Forensic Science Service

Written evidence submitted by Professor Brian Caddy (FSS 01)

1. The forensic science investigation of a criminal case is a complex process. Briefly, it begins with the assembly of the correct "tools" properly validated for their defined use and processes to the deployment of properly trained and accredited personnel who investigate the crime scene. Most of these personnel are under the control of the police forces as scenes of crime officers (SOCO’s) or crime scene investigators (CSI’s) but especially in serious crimes some of the personnel will be laboratory based scientists. Where items are found and by whom are recorded and then appropriately packaged and securely transported to either a forensic science laboratory or a police station with its own small laboratory for preliminary screening. These latter laboratories may or may not be accredited by the United Kingdom Accreditation Service (UKAS). All major forensic science laboratories, whether directly controlled through the Home Office i.e. The Forensic Science Service (FSS), or commercially independent such as LGC-Forensics, Cellmark, Key Forensics, must be accredited under UKAS if they are to present evidence to the courts for the prosecution. Compliance with the accreditation is monitored by the Forensic Science Regulator. The Regulator also has a role in producing manuals of best practice. Of vital importance both at the scene, during transportation and within the laboratory are measures to prevent contamination and cross contamination. This process is a costly one and compliance with legal requirements means that it can also become a stressful one associated with the need to meet time deadlines.

2. There is a misconception that forensic science is simply a series of independent .tests. For example, a test on a stain on a garment to determine if it is blood, followed by a DNA test on the cut out stain to determine the origin of the blood. Such tests can be itemised and costed appropriately. Moreover, if the first test is carried out in the police laboratory it will reduce costs to that police force. The problem with such an approach is that while the profile of the DNA may be obtained, the scientist conducting the test will find it difficult and sometimes impossible to interpret the meaning of his findings in the context of the case. This would be exacerbated if there is additional scientific evidence to be woven into the tapestry of the case such as a blood stained footwear mark at the scene to be matched with all, rather than some, of the footwear recovered from suspects. It is not unknown, on the basis of cost, for only selected footwear to be sent to the laboratory. This can mean that the scientist is unable to properly exercise his professional judgement and can lead to the scientist providing incomplete and perhaps misleading evidence to the courts. This cost driven process, in the present economic climate, will lead to a reduction in the number of items the police are likely to submit to the forensic science laboratories but also a demand for a reduction in the cost of tests the laboratories will perform. This is likely to result in an increase in the tests police will perform in their own laboratories. The larger police forces could expand the role of their laboratories and place the scientific investigation into the partial environment of a police force, the investigating arm of the legal process. One must ask is this what justice requires or means?

3. It has to be recognised that the advent of independent commercial laboratories has had a major positive impact on the provision of forensic science in England and Wales. They are much more efficient in turn around times and in cost. They seem to have invested extensively in buildings and equipment, this latter probably more up to date than that of the FSS. This has meant that police forces have placed more and more contracts with these organisations to the detriment of the FSS. It seems that the management of the FSS have not adapted to the commercial environment as they should. Whether this is because the wrong personnel have been employed, or whether the Home Office have restricted their managerial decisions in some way, is difficult to determine but clearly monthly losses of £2 million is commercially unsustainable. Some of the independent laboratories have other interests than forensic science and can operate in other countries, which, should the need arise, gives them greater flexibility in managing economic difficulties. Whether these companies would be able to take on board the 60% of the market presently taken by the FSS and within the time frame of March 2012 is open to question. This would depend upon their willingness to invest in more staff, equipment and perhaps buildings and whether venture capitalists would be prepared to invest. This seems an unlikely eventuality.

4. One major concern however, relates to the generation of research that underpins the operation of forensic science. The FSS have been pre-eminent in conducting research especially in DNA the outcome of which is now established in most parts of the world. Some, although not extensive, research has been conducted by the independent laboratories in the area of DNA testing but such research is only conducted to generate commercial advantage whereas justice may demand research that is not of commercial value such as the statistically based research on the interpretation of evidence. Moreover, police forces will not wish to support forensic science research and will not see the imposition of any premium on costings to support research as a viable option for them in the light of restrictions in their budget. Very few Universities have any research output in the area of forensic science, the strongest research group being at Strathclyde University and this is exacerbated by a great reluctance of the government science research councils to support such research.

5. The question remains, that with the demise of the FSS, if the commercial market for forensic science becomes unsustainable because of restrictions in police budgets, who will undertake forensic science investigations, the few police laboratories? Is this impartial justice? Furthermore, who will undertake the necessary research that underpins forensic science? Is it a mark of a civilised society that justice is worth paying for and that includes forensic science?

6. It is suggested that the government must plan for vagaries in the commercial market perhaps by establishing a single government funded laboratory under a Ministry of Justice, whose responsibility would be to conduct forensic science research in collaboration with the research councils and the universities and through which the forensic science regulator could establish and monitor standards. Such a laboratory could also be responsible for investigating exceptional cases exemplified by terrorist cases. It is not rational to believe that forensic science can be conducted purely by the commercial market. Even the USA accepts this premise by its use of the FBI, DEA and ATF government sponsored laboratories.

Finally, in order to stabilise the commercial market it may be sensible to consider ring fencing a portion of the police budget for forensic science use.

Professor Brian Caddy

Emeritus Professor of Forensic Science, University of Strathclyde

28 January 2011