Forensic Science Service

Written evidence submitted by the Forensic Science Service (FSS 87)

Declaration of Interest

This submission has been written by the Forensic Science Service and has the approval of the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer.

Summary

1. FSS was engaged in a major transformation process to reduce costs and improve operational performance when its closure through an orderly wind down was announced in December 2010. Unfortunately the collapse in police demand for forensic services seen this year, and forecast to continue in future, jeopardised completion of the transformation and the prospect for a sustainable financial position going forward. The announced closure of FSS has been a huge shock and disappointment to staff; and to the forensic science community in the UK and overseas.

2. This decision potentially puts at risk:

§ International scientific leadership and innovation, based upon the breadth and depth of forensic science skills in the UK;

§ Capacity and capability to respond to major incidents;

§ Capability to conduct cold case reviews.

3. The consequent likelihood of fragmentation of analysis between Police and Forensic Service Providers (FSPs) risks a decline in:

§ Effective use of forensic science in the courts, through loss of context in the development of forensic strategy, analysis and interpretation of results in complex cases;

§ Quality of the forensic science delivered to the Criminal Justice System (CPS);

§ Public confidence in impartiality.

4. We believe that the need to secure an effective future for UK forensic science is now more critical than ever and requires the following:

§ A clearly articulated Policy for the provision of forensic science including a view on market development and its stability;

§ An appropriately resourced, centrally sponsored focus upon research & development, training, specialist casework, reference data collections, cold case reviews;

§ Tougher regulation with universal application of quality standards;

§ A sustainable mechanism to encourage and exploit innovation.

5. We are dedicated to ensuring that the wind down of FSS addresses, in collaboration with the Home Office and Police, the above requirements and secures the retention of our skilled resources and knowledge base in support of the Criminal Justice System.

Market Size and Development

6. The external forensic market (outside Police Forces) has been forecast to fall from £170m in 2009/10 towards £110m by 2015 [1]   (although some estimates are lower), due to a combination of decreased demand and increased police in-sourcing. FSS share of this market in 2009 was c.65%. Despite general over capacity in the market, some FSS capacity will need to be transferred to existing and possibly new providers. However, in a shrinking market, investment in expansion constitutes a significant risk to these providers, given that the current market outlook is weakening and unstable.

7. A robust analysis of the benefits and drawbacks of fragmenting forensic science provision between individual police forces and FSPs is required, on which to base policy for forensic science market development.

FSS Financial Position

8. FSS reported an operating loss of £12.7m on £113.0m of revenue in 2009. Prior to the closure announcement, the business was in the final stages of transformation, involving closure of sites and introduction of more efficient working methods built on industry leading technology. This programme, funded with a £50m government grant, was on track to deliver the anticipated benefits by mid 2011.

9. The losses of £2m per month quoted in the December 14th announcement [1] do not reflect the prospective savings from the transformation programme. The first FSS site closed at the end of December 2010, as planned, with two further sites on track for closure in March 2011 in anticipation that FSS would lose market share as the commercial market developed. In fact, delays in police procurement processes meant that progress towards a smaller market share has been slower and less than originally expected.

10. The overall cost of closure will depend on which FSS activities and people can be transferred or sold. FSS is not sighted on the final estimates used in reaching the closure decision. The major driver will be the extent to which FSS staff are redeployed by competitors/police forces as the transition develops. This in turn depends on development of the commercial market and the actions of police customers through the process.

11. Our assessment of publicly available financial information for other FSPs indicates that, prior to recent reductions in demand, only one provider was reasonably profitable. It is likely that, in the current market, none are achieving sustainable returns.

Scientific Leadership & Innovation

12. FSS is an internationally recognised leader in Forensic Science; it established the world’s first National DNA Database (NDNAD). Over the last 5 years, FSS has published around 3 times as many peer-reviewed scientific papers as the other FSPs in England and Wales combined. The closure announcement drew strong condemnation from scientists worldwide [1]    .

13. In recent years since the change of status to a GovCo, the challenge has been to maintain UK leadership in Forensic Science while achieving commercial viability. FSS has made recent substantial progress including achieving approximately 30% efficiency improvements in its internal operations. It has recently won a contract to set up a DNA Database and sample processing capability in the United Arab Emirates and was commercialising its Rapid DNA system, allowing the police to match suspects to crimes in the police station before they are released from custody. The Judge Business School estimates that Rapid DNA could save UK police over £40m every year [2] .

14. Since the closure announcement, FSS has received a number of expressions of interest from companies around the world in its patented technologies. Dismantling the FSS will be an irreversible backwards step in meeting the challenge of balancing scientific leadership with commercial viability.

15. FSS’ world-leading status is built on close working partnership between forensic researchers and operational practitioners, so that new methods address real needs and are implemented effectively. This infrastructure is recognised by Budowle et al. 20113, "Notable advancements in science are often remembered for the contributions they have made...Rarely recognised, however, is the infrastructure that facilitated developments and successes."

16. Separating research from practice introduces delay and loss of focus. For example, innovation in the NDNAD has slowed since custodianship moved to NPIA [3] . The UK now trails behind European counterparts in adoption of improved DNA analysis chemistries and may fail to meet its obligations on exchange of DNA data between EU member states [4]  . This is despite FSS’ leading role in the design and testing of new chemistries; and pressure from UK FSPs for their adoption.

17. Research is aimed at reductions in policing costs and increase in effective outcomes. For instance, FSS advanced DNA database search algorithms enable matches in DNA results that were previously discarded due to their complexity. The NDNAD 2007-2009 report indicates that 36,727 matches were generated between crime scenes and individuals in a year. If FSS technology were adopted, preliminary studies showed that 44,000 matches (some 20% more) could potentially have been made. Not all DNA matches lead to conviction but this technology has the clear potential to generate intelligence from samples which have been processed and paid for, but which are currently discarded.

18. Further database innovation will be required to enable effective removal of personal data following the S. & Marper [5] ruling. FSS has designed a unique DNA database concept, which centralises data storage, minimises the requirement for FSPs to store DNA data and gives greater control in storage, management and audit of DNA information.

19. The European Security Research and Innovation Forum (ESRIF) has developed a vision to improve future security in Europe: "The effective application of forensic science depends on the logically correct reasoning (based on empirical data and statistics), integrating the different phases in the forensic process … This must occur within a comprehensive accreditation framework. [6] "

20. FSS is using its unique blend of skills to pioneer methods to meet this challenge. A new system for reporting large volumes of data previously handled in paper reports has been implemented; it presents data in a clear, interactive, pictorial format that can be displayed on any computer. This speeds up investigations, by allowing investigators to easily interpret and share information [7] . Extending these methods would improve intelligence by looking for complex links across multiple evidence types. In the court environment, it would assist in simplifying presentation of relationships between multiple items of evidence, examinations, scenes and individuals. FSS is the only organisation with the infrastructure, domain knowledge and relevant data collections to further develop these tools. Loss of this knowledge and infrastructure is at risk with the closure of the company.

21. Even before the closure of the FSS was announced, the increasing difficulty of introducing innovation in forensic science to the UK criminal justice system (CJS) had become apparent, with no clear policy or transparent process for FSPs to follow in order to get innovation launched.

Quality of Science

22. Forensic Science is highly context specific. Fragmentation of the supply chain from crime scene to court room, with police and FSPs analysing sections of cases impairs the holistic evaluation of evidence in context. For example, in several instances we have encountered submission to FSS of swabs taken by police from weapons, rather than submission of the weapons themselves. This has led to scientists being unable to comment on how blood may have been deposited on the items and hence its significance.

23. Fingerprint analysis has helped to solve many crimes. However, fingerprint evidence is presented in court as categorical opinion based on a subjective process. Evidence has recently been challenged in courts and by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) in the United States (US) [1] . Criticisms include lack of transparency and reproducibility in the process; lack of scientific foundation; potential for weight of evidence to be over or under stated; lack of measured error rates. NAS noted the "dearth of peer-reviewed, published studies establishing the scientific bases and validity of many forensic methods". Criticisms have been compounded by high profile failures of current fingerprint practice [2] . As a result, a growing movement is calling for a mathematically robust model, with appropriate databases, to assess the evidential weight of fingerprint matches.

24. FSS has used its experience in statistical evaluation of forensic evidence and advanced signal processing to develop a tool for evaluating the strength of fingerprint matches. The underlying statistical method has been subjected to rigorous peer review [3] . Whilst academic groups have contributed scientific literature in this field, only FSS with its blend of research, forensic practice and quality accredited procedures has developed an entire solution fit for deployment in court. To date, the UK has been rather slow to respond to this innovation, which is likely now to be implemented first in the US.

Major Incident Capacity & Capability

25. The UK requires sufficient forensic capability and capacity to respond to major incidents. 4,500 exhibits were submitted to the FSS following the 2005 bombings in London on 7/7 and the attempted bombings on 21/7. Over 100 FSS scientists immediately delivered thousands of hours of forensic analysis leading to identification of the 7/7 bombers within 24 hours and the conviction of those responsible for the 21/7 attempted attacks. FSS is the only UK organisation with experience in providing evidential forensic analysis of samples from terrorist incidents. The expertise and capacity for this type of response must be available for immediate deployment, but cannot be dedicated since major incidents are rare. FSS drew on experts from multiple disciplines including biology, DNA, document examination, mobile phone analysis, toxicology, marks and traces, firearms and fibres & hair analysis. Fragmentation or loss of this experience will reduce the UK’s ability to respond to a major incident.

26. FSS investment led to development of advanced software for storage and matching of DNA profiles between suspects and crime scenes, between crime scenes, individuals and their relatives. Disaster victim identification (DVI) software is available commercially, but FSS has the only immediately available, UK-compatible, validated software to underpin an effective, end-to-end DVI service.

Cold Cases

27. New developments open up the potential for re-analysis of unsolved cases. Cold case reviews rely on:

· Archives.

· Cold case scientists with particular skills and dedication.

· Pioneering technology.

28. FSS archives contain over 1.5 million case files and a vast number of ‘retained materials’ including DNA, microscope slides, fibre tapings and debris recovered from examined items. These do not exist in Police Forces or elsewhere. Detailed understanding of the archive system, ways of documenting results and historic forensic methods are critical: fragmentation or loss of these skills risks future cold case success.

29. FSS has assisted over 38 police forces in their reviews of historic offences and Home Office sponsored projects Operation Stealth and Operation Advance (which produced a 23% match rate from 525 cases).

30. Over 220 cold case convictions dating back to the 1970s, including homicides and sexual offences, have relied on FSS expertise, archives and technology. There are thousands of further cold case reviews in progress, or in planning. ACPO recommends all Forces review their undetected murders at least every two years. [1]

Quality & Regulation

31. The ISO17025 standard is considered to be the appropriate quality standard for forensic laboratories [1] . The European Network of Forensic Science Institutes (ENFSI) requires members to be accredited or working towards this standard [2] ; all suppliers of DNA profiles to the NDNAD and major FSPs in the UK must be accredited [3] .

32. The role of the Forensic Science Regulator (FSR) is to establish and monitor compliance with quality standards for forensic science delivery to the police and wider criminal justice system. Since taking office in 2008, the current FSR has established a regulatory framework for the UK. This is based on a set of standards planned for issue in April (2011); full implementation was originally planned for December 2013 [4] . However, the Regulator does not have statutory leverage for enforcing compliance with the standard. NPIA’s forensics21 project on implementation of quality standards in Police Force in-house forensics does not expect to fully comply with the Regulator’s requirements [5] and we understand that the expected timescale has slipped further to 2015 and beyond. There is no clear commitment from all police forces to meet these standards given the associated costs.

33. With the exception of providing DNA profiles for the NDNAD, there are no statutory requirements for science used within the CJS to be compliant with any standards so the regulatory framework remains effectively voluntary.

34. FSS invests more than 15% of its cost base in maintaining an accredited quality system. Police labs and small FSPs not compliant with ISO17025 do not incur this cost and have a significant cost advantage in a market where price is the dominant factor in contract award.

35. Accreditation to an internationally recognised quality standard does not guarantee that mistakes will not be made. However, it is a key component of an overall quality framework. Crucially, when embedded throughout an entire organisation, with escalation procedures and management responsibility clearly defined, it underpins the maintenance of a culture of continuous improvement so when mistakes are made, these are investigated and measures taken to help prevent recurrence.

36. Notwithstanding the above, ISO17025 was never designed to cover expert interpretation of complex information in a case-context specific manner or provision of expert opinion evidence in court. FSS quality framework includes defined standards and personal competence requirements for casework assessment and interpretation. Inclusion of such standards into the FSR’s standards framework is planned, but is unlikely to be achieved in the near future.

37. Furthermore, the breadth and depth of expertise in FSS is used in training and mentoring new staff over an extended period, in peer review of all findings and interpretation and in assessment of the personal competence of expert witnesses in court. The importance of experience has been reiterated in recent Court of Appeal rulings, for example R-v-Weller [6] . Fragmentation of the skill base risks losing this breadth and depth.

38. The FSS has been instrumental in defending key forensic science techniques (such as low copy number DNA profiling) on behalf of the whole sector, within the CJS, using a number of its world respected research scientists in addition to its court reporting scientists. Thought should be given as to how challenges such as these will be dealt with in the future.

Impartiality

39. Forensic science has to be impartial, and to be seen to be impartial. This issue was raised in a recent critical review of forensic science in the US [1] , in which it was recommended that forensic provision should be separated from police processes. Whilst mechanisms can be put in place to help safeguard impartiality from being compromised, the risk remains higher for undue pressure to be placed on scientists if they work within the same organisation as the "customer".

40. Robert McFarland (who undertook an independent review of the FSS in 2002-3) expressed concern [2] that police forensic experts could appear in court as expert witnesses, citing the review by Lord Justice Auld [3] following which the criminal procedure rules were laid down, specifying that the expert’s duty to the court overrides "any obligation to the person…..by whom he is paid".

European Policy

41. FSS provides the UK government with representation in ENFSI. ENFSI has exclusive [1] status in the EU on all matters regarding forensic science. When FSS closes, UK government will lose influence in European forensic science decision making [2] . This has implications for UK government on implementation of the EU Prüm decisions. Currently FSS scientists sit on the main ENFSI working groups and both standing committees (European Academy of Forensic Sciences; Quality and Competence Committee) and are in a strong position to influence standards and policy.

UK Skill Base

42. The dramatic decrease in the size of the external accessible forensic market will most likely lead to further loss of highly skilled forensic scientists from the UK. FSS scientists have already moved to New Zealand, Australia and Canada as a result of uncertainty in the UK and skilled FSS scientists have been solicited for positions in the USA, Canada, Sri Lanka and several European countries since the closure announcement. Other experienced staff have left, or plan to leave, forensic science altogether.

43. Forensic Science is learned at the bench, taking 5-10 years of training, mentoring and experience for a science graduate to attain competence in interpretation of complex cases. Continuing loss of forensic scientists damages the UK knowledge base and the ability to train for the future. FSS trained many staff now employed by commercial forensic science providers, reducing recruitment and training costs for all UK providers.

Future View

44. Alternatives to a simple winding down the FSS have been suggested by eminent scientists in the field.

Professor Morling, President of the International Society for Forensic Genetics, has called for establishment of "a properly funded national centre to host research and training facilities, and a laboratory that could conduct specialised casework investigations, hold reference data and provide a quality-assurance service for other labs." [1]

Professor Sir Alec Jeffreys, the inventor of DNA profiling, shared Morling’s concern, questioning "Who will provide the expertise for complex and inter-disciplinary investigations? Who will develop and refine new technologies?" and opining that "the necessary reduction in costs could be better achieved by restructuring and refocusing the existing body rather than closing it." [2] Budowle et al [3] ., and Joseph Bono, President of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, have urged that the decision to wind down the FSS be reconsidered [4] .