Written evidence submitted by Forensic Context Ltd (FSS027)

 

Declaration of interests

  1. Forensic Context Ltd was launched in March 2012 and provides independent consultancy, expert witness and training for CJS and other related professionals.  It comprises two very experienced ex-FSS scientists who are specialists in body fluids, DNA, fibre and hair evidence types.

 

Summary

  1. The Government does not appear to have an effective strategy for forensic science that is sufficient to support forensic R&D and the CJS. Our greatest concern is the increasing fragmentation resulting from police insourcing which creates a high risk that the courts are not presented with a coherent and full picture of the value of the forensic evidence. 

 

  1. In our view the Forensic Regulator should be given statutory powers and the resources to properly fund his work. The timescales for compliance with his codes of practice and accreditation of laboratories should be reduced.

 

  1. The current procurement system via tenders is unsatisfactory and is leading to instability for forensic providers and their staff - experienced scientists are being made redundant, TUPE’d to other providers or leaving the profession due the instability of jobs. The FSS closure has resulted in a loss of forensic intellectual wealth as illustrated by the information regarding ex-FSS London staff that we have provided.

 

  1. There should be an ongoing central archive for case files and retained materials, properly funded and staffed by appropriately trained staff.

 

Does the Government have an effective strategy for forensic science in the UK and is it sufficient to support forensic science R&D and criminal justice?

  1. We are not aware of any government strategy for the operational delivery of forensic science; if it has one, it has not been widely published.

 

  1. Forensic research has been actively promoted by the Forensic Regulator who held a conference in November 2012, “Forensic Horizons: promoting awareness of research and development internationally”, which was well attended by Forensic Science Providers (FSPs), academics, police representatives and others with an interest in the future of forensic science research.  At this conference, the Technology Strategy Board’s Special Interest Group (SIG) was introduced which aims to facilitate networking for research. Good forensic R&D needs a close partnership between forensic practitioners, other criminal justice users (eg police, courts) and researchers. This must be effective at all stages - firstly in nominating and prioritising topics for research, secondly during the research and thirdly for evaluating and implementing research. There is a wealth of difference between carrying out academic research and then taking the results forward to provide practical solutions; validation and implementation are as important and academics will not be equipped to deal with this. We have yet to see whether the SIG will facilitate forensic research, however there is also a requirement for significant investment from FSPs which seems unlikely in the current climate. Researchers often focus on topics which provide interesting research but are not a priority for forensic practitioners. For example we have seen much research over the last 25 years on DNA such that we now have fantastically sensitive and discriminating DNA profiling systems but there has been little research on body fluid identification so we are using methods which are decades old, and often lack good sensitivity and specificity.  For the identification of seminal fluid a test first published in 1896 is still the most specific test we have!

 

  1. We struggle to see how the current arrangements will promote forensic science research in economically difficult times, particularly with instability in the forensic market (see para 22) and the already challenging cost pressures for FSPs. There is a wealth of research required to generate background data to assist the scientist and the courts in assessing the evidential value of the findings obtained from scientific testing.  For example, research regarding the transfer and persistence of DNA, collection of data to inform on fibre/hair background populations on clothing and other surfaces. Such research does not produce a commercially attractive result, but would be hugely beneficial to the CJS.  In our view, there is little prospect of such research being carried out.

 

  1. The National DNA Database is currently reliant on DNA analysis methods which are now outdated and have been superseded by more discriminating methods in Europe and in the USA.  We are not aware that there is any strategy to move forward on this. The UK has already slipped from being the world-leader in this area, and we are rapidly being left behind.

 

Did the FSS transition and closure run smoothly and within budget?

  1. We are not aware of any significant issues with the quality or delivery of cases during the closure phase but this was largely due to the professionalism and dedication of FSS scientists and other staff.

 

  1. We have been told that the FSS closure was under the predicted budget but question whether this included ongoing FSS pension costs which the Government has now underwritten.

 

What impacts have the FSS’s closure had on (i) the criminal justice system and (ii) forensic science R&D and training? In particular, have the appropriate quality standards and accreditation been rigorously maintained? (please provide evidence/examples)

  1. CJS - We have seen that the FSS closure has hastened the increasing fragmentation of forensic science and that this is resulting in the loss of evidence for the CJS.  Different stages of an examination within a case are increasingly being split across different organisations (police labs and FSP or multiple FSPs) with the aim of reducing costs.  In many cases and usually the most serious types of crime, this fragmentation results in loss of evidence for the courts.  We are unconvinced if there is a true cost benefit from this approach

 

  1. This fragmentation is symptomatic of inappropriate case strategies with, for example, a focus on the retrieval and identification of DNA when the real case issue may turn out to be what the DNA originated from and how it was deposited.  The former (analytical/investigative stage) will be less adversely affected by fragmented services than the latter (evaluative stage).

 

  1. The following is a hypothetical example we have created to illustrate this point but we are aware of actual cases where such matters are an issue - Police retrieve a knife from a crime scene and during the police laboratory examination for fingerprints, swabs of the blade and handle (potentially containing blood and/or DNA) are taken and submitted to the Force’s FSP for DNA profiling.  They obtain a full DNA profile which matches a named individual. If that person pleads guilty on the basis of this DNA evidence, there are no issues and the examination appears to have been done expeditiously and in a cost effective manner.  However what if the individual doesn’t plead? - The defendant may challenge the DNA match or, more likely, how the DNA came to be on the knife. This type of challenge will need to consider whether the DNA can be ‘attributed’ to blood and whether the DNA was deposited as a result of direct contact or via an indirect transfer (i.e. ‘secondary’ contact via an intermediary). Who can answer this question for the court? The police lab’s examiner/scientist won’t have the necessary DNA interpretation skills and the FSP’s DNA scientist hasn’t seen the knife and so cannot make a judgment based on the strength or pattern of any staining. Even if any staining on the knife had been tested and photographed in the police lab, which in many cases doesn’t happen, it may still not be possible for the FSP scientist to give an opinion about the DNA attribution or transfer issues because they have not seen the item themselves. The preferred approach is for the knife to be examined for DNA and body fluids by the person who will report the DNA profiling results.

 

  1. We accept that the police have to carry out a risk analysis and decide whether to use what they see as the cost effective option of an in-house examination, or send the whole item (rather than a swabbing) to their FSP for the entire examination, however it appears that there are issues with how well this risk analysis is applied and also a lack of appropriate standards for examination and note-taking in some police laboratories.

 

  1. In-house examinations by police forces prior to submission of an item/case to a FSP also has implications for duplication of work and loss of evidence.

 

  1. Training - The loss of experienced forensic scientists as a result of the FSS closure has impacted on the training and mentoring of less experienced scientists, and the current heavy workloads of those still in the market place has reduced their availability for the delivery of training.  

 

  1. Maintenance of quality standards and accreditation – we have seen several high profile quality failures in the press in recent months which illustrate that accreditation to ISO standards although facilitating good practice, does not in itself preclude errors even in large organisations. The current situation is leading to a greater number of smaller laboratories which are less likely than the larger established organisations to have the experience and the range of skills required to develop and maintain high quality standards, and maybe also the finances.

 

What should be role of the Forensic Science Regulator?

  1. In our view, the Regulator should have statutory powers and should implement shorter timescales for the compliance of forensic laboratories with ISO standards. Whilst the Regulator’s codes of practice and their associated appendices for specific areas of forensic science are in production and will aid the implementation of good quality standards, the time scale for compliance with them is too long. The FSS stopped taking new cases almost a year ago so potentially there is already a year’s worth of casework produced by unaccredited and unregulated laboratories reaching the courts.  In the meantime, the only external test of their work is during reviews of specific cases by forensic experts employed by the defence. 

 

  1. We would like to see greater communication by the Regulator with the forensic science community, especially the very small providers who are not well represented by working groups.  He should make greater use of the wealth of forensic knowledge in the marketplace and employ consultants for advice where appropriate. We have also often found that newsletters on his website are out of date when they first appear.

 

  1. For the small forensic businesses, participation in the Regulator’s working groups pro bono is not feasible.  He is getting valuable advice from such participation and should be offering appropriate financial recompense.

 

What is the size of the forensics market and how stable is it?

  1. The market is fragile and the results of recent police tenders have seen work moved between FSPs.  This constant shifting of work gives us concern (see para 33) and in what appears to be a shrinking market, the possibility of another major provider pulling out is a real risk.

 

How are forensic science services procured by police forces and could procurement processes be improved?

  1. The rounds of tenders every few years for police work results in regular transfer of forensic work between FSPs and hence staff redundancies or transfers via TUPE.  There are also usually staff losses as individuals cannot always relocate to where the work has gone; even if they can move, constantly changing employers provides no continuity for the individuals concerned and hence no structured training and development.  FSPs are essentially working with fairly short-term contracts and will hire and fire staff as required.  This will eventually result in even more loss of experience to forensic science than we already have as people will leave the profession due to the instability of jobs (see paras 26-27).

 

  1. In many cases, Police Forces tend to buy tests rather than a case strategy, examination and interpretation. This will result in loss of evidence for courts, predominantly in the more serious crime types. (See comments in paras 12-16).

 

  1. In a commercial market the current procurement system may be effective for analytical ‘test’ based work, but is ineffective when an evaluative opinion is required on work which has been carried out in a fragmented manner.  It is difficult to see a solution to the issues arising from a reluctance to properly fund evaluative work other than a centrally funded organisation.

 

Has the closure of the FSS resulted in a loss of intellectual wealth through its scientists leaving the forensic science profession, or the UK? (please provide evidence/examples)

  1. Yes there has been a loss of intellectual knowledge - many people have left the profession and although others may still be classed as forensic scientists they are not fully utilising their skills.

 

  1. Example from FSS London:

30 reporting officers (ROs) from the FSS London homicide team were TUPE’d to the MPS evidence recovery laboratory at Lambeth, together with approximately 70 examiners from the FSS homicide and sexual offences teams.  On face of it, this may be counted as them still being in forensic science profession, however the 30 ROs have effectively been deskilled by the operating model employed by the MPS – their new role is focused on the recovery of evidence rather than its evaluation.  These 30 ROs are currently being trained to search items for blood and other body fluids and evidence types.  In the FSS these ROs, many of whom have 10-20 years of experience, carried out case evaluations and complex DNA interpretation as well as file review (peer review of another scientist’s statement).  In the MPS model they are not able to use their evaluation and DNA skills, resulting in a great loss of skill to the CJS and those who hold these skills at other FSPs being given increasing workloads. The TUPE’d staff are currently undergoing a long training program which is progressing slowly, such that many are not yet signed off as competent to examine items themselves a year after transfer.  The same applies to file review – we understand that none of the 30 ROs are yet signed off to do MPS file review, something which many of them were highly skilled with in the FSS.  

 

For the FSS London ROs from the sexual offences team – at the present time the majority are still in forensic science.  This comprises 2 who became freelance consultants, one became a lecturer in forensic science and 12 went to other forensic providers (but largely on short term contracts) - however 4 of those 12 have recently been made redundant by LGC.  In addition, 3 people left the profession; others are considering doing so as they are now without jobs or very unhappy in their current roles.

 

Are current arrangements for the FSS’s archives satisfactory? How could arrangements for the retention of case files and forensic materials in the UK be improved?

  1. Although it is said that all FSS materials are stored at a central location we understand that some case files are being kept by police Forces and others are not returned to the archive after use.  It is unclear how effective the archive will be as a long-term storage solution given the difficulties in tracking the return of files. 

 

  1. We have already encountered difficulties with the FSS archive staff being unable to locate information requested by enquirers and ex-FSS staff being asked to assist.  It is unclear whether this is due to issues with the IT system used to record what is in the archive, lack of training of the archive staff or their lack of scientific knowledge, or a combination of these.

 

  1. We are concerned as to what happens to new cases going forward and would like to see one central repository used by all FSPs – both for files and retained materials.  Given cases from one police Force (and even work within a single case) may be split across more than one provider, it will become increasingly difficult to locate the relevant files or materials without a central repository. Although the development of digital case notes in the future may alleviate some issues with access to case files, there will always be a need to access retained case materials.  For any scientist engaged by the defence, it will be prohibitively expensive for them to view case files and materials which are spread out across the country.

 

 

January 2013