Conclusion
185. Forensic science is now central to the detection
and deterrence of crime, conviction of the guilty and exculpation
of the innocent. Moreover, the significance of forensic science
to the criminal justice system can be expected to intensify in
years to come.
186. The FSS has occupied a pivotal position in the
forensic science arena in England and Wales for many years. In
that time it has become the world leader in forensic science and
a major asset to UK policing. It is generally acknowledged that
the FSS could benefit from changes to its Trading Fund status
in order to give it greater access to capital and commercial freedom,
but the mechanism by which this should be achieved is a subject
of contention. The Government has a responsibility to render the
process of decision making over the future of the FSS as transparent
as possible. If it fails to do so, this could do irreparable damage
to the confidence and morale of the staff whose commitment has
been essential to the past success of the FSS.
187. We urge the Government to fulfil its promise
to fully test the merits of the GovCo model for the FSS: it must
not be set up to fail. If the Government does decide to develop
the FSS as a PPP, it is essential that it puts in place safeguards
to guarantee continued access to the full range of services at
affordable price and of the required quality standards for the
police and criminal justice system. It is a risky and irresponsible
strategy to rely on market forces to achieve this. The Government
will also have to ensure that it does everything possible to maintain
public confidence during this process.
188. At present, there is no one person or organisation
with responsibility for taking an overview of forensic science,
from education and training through to R&D and its use in
court. We recommend the establishment of a Forensic Science Advisory
Council to serve as a regulator for the developing market in forensic
service and as an independent source of advice. The Forensic Science
Advisory Council could also oversee cross-cutting inspections
of the entire chain of processes by which forensic science is
employed in the criminal justice system. We also highlight the
need for proper independent oversight, with ethical and lay input,
of the National DNA Database.
189. While we recognise that the number of miscarriages
of justice associated with expert evidence may be relatively low,
we are extremely concerned by the lack of safeguards to prevent
such miscarriages of justice from happening, and the complacency
of the legal profession in regard to these matters. The complexity
and role of forensic evidence are ever increasing and we have
not seen evidence to reassure us that the criminal justice system
has kept pace with these developments, or will be able to do so
in the future. We have made a number of recommendations that we
believe could improve the quality and treatment of expert evidence
and decrease the potential for miscarriages of justice due to
flawed expert evidence. These include greater scientific input
and oversight through the establishment of both a Scientific Review
Committee within the Criminal Cases Review Commission and a Science
and the Law Forum, increased use of pre-trial hearings (in line
with the Criminal Procedure Rules), and forensic and process training
for all those involved in the criminal justice system as a condition
of the role.
| 
