Chain of custody is the continuing record of where an item has been, who controlled it and what happened when possession changed. For an exhibit, that record begins with recovery and continues by showing its location as custody develops. The record makes the history of possession and movement available for assessment instead of leaving that history to memory or assumption.
A useful record identifies the personnel who take possession, when possession is taken and where the item is located. It also records details when the item is released or destroyed. Those entries identify responsibility at each documented point and mark transfers or the end of the recorded custody history.
Following the documented sequence
Read chronologically, the entries connect recovery with each later period of possession. A transfer can be assessed by comparing the recorded end of one person’s control with the beginning of the next, while location entries show where the exhibit was during that sequence. Release or destruction then records how the documented history ended.
Documentation is only one part of protecting an exhibit. The Forensic Science Regulator’s Code separately requires protection through handling, packaging and storage. It also requires a possible compromise or possible tampering to be recorded, assessed or investigated. The first duty preserves a history that can be examined; the second group of duties addresses the item and any concern about its condition.
What the record can and cannot establish
A complete-looking record does not guarantee that the item remained untouched. It establishes the documented custody history without making interference impossible. Physical protection and the response to a possible compromise remain separate matters, so paperwork cannot answer a concern that the Code requires to be assessed or investigated.
A gap or irregular entry must therefore be considered in the circumstances of the item and case. The record can show what was documented before and after the gap, while the protective controls and any investigation supply other relevant information. That combined assessment supports a reasoned conclusion without assigning one automatic result to every custody error.
