Unraveling Chain of Custody: Ensuring Integrity in Evidence Handling

1. INTRODUCTION

One of the contentious areas in criminal law is the concept of chain of custody. The jurisprudence surrounding chain of custody is intricate and multifaceted, as it hinges on various factors such as the nature of the object, the circumstances under which it was seized, and how it was subsequently handled, stored and transmitted. This insight aims to delve into the significance of maintaining a robust chain of custody concerning effective collection, handling, and preservation of evidence.

2. THE MEANING OR CONCEPT “CHAIN OF CUSTODY”

Chain of custody refers to the meticulous documentation and tracking of evidence from the moment it is collected until it is presented in court. Encompasses the process of collecting, handling and preserving evidence from the time it is seized until its presentation in court.

In other word, chain of custody established a clear trail that shows who had possession of the evidence/exhibit at each stage, ensuring that its integrity is maintained and that it has not been tempered with or altered in any way or contaminated.

In a simple way, the chain of custody is the witnessed, unbroken, written chronological history of who had the evidence from the time of collection until it is presented as evidence in court¹.

Police General Order No. 229 paragraph (8) (a), The Police Force and Auxiliary Services (Police General Orders) Order, 2021 provide that; The chain of custody of an exhibit establishes that the exhibit is indeed associated with the crime for which the accused person is charged, and ensures that the exhibit has not been tampered with. It helps to establish that the alleged evidence (exhibit) is in fact related to the alleged crime and eliminate all notions that the exhibit/evidence has been implanted.

In the case of Paulo Maduka and Four Others vs Republic², the court state that by “chain of custody” we have in mind the chronological documentation and/or paper trail, showing the seizure, custody, control, transfer, analysis, and disposition of evidence, be it physical or electronic³.

Chain of custody refers to the sequence of explanation and or evidence that illustrates the seizure, custody, control, transfer, analysis, and disposition of evidence, whether physical or electronic.

¹ Swanson, Chamelin & Territo, 2003:33

² Criminal Appeal No. 110 Of 2007  

• Seizure; presupposes the time when the property used in the commission of the offense is collected by law enforcement officer at a crime scene.
• Custody; means who stores it and where it is stored after being seized. To ensure that the evidence or exhibit is under proper custody; PGO No. 229 paragraph 21 provide that the key of the exhibit store will be kept by the O/C station or by an officer nominated by him.
• Control; refers to the entire movement of the property/exhibit, detailing who was in control. This necessitates an explanation of the entire exhibit movement.
• Transfer; involves the process of moving the exhibit from one location to another. When an exhibit is transferred from one officer’s custody to another, the transferring officer must record in the presence of the receiving officer the name, rank, and identification numbers of both officers, along with the date and time of the transfer, on the back of the exhibit. It is essential to minimize the number of transfers.
• Analysis; some exhibit/evidence collected from the scene require analysis to extract information relevant to the case. Once analysis is done the result must also be documented carefully. The details of who conducted the analysis or evaluation and the criteria used in reference to the object/exhibit seized must also be documented.
• Disposition; Finally, once the case has concluded, decision is made regarding what happen to the evidence – whether it will be returned to its owner, destroyed or retained for future reference. It presupposed the mode in which the object was disposed.

NOTE: In chain of custody the fewer people handling the evidence, the better. There is less chance of contamination and a shorter chain of custody for court admissibility hearing.

3. DOCUMENTATION

The essence of documentation in as far as chain of custody is concern cannot be overstated. The chain of custody requires that from the moment the evidence is collected, its every transfer from one person to another must be documented and that it be provable that nobody else could have accessed it⁴.

The documentation should be comprehensive, including information about the circumstances of evidence collection, the individuals who handled the evidence, the duration of custody, the conditions of safekeeping during handling and storage, and the procedures for transferring evidence to subsequent custodians. Each transfer should be documented with the signatures of the individuals involved at each stage. This meticulous documentation serves to prevent police officers, laboratorian, and other law enforcer officials from tampering, maneuvering, or misplacing evidence. Documentation ensures accountability as the evidence can be traced back to those responsible for its custody, which would then be held accountable.

³ Paulo Maduka and Four Others vs Republic, CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 110 OF 2007

Documentation of exhibit/How documentation is effected?

• Upon seizure, each exhibit must be recorded in the “exhibit register” P.F 16. The exhibit register is divided into columns as follows:
• Columns 1-5: Record the particulars of each exhibit. This is done by O/C. station or other police officer deputed by a commanding officer to keep the register.
• Column 6: To be filled by the officer who receives the exhibit and places it in storage for safe custody.
• Columns 7-11: Indicate any movements of the exhibit since its initial storage.
• Column 12: Completed when the exhibit is finally handed over to the court by the Officer in Charge (O/C) of the station.
• Column 13: Completed when the exhibit is returned to the owner.
• If an exhibit is temporarily removed from and then returned to the exhibit store, an entry must be made in the exhibit register P.F 16.

4. PROVING CHAIN OF CUSTODY

The procedures for establishing a chain of custody of evidence include:

• Listing all persons who had physical possession of the evidence from the time it was recovered at the scene, processed, and examined, up to the point when it is presented in court see Republic vs Kaanael Ndikausia Akyoo @ Kaanael Lekausya Akioo @ Kaanaeli Akyo (supra).
• Labeling of Exhibits, any exhibit or evidence must be labeled immediately upon seizure. To establish the chain of custody, it is essential to identify all marks or labels placed on the exhibit or object at the time of seizure.

• Ensuring that documents/exhibit contain identifiers. The chain of custody record must describe the evidence at the time it was found, including details such as location and position, in accordance with jurisdictional requirements. It is the duty of the officer who collected the evidence to document the circumstances of its discovery and include other pertinent details.

• The record must document who packed the evidence and provide verification that it was packaged and sealed appropriately. This information, recorded in the comprehensive report, may serve as the basis for testimony in court proceedings.

5. THE JURISPRUDENCE OF PROVING CHAIN OF CUSTODY

The jurisprudence surrounding proving chain of custody is evolving. Initially, it was required to prove the chain of custody strictly through a paper trail. However, courts have since relaxed this principle and now allow for the proof of chain of custody through oral testimony. Presently, the prosecution may establish chain of custody either through documentary evidence or orally, as affirmed in the case of Chacha Jeremiah Murimi and Three Others Vs Republic⁵ where it was held,

“…In establishing chain of custody, we are convinced that the most accurate method is on documentation as stated in Paulo Maduka and Others vs. R. However, documentation will not be the only requirement in dealing with exhibits. An exhibit will not fail the test merely because there was no documentation. Other factors have to be looked at depending on the prevailing circumstances in every particular case. For instance, in cases relating to items which cannot change hands easily and therefore not easy to tamper with, the principle laid down in Paulo Maduka (supra) would be relaxed”.

The same stance was reaffirmed in the case of Joseph Leonard Manyota v. Republic⁶, where the appellant contested the chain of custody of a motorcycle. In distinguishing between the chain of custody for exhibits that can change hands easily and those that cannot, the Court of Appeal stated in pages 18-19 of the judgment that:

“…it is not every time that when the chain of custody is broken, then the relevant item cannot be produced and accepted by the court as evidence, regardless of its nature. We are certain that this cannot be the case say, where the potential evidence is not in the danger of being destroyed, or polluted, and/or in any way tampered with. Where the circumstances may reasonably show the absence of such dangers, the court can safely receive such evidence despite the fact that the chain of custody may have been broken. Of course, this will depend on the prevailing circumstances in every particular case”.

All along after the decision of Maduka (supra) the court has been cautiously in rejecting evidence on the broken chain of custody. The court of appeal emphatically stated that there must be distinction between items which change hands easily in which the principle stated in Paulo Maduka and followed in Makoye Samwel @ 11 Kashinje and Kashindye Bundala would apply and others. In cases relating to items which cannot change hands easily and therefore not easy to tamper with, the principle laid down in the above case can be relaxed⁷ which means a party is allowed to prove chain of custody orally.

The absence of documentation does not automatically result in the failure of chain of custody test. The court must take into account various factors, whether the nature of exhibit makes it susceptible to easy change of hands⁸.

⁴ Criminal Appeal No. 551 OF 2015

⁵ Criminal Appeal No. 485 of 2015  

6. MODE OF PROVING CHAIN OF CUSTODY

i. Paper trail

Proving chain of custody by paper trail means meticulous process that establishes clear and unbroken records of evidence handling throughout an investigation.

Components of chain of custody Documents

A typical chain of custody documents includes several key pieces of information;

• Date and time: when the evidence was collected
• Location: where the evidence was found
• Investigator information: names and signatures of all individual who handled the evidence
• Description: a detailed description of the evidence itself
• Transfer records: how and when each transfer occurred between individual or entities
• Storage conditions: information about how and where the evidence was stored during its custody

⁷ Issa Hassan Uki vs Republic, Criminal Appeal No. 129/2017

⁸ Republic vs Kaanael Ndikausia Akyoo @ KaanaelLekausyaAkioo @ KaanaeliAkyo

It is done through PF 16 – exhibit register, which include all particular of exhibit from the moment it was seized to the time it is presented in court.

ii. Oral

The chain of custody can be proven orally, requiring the prosecution to present witnesses who testify about each stage through which the exhibit passed. This principle was affirmed in the case of Salimu Mohamed @ Mndi vs Republic⁹ where the court held;

“Through PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW4, the prosecution managed to prove all the essential ingredients of the offence of unlawful possession of Government trophy specified under section 86 of the WCA. We are compelled to observe so because the witnesses were consistent in their testimonies that, they caught the appellant in the game reserve carrying a bag and after search they found him with the alleged meat of Zebra. The evidence was also corroborated by exhibit PI and P2 (the seizure certificate and inventory form) in which the appellant signed as an undertaking that he was found with Government trophy. Regarding the chain of custody of the alleged meat, in our opinion, Ms. Sabina submitted correctly that the prosecution witnesses oral account established the unbroken movement of the exhibit from the time of seizure until its disposal. The link was clearly demonstrated by Pw5 (from page 62) that on the material date whilst at Kondoa Police Station, she received the appellant and exhibit PI from PW1…”

Also it was held in the case of; Republic vs Miriam Steven Mrita & Revocatus Evarist Muyela, Criminal Session No. 103/2018, at pg. 125.

…oral account in absence of paper trial can establish chain of custody of exhibits. What is important is for the court to follow carefully the handling exercise of what is seized from the suspect or collected from the scene of crime and how was it handled up to the time of laboratory analysis, until when finally, the seized exhibit is received in court…”

From the above excerpt, to establish the chain of custody, one can provide oral testimony by detailing and presenting all witnesses who interacted with the evidence at each step. This includes the law enforcement officers who initially collected the evidence, the individuals who stored it, those responsible for its transportation for forensic analysis, the forensic analysts who examined it, and the personnel who received it after analysis. Demonstrating each party’s role and confirming their involvement helps to affirm the integrity and unbroken chain of custody, thereby upholding the evidence’s admissibility in court. In support of each movement, there must be supporting documents such as a seizure certificate or a report (if the evidence underwent analysis).

⁹ Salimu Mohamed @ Mndi vs Republic, Criminal Appeal No. 321 Of 2021

7. CASE STUDY FOR CHAIN OF CUSTODY

Below is the demonstration of the how chain of custody is proved orally in court and articulate all procedures from when the exhibit was seized up to the time it was tendered in court.

Republic vs Miriam Steven Mrita & Revocatus Evarist Muyela, Criminal Session No. 103/2018, at pg 122 – 124.

• Pw 17 – he is the one who collected the exhibit at the scene of crime which were, knife with black handle – marked “A”, one female underpants/ underwear purple in color – marked “B” and Whistle marked “C”.
• Pw 17 handover the exhibit to Pw -23 (Sgt. Mwaka) at Kigamboni Police Station who recorded them in exhibit Register.
• Later on Pw-17 collected the exhibit/sample from Pw-23 and handled it over to Pw-16 (WP Elentruda) at RCO’s office at Temeke. Thereon Pw-16 filled in PF -180 upon receiving the said three exhibit/sample ready for sending them to GCLA.
• Pw-16 also together with RCO (Pw-10) witnessed the Second Accused taken buccal swabs collection at the Forensic Bureau offices at the then Police headquarters at Dar es salaam
• Pw 16 is the one who submit the sample to the Government Chemistry Laboratory Authority.
• Pw15 received the exhibit and the sample at the GCL office and thereon conducted analysis on the sample
• Pw 17 went to collect the sample/exhibit together with the report and kept them until when it is tendered in court.

This case study showcase how the exhibit was seized from the crime scene, who seize it, after seizure who store it, the whole movement of exhibit from store to the laboratory of analysis, who kept the sample and exhibit after analysis and until the exhibit is presented in court. The chain of custody movement must be observed clearly as in this case.

8. REMEDY IF CHAIN OF CUSTODY IS BROKEN

If chain of custody is broken means the evidence is tempered with and it cannot be acted as the basis of conviction. The court had no option other than expunging the exhibit. However, as each law has exception, it was held in the case of; Joseph Leonard Manyota v. Republic, Criminal Appeal No. 485 of 2015 that;

“…it is not every time that when the chain of custody is broken; then the relevant item cannot be produced and accepted by the court as evidence regardless of its nature. We are certain that this cannot be the case say, where the potential evidence is not in the danger of being destroyed, or polluted, and/or in any way tampered with. Where the circumstances may reasonably show the absence of such dangers, the court can safely receive such evidence despite the fact that the chain of custody may have been broken. Of course, this will depend on the prevailing circumstances in every particular case¹⁰.”

9. CONCLUSION

Maintaining the chain of custody should be considered a professional and ethical responsibility by those in charge of the evidence/exhibit. It is imperative to create appropriate awareness regarding the importance and correct procedures of maintaining the chain of custody of evidence among the people dealing with such cases. It is often ignored and given very little significance as a presumably un-important and straightforward procedure. Still, it must remain in mind that it is the most critical procedure which ultimately decides the admissibility of evidence in the court of law.

Disclaimer: This article has been posted for information purposes only. The information and/or observations contained in this article do not constitute legal advice and should not be acted upon in any specific situation without appropriate legal advice.