Forensic Science Service

Written evidence submitted by the British Medical Association

(FSS 69)

Executive summary

· The BMA believes that the closure of the government-owned Forensic Science Service will have a detrimental effect on the quality and standards of forensic evidence available to the courts.

· The BMA is concerned that the closure of the Forensic Science Service will lead to a further loss of individuals with expertise who are essential to giving integrity to court evidence.

· By increasing the outsourcing of forensic services to private companies, the BMA believes that the drive for cost-savings (through the closure of the government-owned forensic service and transfer to the private sector) will downgrade the quality of evidence available to the courts.

· The BMA has seen no evidence in the proposals to close the Forensic Science Service, that the private sector can accommodate the transfer of such a large workload. There are concerns that possible consequences will be lengthened waiting times for court hearings and fragmentation of the service.

About the BMA

1. The British Medical Association (BMA) is an independent trade union and voluntary professional association which represents doctors and medical students from all branches of medicine all over the UK . With a membership of over 143,000 worldwide, we promote the medical and allied sciences, seek to maintain the honour and interests of the medical profession and promote the achievement of high quality healthcare.

2. The BMA’s Forensic Medicine Committee represents doctors working within forensic medicine including those working in custody healthcare (Forensic Physicians) and Sexual Assault Referral Centres (Sexual Offence Examiners) and those working for the Home Office as Forensic Pathologists. All three roles include the extracting and recording of forensic medical evidence for the purpose of police investigation and potential prosecution and/or defence.

The implications of the closure on the quality and impartiality of forensic evidence used in the criminal justice system.

3. The BMA is extremely concerned that the closure of the Forensic Science Service will have a detrimental effect on the quality and standards that are currently upheld in the provision of forensic evidence, specifically forensic medical evidence. With years of experience and expertise, as well as the "embedded memory" of existing teams of experts, the Forensic Science Service has become very highly regarded.

4. The proper investigation of crimes in which forensic evidence plays a part requires close collaboration and partnership between forensic practitioners such as forensic physicians (who take the material), the experts (who analyse and interpret it) and scenes of crime officers and investigators. This expertise is essential in giving integrity to court evidence. With more cases relying on forensic evidence as part of prosecution or defence cases, it is essential that the highest available standard of expertise is available to the courts. The BMA is not convinced that this will be provided under the current proposals.

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.

5. The BMA believes that the entry of the private sector into custody healthcare has resulted in a fractured and variable service. The BMA notes that in some cases, the attraction to the Police of out-sourcing forensic medical services to private companies has been the offer of a fixed price contract to run the service. In introducing a fixed price to run a service, there is a risk that private companies could invariably look to make savings. Such savings may result in reductions to remuneration, which are unsustainable for many existing practitioners. Reduction in remuneration may also dissuade other practitioners with appropriate experience and expertise (who have a genuine interest in providing forensic medicine services) from working for private companies. This has the potential to lead to inconsistency in the recruitment and retention of staff and could also risk leading to a lower quality of care. A lack of retention in staff is also detrimental to establishing and maintaining links with stakeholder services such as police, probation, mental health, local health services, drug and alcohol and addiction services.

6. The clinical and healthcare expertise available to many police forces (for example recruiting inexperienced or unsuitably qualified doctors through agencies) has consequently been lacking in some areas. In some forces, most notably the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS), the BMA believes that clinical and healthcare expertise has deteriorated sharply through the loss of experienced forensic physicians. The BMA is aware that the MPS now routinely takes no further action in prosecuting cases in which the quality of forensic evidence is poor.

7. This experience should inform the current proposals. The BMA is concerned that the drive for cost-savings, through the closure of the forensic service and transfer to the private sector, will undermine the quality of evidence available to the courts. The BMA also sees no evidence in the proposals that the private sector can accommodate such a large workload. There are concerns that possible consequences will be lengthened waiting times for court hearings and fragmentation of the service.

British Medical Association

14 February 2011