The investigator must make a determination whether the information uncovered during the investigation substantiated the complaint, and if the complaint and file should be turned over to the prosecutor for further action. This is an important responsibility and should be done objectively, based on the merits of the case and the evidence obtained.
Having a biased or sloppy analysis of the information can have serious integrity consequences, such as recommending prosecution of the wrong individual, or allowing a guilty persons to go undetected.
Some of the steps which investigators can take to ensure integrity in the analytical process:
Thorough and objective analysis
A comprehensive analysis of all of the evidence collected can help determine the facts of a case. A cursory or sloppy review can overlook pertinent facts or result in an incorrect rush to a judgement.
As part of this analysis, investigators usually check:
- whether the official records correspond with the official format and reporting requirements for those records;
- whether official records have been tampered with, and if so, if it can be determined who is responsible;
- whether financial statements are supported by receipts, vouchers, invoices, cancelled checks, accounting books and bank account statements; and whether any reconciliation took into account entries, deletions and corrections;
- whether there are explanations for omissions, discrepancies, anomalies, or irregularities;
- whether any records appear to contain any false, deceptive or misleading information; and
- whether records were signed by the authorized person, and whether there appears to be reasonable grounds to believe that recorded information, including signatures, were written by someone else.353
For spoiled ballots, investigators usually check:
- whether any votes that should have been cast and counted were not cast and counted as a result of suspicious or illegal activity;
- whether the evidence is sufficient, reliable and substantial enough to prove that someone committed an offense or was involved in an illegal activity; and
- whether any further investigation or administrative action should be taken before closing the file or initiating legal proceedings.354
Substantiated findings
Part of the analysis of evidence is to determine whether a crime was committed, and whether a recommendation can be made for prosecution. This assessment requires an objective review of the facts, but, in some cases may require a subjective judgement by the investigator.
Because the analysis will be used to determine whether a prosecution will be initiated, it is very important that the investigator substantiates his/her findings in a written assessment. This enables the prosecution, and others in enforcement, in making an informed decision based on factual information. As a result, these kinds of reports generally include a summary of the alleged infraction, details on the identity of the suspect and the complainant, the status of the investigation, a list of the events cross referenced with the supporting evidence, and a summary of each offence and the linkage to the suspects.
The report also usually includes the investigator's recommendation on whether the investigation should be continued or stopped, and an assessment of the availability, credibility, competency and reliability of potential court witnesses and any other extenuating circumstances.355
If the investigation found that the allegations were unsubstantiated, that there was no apparent criminal intent or motive, and that continuing the investigation would turn up no new leads, the investigations are generally closed. If the investigation found that the allegations were substantiated, it is generally turned over to the prosecutor's office.
One of the checks on inaccurate or unsubstantiated analysis can be a review of the assessment done by the investigator's supervisor, before the report is given to the prosecution. To ensure integrity, and to avoid the situation where a supervisor could bury a case ready for prosecution, each system should have a mechanism for a higher level review if there is disagreement between the investigator and the supervisor on the recommendations.
Safeguarding the secrecy of the vote
When investigators examine electoral documents, including the voter registry, absentee ballots and tally sheets, special care is usually taken to maintain the privacy and secrecy of the vote. This is especially true when investigating a crime such as voter fraud through the use of absentee ballots.
For example, Elections Canada uses the following Safeguards and Methodology for the Inspection of Spoiled Special Ballots:356
- the inspection is done behind a locked door free or any other material, files and documents not directly related to the inspection. This is to avoid mixing the information and evidence with other unrelated material and to ensure the admissibility of evidence in future court proceedings;
- each outer envelope is opened individually and marked with a reference code known only the Chief Investigator and Assistant Chief Investigator, this reference code is marked on the inner envelopes which are also opened individually;
- all spoiled ballots are inspected and, while the inspection is in progress, only the Chief Investigator and his assistant have the ability to identify for whom the elector cast his/her spoiled special ballot; and
- after inspection the special ballots are sealed in an individual envelope which is placed in a second sealed envelope, initialled and dated by the chief investigator. This remains in the exhibit vault until the completion of the investigation or prosecution.
In order to minimize the extent of the violation of the right of secrecy of the votes, the Chief Investigator shall restrict communicating any information, with respect to the manner in which a ballot paper has been marked, to the Special Investigators where required for the purpose of investigations, Counsel to the Commissioner, Commissioner, agent retained in a prosecution and, where directed to do so, opposing counsel.357
Confidentiality
Reports and information from ongoing investigations are usually kept confidential. This is to protect the privacy of witnesses and avoid the destruction of potential evidence which would hurt the effectiveness of the investigation and undermine public confidence in the administration of justice.358 Leaking inside information on an investigation could also affect the election results if it became known before the elections that a certain official or group was suspected of election fraud.
For integrity purposes, the following information is generally not disclosed:
- information on evidence collected that will be used in the trial;
- information that would hurt the character or reputation of the accused or witnesses; and
- information that would jeopardize an ongoing investigation or the safety of law enforcement officers.
