Forensic Science Service

Written evidence submitted by Gemma Escott, Elizabeth Harris, Nicola Taylor and Michelle Walton (FSS 48)

Declaration of interests

1. We are senior scene attending biologists working at the Wetherby laboratory of the FSS and are therefore responsible for the scientific work undertaken in the most serious and major cases primarily in the North East (NE); this includes the interpretation of scientific evidence at the scene during the initial hours post incident to the presentation of the evidence at court. In addition, we are responsible for a large proportion of the peer review that takes place routinely in the FSS to ensure the quality of the work undertaken by our colleagues; this can include International casework and cases for the Court of Appeal. We are all involved in the training of forensic scientists over various specialisms (DNA analysis, Low Copy Number DNA analysis, scene attendance, blood pattern analysis and general body fluid training) and the Police (including participating in Senior Investigator Training in partnership with Greater Manchester Police).

2. We feel passionately about the future of forensic science in this country; we are proud of our achievements to date and expect a consistently high standard from our colleagues. Our primary drive in responding to the Committee is not only the concern for our own jobs and those of our colleagues, but a fear for the future of forensic science in a cost orientated market place with an ethos very different from that of the FSS. Our comment will relate to our own experience of working with local forces and will primarily relate to biological evidence types; as such we will only address the questions we feel qualified to answer.

3. High profile cases dealt with by us include: the cold case review into the death of Lesley Molseed in 1977 (Miscarriage of Justice for Stefan Kisko; 1999 to date); the cold case review into a series of rapes and murders in the 1980s resulting in the conviction of a second assailant David Mulcahy (1998 – 2000), the disappearance of Claudia Lawrence (2009 to date); and the Crossbow cannibal killer in Bradford (2010).

Question 1: What will be the impact of the closure of the FSS on Forensic Science and the future development in the UK?

4. A concern with the break-up of all the laboratories, but most relevant in the NE is that there is a unit of expertise and experience in all biological fields and particularly in DNA analysis and Blood Pattern analysis that will be lost or diluted to the detriment of the CJS.

5. Nationally, there is more opportunity for scientists to migrate between competitors including Cellmark and LGC so that there is a chance that the expertise will not be fully lost to the country. Without significant relocation these opportunities are currently non-existent for Wetherby scientists, many of whom will be forced to consider career choices out of the forensic arena. Relocation or career change ultimately has the same effect of leaving the NE without the relevant pool of expertise.

6. Unfortunately many of our experienced colleagues have been so disillusioned with the state of the forensic market place that they have already chosen to leave forensic science altogether to pursue opportunities elsewhere. This means that the body of knowledge and experience which takes years of investment is being rapidly depleted. A newly recruited biologist will take as a minimum five years to attain a level where they are competent against current FSS standards to attend major scenes of crime and deal with complex casework.

7. The disillusionment ultimately stems from the implementation of the National Procurement Framework. We fully accept that value for money has to be a prime objective. One of the most valuable skills of a scientist is the ability to focus Police strategy into targeted, cost effective work for the court. However, we have fundamental concerns and experience of instances when the focus on cost has outweighed usefulness and where, in our view, there has been the potential for cases to go off track. For example, with some forces casework strategies can be so explicitly set down by the customer that the value of the forensic results can be misunderstood if not interpreted correctly by a scientist; a DNA scientist may be asked to evaluate a DNA match when, for that case, the source of a body fluid is not key to the court but how that body fluid was transferred – e.g. in an assault is the suspect a bystander or an assailant? To answer that question, there needs to be blood pattern expertise, a product of work for which some Forces, under budgetary constraints, are not always willing to procure. These issues have been previously highlighted by our colleagues in File on Four, Radio 4 (Tuesday 8 December 2009).

8. The fact remains that there are individuals within Forces who may be working in isolation and are therefore putting at risk the quality and appropriateness of the forensic science presented to the courts, who are ultimately the end user. In our opinion, one of the main factors in maintaining the high quality of interpretational casework at the Wetherby laboratory is that there is a group of senior scientists who, throughout the life of a case, challenge, review and question the decisions made by our peers and colleagues. The danger of reducing the number of these scientists so that the work could, for example, take place within Force, is that without experienced peer review and robust challenge the quality in a more subjective area, such as blood pattern interpretation will drop. In our opinion, this is not because the individuals concerned are poor scientists, it is that they have either lost confidence due to a lack of exposure to the level of casework or they have become over confident in their interpretation due to a lack of robust challenge in a safe environment.

9. A recent investigation by the Association of Forensic Science Providers (AFSP) into the amount of screening of items in force and its impact on the quality of forensic science has been presented to Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO). In our opinion, the transfer of forensic science opportunities to a situation where they are fully in force, at a level below "critical mass", is not in the interests of Justice.

10. To our knowledge, the FSS is one of the few commercial organisations investing in the research and development of Forensic Science alongside the practical routine application of Forensic techniques. Our understanding is that financially supporting a non fee earning but active Research and Development unit within the FSS has reduced profitability. However, new developments, which include the award winning DNA Insight (DNA interpretation software), have the potential to allow the practitioner greater freedom and quicker access to the interpretation of DNA results thereby increasing the efficiency in delivery of results to the customer. This technology has not been fully implemented since the announcement in December 2010 and it is not in use at Wetherby. Hence we have not been able to deliver the benefits to our customer in terms of efficiency and decrease in cost and our Forces have lost the potential to utilise the advanced level of interpretation possible for complex DNA profiles and provide evaluative statements for the court. Our understanding is that this software potentially could have been marketed both nationally and internationally to other forensic providers, hence generating another source of income for the FSS. Over the years scientists have also developed or enhanced techniques as part of routine casework, outside of R&D and such developments may be lost with the cost implications imposed.

11. The FSS has led forensic science, the development of DNA technology and its application in the Forensic setting from the outset. Our competitors, in our opinion, have followed in our wake and have reaped these benefits. They have also routinely recruited fully trained FSS scientists at competitive salaries, who in turn can deliver upon immediate employment. These companies have built their organisations, scientific principles and applications to casework on ex FSS staff. They have not to date had to absorb the full costs of training and developing staff, nor have they had the overheads associated with a large, ex civil service body. We have no doubt that, should the FSS be fully broken up, this will have a consequent impact on the cost of sustaining their organisations, which will potentially result in increased costs to the customer and ultimately the tax payer. Furthermore, there are aspects of forensic science that are labour intensive or involve 'tests' that are rarely used but these do, at times, prove key to a case - especially in major and critical investigations. These aspects and tests are often not cost-effective and therefore may be lost in a future of only private sector providers; alternatively it may result in increased costs to the Police. There will be no opportunity for the Home Office to recoup money generated by forensic science for the public purse, however if the Home Office retained some footing in forensic science these opportunities would remain.

12. We struggle to envisage the UK remaining world leaders in the application of science to Police work without the FSS practitioners and scientists who work together at the FSS to help drive this innovation. We are concerned that when the forensic market place becomes entirely profit driven, the development of new technologies will stagnate. Whilst universities or a Home Office department could deliver this research work in the future it is imperative that the work is driven by practitioners for the benefit of forensic science and directly relates to the practical application of forensic science within the CJS.

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

13. The tendering process introduced with the National Framework has had the effect of breaking up casework into packets of work. Tendering exercises in some ACPO regions have resulted in different packets being awarded to different companies, such that the forensic investigation of a case may fall across multiple providers. We already see local forces taking the cheaper intelligence options for casework when evaluative assessment from an FSS scientist would have been more appropriate. We envisage that this trend will increase following the closure of the FSS and smaller providers potentially moving into the market. This breakdown of a case leads to unnecessary complications, both practically and in terms of efficiency, in relation to the continuity, transfer and examination of exhibits. More importantly, situations could arise where there is no collaborative approach between various experts. This leads us to a real fear that key evidence might be missed or the significance of a particular finding will not be fully realised. Ultimately, we feel strongly that the cohesive and logical presentation of scientific rationale and results in court, as delivered by us now, will not realise a benefit by multiple experts being given limited control over various aspects of the case. A complex case becomes disjointed and more difficult for the court to follow.

14. The FSS is currently responsible for approximately 60% of the forensic marketplace – in Wetherby that increases to approximately 90% which we believe is a reflection of the high standing and track record for delivery that we have with the NE forces. It is unlikely that any of our competitors from their current sites will be able to fully absorb the amount, scope and level of our current casework within the NE. This will once again lead to tendering for separate packets of work by the private companies and our concern is that, regardless of the ability of the individual scientists, there will be a consequent drop in the understanding of the forensic results delivered, in order for the jury to make their judgements.

15. Similarly, when the FSS is broken up, it is not clear how a response to a mass disaster or major incident will be co-ordinated, e.g. the Olympics in 2012, when elements of forensic science are delivered by multiple providers. Clear procedural steps would need to be implemented to spread and coordinate the work and to absorb the impact that it will likely have on the individual company’s routine work.

16. The issue of impartiality is dependent on who steps in to provide a solution to the break-up of the FSS - in the North East this is an open question. We have all had experience in court where our impartiality has been questioned – both in relation to the often cost driven strategy and subsequent interpretation – on the basis that we are paid by the Police. Needless to say, our impartiality and independence, as for other FSPs, has been easier to defend purely because we are not owned or answerable directly to the Police. Our overriding duty is to the court; we all strongly defend our impartiality and conduct our casework accordingly i.e. not for the benefit of either prosecution or defence or necessarily our internal timeliness or cost targets. The freedom of a scientist to make a decision as to these occasionally competing priorities would be affected by who takes over the responsibility for forensic science generally, and specifically in the North East.

17. An obvious working solution to the problem of a lack of forensic employers in the NE is that the forces combine and operate a laboratory(ies) as a consortium. In our view this approach could work in the North East region. However, this would require the maintenance of a separate management system, such that conscious steps are taken to preserve the independence of scientists working in the police environment, thus allowing opportunity to fairly and effectively influence the investigation strategy. As such we would like to see stronger leadership from the Regulator in relation to Professional Standards both in Force and for all Forensic Science providers to ensure the provision of impartial and sound forensic evidence and its contextualised interpretation.

Question 5: What are the alternatives to winding down the FSS?

18. We understand that the government has acknowledged that the forensic marketplace is not working in its current form and we agree with this view. However, to be able to fully identify the alternatives to winding down the FSS we believe that firstly the fundamental requirements of ACPO, the CJS and the Home Office need to be identified.
These requirements need to include consideration of the following:

· The level of forensic provision required by ACPO for different offence types.

· The level of forensic interpretation required by the CJS, particularly the courts and for different offence types.

· Whether there is a willingness to support the ongoing expertise in aspects of forensic science that are rarely used and hence not cost-effective, or whether the view is to cease such functions such that they will no longer be available for use

· Whether there is an acceptance by ACPO and the CJS of the risk to them associated with the outcome of cases if the level of forensic response to different types of incidents drops, including whether they are happy to accept and shoulder the risks of breaking up work in major and critical incidents across several forensic providers.

· The level of quality standards required across England and Wales.

· The appetite for continual research and innovation in Forensic Science.

· The nature of forensic response that will be required should any mass incidents occur.

19. We believe that reform of the marketplace will be needed to deliver the defined requirements. However, should these requirements not be fully understood prior to the winding down of the FSS, then the resultant market may not deliver the correct solutions, resulting in a piecemeal response that lets down the victims of crime and the CJS as a whole.

Gemma Escott

Elisabeth Harris

Nicola Taylor

Michelle Walton

11 February 2011