Forensic Science Service

Written evidence submitted by David Baldwin (FSS 25)

Declaration of interest:

I have been a forensic scientist since 1974 when I joined the Metropolitan Police Forensic Science Laboratory (MPFSL) and an employee of the Forensic Science Service (FSS) since the merger of the two organisations in 1996. I am the Principal Scientist for marks within the FSS where I am responsible for dealing with a wide range of offences including murder and terrorist incidents. I am also responsible for the scientific quality and consistency within the work area and set the Standards and Competency required. I was a Lead Assessor for the Council for the Registration of Forensic Practitioners (CRFP) and I am the Chair of the European Network of Forensic Science Institutes Expert Working Group Marks. I produce this written submission to the committee in my private capacity.

1. What will be the impact of the closure of the Forensic Science Service on forensic science and on the future development of forensic science in the UK?

1.1. I believe that the common consensus held by forensic scientists throughout the world is that the effect will be devastating and is almost certain to have a detrimental impact on the quality and weight of evidence available to the Criminal Justice System.

1.2. It is very true that forensic science is used in a small percentage of cases that are put before the courts but it is often a crucial part of the overall picture put before a jury.

1.3. It is difficult to see at the present time how forensic science will be delivered in the future. The Forensic Science Service has approximately 60% of the market at the present time and deals with something in the order of over 100,000 cases per year. It is very difficult to see how this work will be transferred out of the Forensic Science Service and there be no decline in the quality and timeliness of delivery.

1.4. There are many internationally recognised experts in the Forensic Science Service and many do specialist niche areas of examination. These experts and their years of expertise will be lost.

1.5. One of the main concerns expressed by scientists within the Forensic Science Service and by forensic colleagues all over the world is the potentially devastating effect the closure will have on Research and Development. It is the very important relationship between researchers and actual practitioners that makes the work of the Forensic Science Service so important and within the UK market almost unique.

1.6. The Forensic Science Service plays a leading role in ENFSI (European Network of Forensic Science Institutes) and at present time the post of Chair of four out of the sixteen Expert Working Groups is held by a scientist from the service. Scientists from the service are also active members of the other working groups. The Forensic Science Service was one of the original organisations involved in forming ENFSI and has always supported and contributed towards its success. The commitment that the Forensic Science Service has to the success of ENFSI in terms of time, money and resources is high and may not be sustained by other forensic providers.

2. What will be the implication of the closure on the quality and impartiality of forensic evidence used in the criminal justice system?

2.1. As a practitioner for over 30 years it is not my own position that I am desperately concerned about but it is what the Criminal Justice system will be deprived of when the Forensic Science Service closes and what will take its place.

2.2. Many of the private providers have good quality staff but are working within an environment where much of the work they are able to do is governed by what the police are willing and able to pay. They must therefore make difficult decisions about what they can do for the money and what has to be dropped. This is not a position that any scientists like to find themselves in.

2.3. Of more concern is that forces will take more work in-house and not necessarily have the will or understanding regarding the delivery of forensic science. It can be argued that for the majority of work that may be delivered in-house there will be no problems and their work will be of the quality that is acceptable to the courts. However, I understand that there are already a number of cases that have been delivered by in-house staff that are incorrect. These are just the cases that we know about and may be just the tip of the iceberg.

2.4. The question of impartiality was often raised in court during my time at the Metropolitan Police Forensic Science Laboratory. Scientists were sometimes questioned about being biased towards the police as they were part of the same organisation. This was recognised by senior management and the structure and organisation of the laboratory was such that we could argue and demonstrate our impartiality from external influences and pressure. The Courts were always our ultimate customer, clearly reinforced when I recently attended the Court of Appeal to give evidence and I am not sure that the impartiality and quality of work will be unaffected by work being delivered by in force scientists.

3. What is the financial position of the Forensic Science Service?

3.1. I do not think that there is any argument that the Forensic Science Service is losing money and something has to be done. I would however argue that the money being lost by the service compared to the amount of money being spent on crime investigation is very small. Do we count the cost of a terrorist investigation, how much money is actually saved by using forensic science; in fact do police forces know or understand what contribution forensic science makes to investigations and detections. They know how much it costs but not its worth.

3.2. The Forensic Science Service has had a programme of work running for the last 18 months or so which has looked at producing the leanest and fit for purpose examination processes. There was money provided by the Government of the day for this work and it has been recognised that major changes had taken place and our costs and overheads were coming down. However the budgets available to the police have been slashed due to the financial situation and the amount of work being submitted to all service providers has fallen significantly. It is difficult to see the submissions going up in the next few years as more money has to be saved. I do however wonder how much it is costing forces to establish their own or shared forensic facilities. As a tax payer it appears mad to allow one world leading forensic service to die and have the police set up their own small labs. Is it known how much all this is costing the police?

4. What is the state of, and prospects for, the forensics market in the UK, specifically whether the private sector can carry out the work currently done by the Forensic Science Service and the volume and nature of the forensic work carried out by police forces?

4.1. As a practitioner there are good scientists in the private sector many if not the majority once worked for the Forensic Science Service where they trained and developed their skills and expertise. It is however, a very different place to work than it was just five years ago.

4.2. I think that there have of course been benefits from making the forensic market open to market forces including a more customer focus, reduction in turn round times and reduced costs. I do however feel that this has been at considerable cost to the provision of quality forensic science. It is difficult to balance, reduced cost and reduced turn round times with maintained quality.

4.3. I consider the forensic market to be immature and to a very large extent run by ‘bean counters’ bent on getting forensic science at the cheapest cost. Many aspects of work such as drugs analysis and to some extent DNA are now very cheap to the extent that companies make small if any profit. There may be a case for increasing the price or not doing it at all.

4.4. Some areas of work in the Forensic Science Service have stopped because they were seen as unsustainable. Computer crime, video work and audio work have all been withdrawn. I am afraid that we are not far away from the situation where there may be a major incident where a Senior Investigating Officers will want something done and no one will be left to do. It will be a case of you don’t know what you had until it’s gone.

4.5. There are of course people available to do the work which are at present within the Forensic Science Service but may move or join another provider. There are many members of staff who will leave and take all their expertise with them.

4.6. As to the ability of the other forensic providers being able to deal with the additional work. I find it difficult to see how it is going to happen. I know from contacts with colleagues now working for other providers they will have significant issues relating to accommodation, costs etc.

5. What are the alternatives to winding-down the Forensic Science Service?

5.1. It is my belief that the Government has made the decision that to keep private forensic providers in the market, more work must be made available and so the Forensic Science Service has to be sacrificed.

5.2. I strongly believe that there is a place for a Government sponsored laboratory. All the major countries in Europe and America have laboratories that are owned by the state. These tend to deal with the most high profile cases and are at the forefront of R & D. It is clear to me that this works and delivers excellent forensic science and cutting edge developments which could be made available to all forensic providers. I would therefore like to see a state owned forensic laboratory established that keeps the best traditions of the Forensic Science Service but is restructured and more focussed in the work undertaken.

6. So far as they are known, are the arrangements for closing down the Forensic Science Service, making staff redundant and selling its assets adequate?

6.1. It is very difficult to tell whether or not the arrangements are adequate as it seemed that the decision was taken and an end date of March 2012 announced without any real thought of how to get to the end point.

6.2. It is very difficult to see how all the work required will be completed in that time frame. None of the other providers expected this announcement and the changes that will have to take place are enormous; transfer of people, potentially new laboratories, new buildings, loss of expertise etc.

6.3. There appears to be a lot of stock put on what the police want. I see little contribution from the ‘courts’. I am not sure that the police are necessarily best placed to decide what is good for the science. They appear to be much more concerned with what it costs and how fast can it be done. As they do more in-house this can only become more of a concern.

6.4. At the present time nothing has been decided and the staff are very much waiting for any clarity as to what will happen to them. Many have dedicated their life to the Criminal Justice System and are finding it very hard to come to terms with the decision. They do not feel that this will enhance the service that the general public obtain and to many who have been in the service for a long time. We appear to be going back to the days before the Home Office Forensic Science Service was in existence.

David Baldwin

9 February 2011