former police senior investigative officers who have been involved in hundreds of major enquiries. They make use of experts who are absolutely at the top of their field to deliver the best in investigation training to all those who have a need. The company mantra is ‘if you haven’t done it then you can’t talk about it.’ Why not have a look at the full range of courses at www.sancussolutions.co.uk

Yes, there is a cost to training but why not consider what the cost might be if you get it wrong?

Now the founders of Sancus have launched a new investigative service – Sancus Secure offering bespoke services such as Crime Scene Investigation and Pre-Employment Screening. Full details can be found at www.sancussecure.co.uk

Sancus Solutions – the company is named after the Roman god of loyalty and honesty – devise and deliver tailor-made management training courses to meet and deal with the difficult problems that all organisations can face.

With bases throughout the country, the three directors who run the company have a team of people who can deliver a wide spectrum of training.

Mick Turner, a former Detective Superintendent, said many problems are linked to internal discipline matters, which, if not handled correctly can cost companies tens of thousands of pounds at Employment Tribunals.

All too often the friendly face of a long-serving employee or contractor can be a mask for a conman, thief or shirker.

One lecturer for the company, ex Det Supt Brian Dunn, former head of Professional Standards at Cleveland Police, was recently asked to look at an employee suspected of filtering work away from a firm to a company he had set up after local police had not wanted to get involved.

He said: “We interviewed various staff and put a file together. It was clearly fraud and £1 million worth of business had been passed on. Our files were given to the company barrister, who handed them to police and the man was arrested.”

Mr Dunn added: “How many organisations have a fraud and corruption policy in place – and if so are staff trained and kept up to date with the processes in case there is a breach?

“If an employer needs to interview someone do they know how it should be conducted? Do they know how to preserve evidence? If mistakes are made the cost to an organisation can be substantial.”

Training work by Sancus has attracted a wide range of clients in the public and private sectors including the Food Standards Agency, the NHS in Glasgow, the Ministry of Agriculture Veterinary Service in Northern Ireland and more than half of the 43 English and Welsh police forces.

Director Tony Hutchinson, an ex Det Superintendent who has an international reputation as an investigator and headed the murder squad at Cleveland Police for many years, added that there are probably hundreds of local authorities and government bodies with investigative functions and it is in everyone’s interests they operate fairly and professionally.

“Our service is unique. Courses can be held in-house or at one of our training venues. They can be delivered in modular form with a one day session so people are not extracted from work for days at a time.

“Our experience covers everything required from decision making logs – and the rationale that underpins those decisions – to witness interview strategies, case file preparation and court room skills.

It ensures that all evidence gained is admissible to whatever legal forum will finally deal with the problem – be it a criminal court or internal discipline hearing.”

Full details of Sancus training activities can be found on their website: www.sancussolutions.co.uk/ For their investigative work why not have a look at Sancus Secure at www.sancussecure.co.uk

Course Dates

 5 day course commencing Monday 16^th April – Friday 20^th April 2012

Course commences at 09:45 on Monday.  All other days will be 09:00 – 17:00. Course closes at approximately 13.30 on Friday

Location

 LancashireConstabulary HQ

Training Centre

Hutton

Preston

Lancashire PR4 5SB (for Satnav please use PR4 5TJ)

Costs, accommodation and catering

Those who wish to attend on a full residential basis, to include all tuition, catering and accommodation the cost
will be £865 per student and for those attending on a non-residential basis, to include all tuition, lunch and refreshments the cost will be £600 per student. All costs exclude VAT.

Delegates are welcome to arrive on Sunday evening prior to the commencement of the course but this must be specified on
your booking form.  There are no catering facilities on Sunday evening; however, breakfast will be available on Monday.