Forensic Science Service
Written evidence submitted by Jeffrey Gray and Sara Gray (FSS 59)
Introduction
1.
We are recently retired (Jeffrey Gray) and currently employed (Sara Gray) Senior Forensic Scientists at the Wetherby Laboratory of the Forensic Science Service Ltd (FSS). We have worked for the FSS for over 40 and 30 years respectively and during that time we have worked on many high profile cases investigated by senior police officers in the seven North East police forces served by the Wetherby Laboratory. Indeed during the past ten years or so we have, between us, contributed, in one way or another, to the majority of such cases submitted to the laboratory. We made these contributions using sound scientific procedures established by the FSS and sometimes using innovative methods designed as a ‘one-off’ for a particular case, whilst often working in very close collaboration with the investigating officers. In this work we have been supported by a group of similarly qualified and experienced colleagues working both at the Wetherby Laboratory and at other laboratories in the FSS.
2.
As our submission is a personal one, on issues as we see them from our perspective, we have not attempted to respond to all of the questions posed.
Q1. What will be the impact of the closure of the FSS on forensic science and on the future development of forensic science in the UK?
3.
Prior to the, what we believe to be mistaken, action of setting up, or the engineering, of a market place for the provision of forensic science, most of the general forensic work was undertaken by the FSS and one or two other smaller providers, with the FSS being the main provider. Working in the FSS has allowed us to take a ‘holistic’ approach to the provision of best forensic evidence ensuring that the most appropriate examinations are carried out on the most relevant items. Further, by being able to conduct all the necessary tests in one organisation, we have been able to robustly interpret our scientific findings in the light of the case circumstances. Whilst a holistic approach might appear to be expensive in terms of what the police spend, it can reduce overall costs by being used to better effect in court by, for example, encouraging a guilty plea. We have seen the results in very many of the cases on which we have worked initiate a guilty plea, even in cases of ‘major crime’. We believe this is because, working in the FSS, we have worked to very high standards of examination and evaluation.
4.
Fragmentation of the provision of forensic services/science to police forces in England and Wales has already started; some of this has arisen directly out of the National Framework Document
[1]
but it has mostly been driven by the desire of police forces to reduce costs and hence their spend on forensic science. The result is that smaller organisations have entered the forensic market place to tender for niche or simple testing and police forces have started to either conduct some of their forensic work ‘in house’ or have expanded their current in-house work. With some parts of the work being done ‘in house’ and some parts being undertaken by the cheapest provider this can easily result in different items (and hence different pieces of evidence) from the same case being examined/tested by very different organisations. Therefore with fragmentation of forensic provision, none of the separate pieces of evidence will be satisfactorily brought together for interpretation in the light of case circumstances. Such an approach can lead to miscarriages of justice. We have seen examples from other force areas where inappropriate work has been undertaken as the selection of items and their examination has been based on cost rather than value to the whole case.
5.
A simple example of the above would be where a man is arrested on suspicion of hitting another man with a broken bottle. The police believe the victim bled during the assault and they examine the suspect’s jacket ‘in house’. Some blood is found on a sleeve, a sample is sent to a testing laboratory and the DNA results show that the blood tested could have come from the victim. The suspect is charged with the offence. Two statements are produced for the court: one states there is blood on the sleeve and the other states that the (DNA profile of) the blood matches the victim. What is not known, or reported, at this stage is the nature of the blood staining (how was it deposited?) and what the suspect has said about the incident. It might well be that the suspect says that he went to the aid of the injured man and that the blood on his jacket is a result of that intervention. In the fragmented approach no one has evaluated the meaning of all the evidence. Further, in this fragmented approach it might well be that other possible evidence types are not considered. (For example it might have been relevant to examine the jacket for the presence of glass particles given the victim was struck with a broken bottle). An extension of this approach is that eventually no one will ask the question about other evidence types and the Criminal Justice System (CJS) will never be aware of what it might have had.
6.
The FSS has designed and brought into practice all the basic procedures used in forensic science and has been at the forefront of the major innovations ( eg DNA profiling) and research in forensic science. Further the FSS has trained the majority of practitioners in the field. The FSS has set and maintained high standards in its work and has been regarded as the benchmark in that other providers have adopted FSS procedures and standards. The FSS is currently large enough to support an active Research and Development (R and D) programme and has sufficient practitioners to test and challenge any new developments. An essential part of the development of any new technique or process is to make sure it is exhaustively tested by skilled practitioners. Many of the requirements for research come from questions posed by practitioners themselves; these are usually the direct result of problems encountered during casework. The separation of forensic research from practitioners is in our view likely to lead to inappropriate research being carried out and hence it would not be sensible to rely on, for example, academic institutions to undertake such research. Further, since they have been in the market place, other (private) providers of forensic science have not undertaken any significant research or initiated any significant developments in forensic science. Our view is that this is too expensive for private contractors to consider and hence the only place for research and development is in the public sector.
7.
The cost to an organisation of providing the ability to undertake the full range of forensic examinations, such as those we have been able to undertake, is such that some providers may well decide that they cannot continue to so do. If smaller providers pull out of the forensic market place which has already lost the FSS we ask ‘’who will undertake the work?’’
8.
In summary, in our view the impact of closure of the FSS on forensic science and the future development of forensic science will be severe in that it will hasten the fragmentation of forensic provision with no undertaking that future provision will be secure and robust.
9.
It is, in our view, important to note that in relation to the forces served by the Wetherby Laboratory
[2]
there has been very little penetration by other providers and the FSS is the sole provider of most of their forensic provision. They have been loyal to the FSS and maintained a close working relationship with scientists at the Wetherby laboratory. There was no suggestion in the closure announcement as to how the North East forces would obtain their forensic provision if the FSS was wound down.
Q2. What will be the implications of the closure on the quality and impartiality of forensic evidence used in the Criminal Justice System?
10.
Whilst FSS practitioners undertake examinations on items obtained by police personnel, the strategy for examination of the items and interpretation of any findings is determined by the forensic scientist in the light of the known case circumstances and, if possible, in the light of any comments made by the suspect. As forensic scientists we report our findings in a manner which demonstrates to the reader that a balanced, logical interpretation has been made irrespective of whether the findings favour the prosecution or the defence. Further, because we are physically separated from the collection of items we are able to scrutinise their selection and to suggest alternative items for examination. This might mean that in some cases it would be prudent to examine items which might yield evidence in support of the defendant; it is difficult to undertake this form of scrutiny if the organisation selecting items for examination also examines them and reports the findings, especially if there is no ‘drive’ to seek the alternative (defence) view.
11.
In our experience of working closely with police investigation teams in each of the North East forces we have found that our views and expertise are highly respected. On many occasions our views have been sought particularly at the early stages of an investigation and the decisions we have made have directed or helped direct the police investigations. Our experience working with different police forces has also enabled us, after seeing how one force handles certain situations, to offer advice on best practice to other forces. As forensic scientists working in a large regional laboratory we see a wide variety of cases from our police forces which we would never see if we worked for one force only. Individuals operating in a single force, and without the backing of a larger organisation, will never see the variety of cases that we see. We have heard that one of the forces in our region is considering taking a significant part of its forensic work in force. We challenge the thinking behind this as we believe that as they will not see the wide variety of work they run the risk of becoming insular and possibly working only to specific police, as opposed to CJS, needs. Further, we have been ‘free’ to voice our views about alternative examinations and to encourage, if necessary, the investigator to consider the defence view. In addition, being part of a larger organisation we have been able to make good use of colleagues, with different skills, at other FSS laboratories.
Q3. What is the financial position of the Forensic Science Service?
12.
We believe that the Transformation process which the FSS has been undergoing for the past two years (and which it is said still has two years or so to go to yield its expected results) has not and will not result in a cost effective service. The FSS has spent far too much money on management consultants and grandiose projects with little real input from working forensic scientists. We believe that most of the basic decisions made about the reorganisation will not result in an efficient organisation. There have been too many management and other non-scientific (or ‘non-fee-earning’) roles created leading to, in our view, overheads which are unnecessarily large. Further the role and position of the scientist has been effectively downgraded. Our view is that Forensic Science should be run by forensic scientists, with administrative assistance only where necessary.
Q5. What are the alternatives to winding down the Forensic Science Service?
13.
It is our view is that:
(i)
the work of the forensic practitioner must remain separate from the police/prosecution process,
(ii)
best practice, to secure the best and most reliable outcome for the CJS, dictates that cases/items should be subjected to a holistic approach for forensic examinations and that the work should not be fragmented into small packets,
(iii)
forensic science is best practiced in a large organisation where there are sufficient qualified and experienced practitioners to challenge and support colleagues and ensure that procedures and evaluations (of findings) are robust and reliable, and where the scientist has the opportunity to see how different police forces operate,
(iv)
research and development of new procedures is best undertaken within the organisation which will carry out those procedures,
(v)
whilst forensic provision can come from other providers, there should be an organisation which sets and maintains standards, is able to undertake long and expensive investigations, will be able to undertake those examinations which other providers cannot or do not want to undertake, and whose practitioners benefit from seeing a wide variety of cases from large force areas.
Overall, for the above reasons we believe that the only alternative to winding down the FSS is to not wind it down, but to keep it in the public sector, allow it to concentrate on the science and not the management, to be the leading provider of forensic science and research and to be responsible for setting standards for the forensic community.
Jeffrey Gray; Sara C Gray
14 February 2011
|
