Backlog of confiscated phones, computers and hard drives delaying police prosecutions by up to several years

A COMPUTER containing child abuse images was in police possession for a year before anybody realised what was on it — and the man responsible wasn’t charged until four years after that.

A DELAY in the forensic examination of confiscated computers, mobiles and hard drives is hampering the vital police prosecutions of sex offenders — in some cases by several years.

A recent District Court case has highlighted the delays with the analysis of a computer containing almost 10,000 images of child exploitation material taking almost five years to be completed.

A Gawler South man, 56, was reported in September 2013 for indecently filming young girls by pointing cameras up their skirts.

When police searched his home they seized three hard drives and a computer, which they assessed as low priority and secondary to the main offence.

But an analysis of the hard drives a year later indicated they contained child exploitation material.

Ten months later, the lead investigator conducted a thorough examination of the hard drives over several months, which showed 235 images and 17 videos of child exploitation material.

But it took police more than a year to then talk to the man and report him for possessing child exploitation material.

The computer was not analysed completely until April, 2018, after which further charges were laid.

Forensic examination of computer files is taking years to be completed.

Judge Liesl Chapman last month said the delay was both “unconscionable” and “extraordinary”.

She sentenced the man to one year, two months and 12 days imprisonment with an eight month non-parole period. The sentence was suspended because of his positive improvements in the five years since he was first reported.

In August 2017, The Advertiser revealed that police had resorted to recruiting civilian digital forensic experts to help clear a backlog of electronic devices

An SA Police spokesman said advances in electronic storage had contributed to the substantial delays.

“A vast array of items are seized in connection with cases which may or may not contain electronic evidence — including computers, hard drives and mobile phones,” the spokesman said.

“These exhibits are triaged in order of priority, particularly regarding the gathering evidence related to offending against children.

“With current technology the volume of stored data on electronic devices can be extraordinary, which can be challenging to interrogate and interpret.”

He confirmed the recruitment of civilian experts and said the force was “ reviewing digital forensic analysis infrastructure to further support increased investment in its capacity”.

Central Queensland University information system specialist Dr Ritesh Chugh said much of the delays were derived from digital encryption.

“In today’s cyber world, encryption or scrambling of users’ sensitive data needs to increase not decrease,” Dr Chugh said.

“However, encryption often becomes a deterrent for Australian law enforcement agencies to access digital evidence in investigations.”