After viewing a recently televised session of the Select Committee investigating the closure of the Forensic Science Service (FSS), I was appalled by the seemingly superficial and cost driven decision to close the FSS, as outlined by the evidence of Crime Reduction Minister James Brokenshire.

As a forensic scientist with over 40 years experience, I worked for the FSS both before and after it became a gov com, as well as for two major private providers, Forensic Alliance and LGC Forensics. In addition to undertaking both scientific and management roles within these organisations, I now run my own consultancy, Forensic Equity Limited, and as such I feel uniquely placed to comment on this issue.

In my opinion, since the inception of the National Framework for Forensic Services and the awarding of individual ‘Lots’ of work to a myriad of private providers, there has been a marked decrease in the quality and ‘fitness for purpose’ of forensic evidence delivered to the courts. This is particularly evident in the more complex forensic work that surrounds more serious offences, where expert opinion based on experience and specialist expertise, is crucial.

The National Framework tendering process may have driven down the costs and delivery times of many forensic examinations, through marketplace competition. However, it has not, as suggested by the Forensic Science Regulator and ACPO (Association of Chief Police Officers), improved quality or ensured real ‘value for money’.

The fact that the key players are apparently blind to these flaws in the new system is because the whole criminal process is hugely fragmented. From the collection of evidence, the forensic examinations and the charging of suspects, right up to the presentation of evidence in court, the final verdict and eventually sentencing, the overall process is not monitored by anyone in authority.

However, to experienced forensic scientists who are regularly involved in the majority of the process, particularly when giving evidence in court, the flaws are all too apparent.

The concept of ‘value for money’ in terms of forensic evidence, should be based on the premise that the amount spent on forensic investigations and reports leads to a sound, safe and correct verdict in court. The forensic part of any investigation represents a tiny fraction of the total cost of bringing a case to court, a fact that is consistently ignored by those who wish to cut the cost of the legal process.

Unfortunately, the police view of ‘value for money’ revolves around how quickly and cheaply a forensic service can be delivered and does not address how the results might affect the criminal proceedings as a whole. If prosecutions are based on weak or flawed forensic evidence or opinion, they may eventually fail in court, with the tax payer incurring huge bills as a result.

The introduction of the National Framework tendering process has caused a reduction in the operating costs of the private providers and diminished the amount of work carried out in a case. This is in order for them to be competitive and to win tenders, which in my experience are normally awarded by financial managers on the basis of cost alone, with very little consideration for the quality of the science.

As long as the provider chosen meets minimum standards set by the Forensic Regulator, cost wins out over quality.

These reductions in operating costs have been achieved, in part, by keeping wage bills down and employing less experienced scientists to carry out the work. Research and development budgets have also been heavily cut, with some minor providers not even having one at all.

In contrast, these cost cutting options have not been readily available to the FSS to date, as they have a core of very experienced and hence more expensive forensic specialists, causing them to come off badly in the tendering process and placing them in financial difficulty.

The net effect is that although the forensic examinations in a case may be delivered cheaply and quickly, they do not always serve the best interests of the criminal justice system in delivering verdicts based on sound science and expert opinions. Through my extensive experience I regularly see the effects of this ‘dumbing down’ of forensic science, including prosecution failures, reduced charges and occasionally more serious miscarriages of justice.

Before taking the irreversible step of closing the FSS, I believe that the Home Office and the Crime Reduction Minister in particular, should take a long hard look at the whole criminal justice process and the place of forensic evidence within it. They should seriously consider the critical impact of losing the vast expertise of so many forensic scientists.

The majority of the most senior FSS specialists will not find or want new jobs within the private sector. The private forensic providers cannot afford to keep their costs down and pay the salaries of such experienced scientists. As a result, a raft of specialist proficiency will be lost to the criminal justice system forever; or at least to the prosecution.

No private provider will be willing or able to replace that expertise, with the current constraints on prices that can be charged within the National Framework tendering process. It takes years to properly train a scene-going forensic scientist and even longer for them to gain the experience necessary to give critical expert opinion in a serious criminal case.

It would be far better to rethink the whole relationship between forensic science, the Police and the rest of the criminal justice system and how it should work for the benefit of all. The Home Office should seek to retain that forensic expertise which is so desperately needed and stop the potentially dangerous ‘dumbing down’ process which is currently taking place.

Anne Franc C Biol. MSB.
Principal Scientist and Director of Forensic Equity Limited

Telephone: 0118 979 4043 | Website: http://www.forensicequity.com