Forensic Science Service

Written evidence submitted by David Sawney (FSS 34)

Declaration of interest

I am employed as a Principal Scientist, based at the London laboratory of Forensic Science Service Ltd. I have worked there since 1979, when it was the Metropolitan Police Forensic Science Laboratory, and before that for a year at the Home Office laboratory at Wetherby. I specialise in several fields of forensic science, including cases involving a range of particulate and chemical trace materials, such as glass and paint particles, textile fibres, oils and greases, irritant and noxious chemicals, together with the examination and comparison of footwear marks and tool marks.

In my particular role as Principal Scientist I am responsible for scientific quality and consistency relating to particulate and chemical trace evidence across the whole of the Forensic Science Service. This includes ISO 17025 accreditation and setting scientific standards and competency criteria for operational scientists.

This submission has been produced in a private capacity – the views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the management of Forensic Science Service Ltd.

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 Initially, the closure will reduce the available capacity to deal with forensic science casework. The long-term impact of the closure is difficult to predict, but it could be catastrophic. The Forensic Science Service currently employs a number of extremely experienced and gifted forensic scientists – many of these are unlikely to take up employment with other Forensic Service Providers (FSPs), either because staff are unable or unwilling to relocate or because other FSPs don’t have a job for them. This would be a significant loss of scientific expertise to the criminal justice system in this country.

1.2 In the current economic climate where police budgets are being dramatically cut, the police as primary customer are seeking to reduce their spending on forensic science as much as possible. While some might see this as a favourable outcome, such a reduction is bound to adversely affect research and development. Genuine research is a long-term investment, often with uncertain outcome. Past experience in industry has shown that when profits are squeezed research is one of the first things to go.

1.3 Many of the developments on which current forensic science practice relies have arisen directly out of research carried out by the Forensic Science Service. While spending on research in the Forensic Science Service has to some extent been cut back of late, it has still continued. An important part of this has been collaboration both with academic institutions, such as Kings College, London, and with partners in forensic science institutions in other parts of Europe under the umbrella of the European Network of Forensic Science Institutes (ENFSI), of which the Forensic Science Service is a founding member and a very active participant.

1.4 In recent years, newer FSPs have started to participate in ENFSI activities, but it seems that they are only prepared (or able) to devote limited resources to this. For example, LGC Forensics (one of the largest alternative FSPs) had previously participated in the European Paint and Glass group of ENFSI, but at the most recent annual meeting in Krakow last autumn they were not represented at all (because, I understand, managers were not prepared to sanction the cost of sending a representative – in previous years they had sent two). This is a short-sighted strategy – forensic scientists in Britain obtain significant benefit from collaboration with our counterparts in Europe.

1.5 The forensic science market in England and Wales is still very immature, and one consequence of this is that the police customers tend to focus very much on cost, rather than value added. One of the effects of this has been seen during tendering processes over the last few years, where different FSPs have sought to win tenders by undercutting their rivals to the extent that for some types of examination it is virtually impossible to carry out any but the simplest of cases without incurring a financial loss. Under these circumstances, FSPs then have the choice to either incur a loss or reduce costs by some means. The cost can be reduced to some extent by increased efficiency, but ultimately if a company is to make a profit from forensic science there will be a temptation to achieve cost savings by carrying out an incomplete examination or employing inexperienced staff who can be paid a lower wage.

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

2.1 One would like to think that any forensic scientist would take the view that their ultimate responsibility was to provide impartial evidence of the highest quality to the criminal justice system.

2.2 In practice, many police forces are seeking to reduce or control their costs by in-sourcing forensic science examinations. Under such circumstances there is a danger that scientists working in small units in close collaboration with police officers may come under undue influence to interpret results in a particular way. Even if this does not occur, there is a risk that this will be perceived to be the case by courts.

2.3 Notwithstanding any issues about impartiality, there are likely to be other quality concerns arising from in-sourcing by police forces. It is likely that any forensic science units set up by police forces will be relatively small, which means that resources for training and development of staff will be limited. Scientists examining case items will have limited prospects for development and mentoring by more experienced colleagues, which significantly increases the risk that evidence will be missed and mistakes will be made. It is unlikely that many police forces will be able to afford to equip laboratories to the standard required for a modern forensic science laboratory.

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

3.1 It is no secret that the Forensic Science Service is currently losing a lot of money. One of the reasons why any FSP will struggle to balance the books is the volatility of the forensic science market place. When police forces have less money in the budget, one of the first things to cut seems to be spending on forensic science – unlike expenditure on police wages or overheads on police stations, cutting down on forensic science brings relatively quick savings. FSPs, however, cannot hire and fire forensic specialists on a short-term basis; it takes a long time to train a forensic specialist: at least a year for most simple examinations and often much longer for complex casework.

3.2 While I understand that the government announcement to wind down the Forensic Science Service was precipitated by an urgent cash-flow problem, the timing seems particular unfortunate, given that for the last 18 months or so the company has been going through a radical business transformation programme. This has involved the closure of two laboratories, with a further laboratory to close at the end of March this year. We have looked at many of our processes and looked for ways to make them more efficient and effective. It was acknowledged that this work had already produced significant benefits, although in the short term it is likely to have affected the company’s profitability given abstractions for staff training and implementing changes.

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 While it is likely that alternative FSPs will seek to recruit at least some ready-trained forensic experts from closing Forensic Science Service laboratories, and there may be a possibility of staff transfers under the terms of the TUPE regulations, there is no guarantee that sufficient numbers of experienced scientists will be willing or able to relocate to the premises of these FSPs. In any case, other FSPs may not have sufficient adequate facilities to accommodate additional staff in the short term.

4.2 The Forensic Science Service currently has about 60% of the market share of work submitted to FSPs by law enforcement agencies. This is a very large amount of work for the other companies to absorb in a short space of time. During the next few months, these companies will need to invest heavily in expanded laboratory facilities and in the recruitment and training of new staff.

4.3 Of perhaps greater concern is that the Forensic Science Service currently employs experts covering the widest range of scientific disciplines within a single organisation. This has allowed a multidisciplinary approach in significant major investigations, including counter-terrorist cases and other high-profile cases, such as the Securitas raid in Tonbridge. This approach allows joint examination of case items and encourages dialogue between experts to facilitate maximising the evidence. It is unlikely that many other FSPs would be in a position to offer as similar level of service.

4.4 With regard to in-sourcing of scientific work by police forces, limitations of scale are likely to limit the types of examination that they can undertake. In addition, their scientists are unlikely to have the scope to significantly develop their expertise.

4.5 Several police forces have already taken on doing some of their own forensic work with the aim of reducing costs. I would question the effectiveness of this strategy. The bill for work done by external FSPs may well be reduced, but the cost of the in-house work they do is often hidden.

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

5.1 While I agree that things could not carry on as they were, it is my opinion that a need remains for some sort of state-funded forensic science service in this country. Once the Forensic Science Service has closed, we will be the only major civilised country without a state forensic service provider.

5.2 One possibility would be for a single laboratory to be retained that would deal with all major investigations, specialist casework, research and development work on behalf of the whole country. Results of research work could be shared with all FSPs, which would surely be in the wider interests of the criminal justice system. Such a model would be broadly similar to that currently in Germany, where the Bundeskriminalamt in Wiesbaden supports the work of their regional laboratories.

5.3 A single state-funded specialist laboratory might also be a good way to preserve some of the specialist skills that currently exist in the Forensic Science Service. Such a laboratory might also be able to provide training for other FSPs, so ensuring that valuable skills are passed on and not lost forever.

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 Very little detailed information has been made available as yet. It is clear from the work that was required to close laboratories as part of the Forensic Science Service restructuring that the time and resources required to wind down the organisation should not be underestimated.

6.2 As far as staff redundancies are concerned, I think it is important in the interests of fairness that staff made redundant as a result of the closure receive terms at least as favourable as those staff who were made redundant during the earlier restructuring of the Forensic Science Service.

David Sawney, B.Sc., M.Sc.

10 February 2011