UK Parliament Has Spoken: Digital Forensics Has A Mental Health Problem

By Paul Gullon-Scott BSc, MA, MSc, MSc, FMBPsS, Forensic Mental Health & Well-being Lead, Spectrum Specialist Consultancy Ltd Forensic Focus, in collaboration with Northumbria University, is urgently seeking current and former investigators for an international well-being study to highlight this crisis. Please help protect investigators and TAKE THE SURVEY NOW. When a House of Lords report describes what many investigators have been quietly living with for years, we should pay attention. On 2 December 2025, the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee heard oral evidence as part of its Forensic Science: follow-up inquiry. Giving evidence were Professor Sarah Morris, Steve Rick and Jake Moore. During questioning, Professor Morris made a statement that will resonate with anyone who has spent time in digital forensic units: “There is no amount of preparation for some of the awful things that we have to see.” That sentence alone captures something many practitioners struggle to articulate outside of trusted conversations. Later in the session, when asked for a single top-priority recommendation to Government, her answer was direct: “Better mental health support for practitioners.” This was not framed as an optional enhancement. It was framed as essential. Recruitment Is Not the Problem. Retention Is. In Question 85, the Committee explored whether digital forensics can attract talented individuals in a competitive skills market. Professor Morris acknowledged that students are often enthusiastic about entering the field, sometimes inspired by what they believe investigations will involve. But she added: Get The Latest DFIR News Join the Forensic Focus newsletter for the best DFIR articles in your inbox every month. Unsubscribe any time. We respect your privacy - read our privacy policy. “Although we can attract them, they do not necessarily understand what they are getting into when they go in.” That is not a criticism of recruitment. It is an observation about reality. You can be told you will see disturbing material. You can sign policy documents acknowledging exposure. You can complete safeguarding training. But, as she stated: “Simply being told that you are going to see bad things… does not prepare you for the reality.” The Committee also heard that retention is “as much a problem as attraction.” That is a crucial distinction, and it is one that research has been reinforcing for years. If attraction is not the core issue but retention is, the implication is clear: the profession is not failing to bring people in, it is struggling to keep them well enough to stay. That points to a structural gap between the expectations of the role and its psychological realities. Technical training may be robust, but sustained exposure without equally robust mental health infrastructure creates cumulative strain. Retention problems therefore signal not a recruitment weakness, but a sustainability issue, one that requires organisational redesign, proactive support, and explicit recognition that psychological impact is an occupational hazard, not an individual shortcoming. The Evidence Behind the Words The academic literature now mirrors what was said in Parliament. One recent study suggested that 17% of digital and multimedia forensic examiners met diagnostic criteria for PTSD and that over a third had sought counselling due to work-related stress. Image analysts reported higher psychological distress than other specialists. These are not isolated figures they represent a meaningful portion of the workforce. Other large-scale studies of CSAM investigators have found elevated rates of depression and anxiety, particularly where moral injury and perceptions of institutional betrayal were present. In those studies, feeling unsupported was often a stronger predictor of poor mental health than exposure volume alone. The Committee’s discussion about preparation, exposure and retention is therefore not speculative. It aligns with measurable psychological outcomes. Training the Investigator — But Not the Human? In Question 90, Baroness Willis asked whether training may be “on the wrong foot,” focusing heavily on technical skill while neglecting preparation for dealing with what practitioners actually see. Professor Morris responded: “There is a lot of training on the art of investigation… but I am not aware of anything in terms of support and dealing with it.” That is a powerful admission. Digital forensics trains people to extract artefacts, validate tools, write reports, and withstand cross-examination. It is technically rigorous, as it should be. But structured preparation for cumulative exposure, for emotional residue, for secondary trauma is far less consistently embedded. Research into secondary traumatic stress shows that symptoms often remain stable over time without structured support. Supervisory support predicts lower stress outcomes; avoidance-based coping predicts higher ones. Organisational culture matters. The Committee did not use academic terminology, but it described the same phenomenon. Failing to provide structured psychological support carries real and predictable consequences. When investigators are trained only in the technical dimensions of the role but not prepared for cumulative exposure, emotional residue and secondary trauma, distress does not simply disappear, it consolidates. Without supervision, normalisation, and safe avenues to process what they are seeing, practitioners may default to avoidance, emotional numbing, or withdrawal. Over time, this increases the risk of burnout, reduced concentration, impaired decision-making and eventual attrition. The danger is not just personal; it is organisational. A workforce that is technically skilled but psychologically unsupported becomes progressively less sustainable, placing evidential quality, team stability and long-term operational capability at risk. The Part That Rarely Gets Said Out Loud Earlier in the session, Professor Morris stated: “There is also a massive mental health problem in digital forensics. We are losing both people who have started and did not realise what they were going to have to see and those who have been doing it a long time and eventually cannot take it anymore. Sadly, that sometimes ends with people taking their own lives”. That phrase is not an exaggeration when viewed alongside the data. Studies have identified: Elevated PTSD symptoms in digital forensic examiners Clinical levels of depressive symptoms among analytical practitioners Burnout risk affecting approximately 30% of forensic professionals Sexual post-traumatic stress symptoms linked to severe and live-streamed CSAM exposure These are not theoretical risks. They are documented patterns, and yet, as the Committee heard, most people entering the profession do not fully grasp the psychological implications until they are immersed in the work. This Is Not About Fragility There is sometimes an unspoken fear that talking about psychological impact suggests weakness, yet the evidence points in the opposite direction. Secondary traumatic stress is an occupational hazard; burnout is a system-level indicator; moral injury reflects values clashing with repeated exposure and organisational culture. None of these are individual failings. Digital forensic investigators are among the most analytically capable, disciplined, and resilient professionals in policing and forensic science — but resilience does not mean immunity. The Committee did not frame this as fragility, but as workforce sustainability, which is precisely what it represents. Why This Moment Matters For years, many investigators have spoken quietly about cumulative exposure, hypervigilance that does not easily switch off, and the difficulty of explaining to others what the work involves. Those concerns have now been acknowledged at parliamentary level. The research evidence has been clear for some time. The lived experience has been clear for longer. What the Committee and Professor Morris have done is place the issue formally on the public record. The question is no longer whether there is a psychological cost to working in digital forensics. Both the evidence and Parliament have recognised that reality. The more important question is whether this report marks a shift — moving mental health and well-being support from something viewed as optional to something understood as operationally necessary. Protecting investigators is not about lowering expectations or diluting professional standards. It is about safeguarding the people who uphold those standards every day. Failing to do so risks undermining the integrity the profession works hard to maintain. View Parliamentary Report Paul Gullon-Scott BSc MA MSc MSc FMBPSS is a former Digital Forensic Investigator with nearly 30 years of service at Northumbria Police in the UK, specializing in child abuse cases. As a recognized expert on the mental health impacts of digital forensic work, Paul now works as a Higher Assistant Psychologist at Roseberry Park Hospital in Middlesbrough and is the developer of a pioneering well-being framework to support digital forensics investigators facing job-related stress. He recently published the research paper “UK-based Digital Forensic Investigators and the Impact of Exposure to Traumatic Material” and has chosen to collaborate with Forensic Focus in order to raise awareness of the mental health effects associated with digital forensics. Paul can be contacted in confidence via LinkedIn.