What to Send for a Police Phone Download Review

The most useful first instruction is not the largest data package. It states the proposition to test, the material already served and the deadline. That allows an examiner to assess feasibility, identify material that may be missing and propose a staged scope. For likely deliverables, see the police phone download review service.

Begin with the disputed technical point

State what the prosecution material is said to show and what is not accepted. Is a conversation complete, is a timestamp interpreted correctly, can an account be attributed to a person, or does the report fairly represent the extraction? Give the relevant dates, identifiers and context without asking the examiner to decide guilt, admissibility or another legal issue.

An SFR1 is a short summary used to identify whether forensic findings can be agreed. It is not the same as a full expert report that meets Criminal Procedure Rule 19.4. Review can start from an SFR or selected exhibit, provided its limits remain clear.

A useful first review pack

A letter of instruction or draft questions. Identify the court, case reference, parties, procedural stage, issue and intended use.
The allegation and chronology. Include only the dates, people, telephone numbers, usernames or accounts needed for the technical question.
The served forensic material. This may include an SFR, statement, report, exhibit, message schedule, screenshot or prosecution chronology.
The extraction material as supplied. Preserve its folder structure and send any reader package, database, export or media through the agreed secure route.
Acquisition records, if served. Device and exhibit identifiers, extraction type, tool version, dates, hashes, warnings and notes help define what was acquired.
The client’s focused account. Record the explanation or missing context to test, separating instructions from assumptions.
Deadlines and funding. Give the next hearing or report date, Legal Aid authority or private budget, and the required output.

Material can be added in stages. A list of what has and has not been served is more useful than waiting for a supposedly complete download of unknown scope.

Extraction, presentation and examination are different stages

An extraction is data acquired by a method at a particular time. A reader, PDF, spreadsheet or message schedule presents some of that material. Review tests the records relevant to the instruction. The labels Cellebrite download or full extraction do not define what was acquired, exported or reviewed.

CPS guidance distinguishes the initial download, potentially relevant material and records selected for evidence or disclosure. If more material may be needed, the expert can explain its technical purpose. The solicitor remains responsible for any disclosure request and procedure.

Protect the material before review

Run the conflict check first. Send party and entity names with a high-level description.
Keep the package unchanged. Retain the original delivery and record its source, receipt and handling.
Do not reorganise the extraction. Renaming folders, opening databases in ordinary software or making new exports can obscure context.
Use an agreed secure route. Extraction packages can contain extensive private material and need case-specific handling.

Common questions

Can you estimate the work from an SFR alone?

Often a provisional first stage can be scoped from the SFR, the precise questions and a description of the material held. The estimate will identify assumptions and any items needed before examination or formal reporting.

Is the original handset always needed?

No. A review may begin with the served extraction and reporting material. The handset, a further extraction or another source may become relevant if the existing material cannot answer the question, but that should be justified rather than assumed.

Is a Cellebrite Reader package enough?

It may be enough for a defined question. Its usefulness depends on what was acquired, processed, selected and included in the supplied package. Missing logs, databases or source records can limit what can be checked.

Will an independent review find a defence point?

There is no promised finding. The review may identify missing context, an unsupported interpretation or a useful limitation. It may also find that the reported point is supported or that the available material cannot resolve it.