Forensic science in England and Wales is not working. Not for the
police, not for forensic scientists or lawyers and ultimately, it
is not working for the public and the criminal justice system.
This stark assessment, expressed during the inquiry by eminent
forensic scientist Professor Angela Gallop, has been reinforced
today by the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee in a
report that found “little to contradict it”.
The Committee's report Rebuilding forensic
science for criminal justice: an urgent
need reveals a forensic science system in
crisis: a near‑monopolised, dysfunctional and fragile
commercial market; inconsistent and poorly overseen
in‑house police provision; and a digital forensics backlog
exceeding 20,000 devices that has barely
improved for years. Even Ministers admit the
system needs reform.
The Committee is calling on the Government to act immediately
rather than wait for the outcome of long and uncertain changes
recently announced in the Policing Reform White Paper. The
Committee recommends the creation this year of
a National Institute for Forensic
Science to oversee best
practice, drive research and
development, and the preservation of
specialist forensic skills and to
help ensure the independence of forensic
evidence and prevent miscarriages of justice.
CBE, Chair
of the Science and Technology Committee
said:
“As the forensic science system continues to atrophy
despite repeated warnings, creeping neglect is
beginning to resemble a shocking abdication of
responsibility by the Government,
and is a national scandal in the
making. If this decline is allowed
to continue, further miscarriages of justice
are inevitable.
“We welcome the direction of travel in the recently announced
Policing Reform White Paper, which presents opportunities for
change such as establishing a national forensic science service
and rationalising the current complex patchwork of police forces.
However, the details on how forensic science will operate within
this new system, and critically, how its independence from the
police will be safeguarded, remain extremely vague, as do the
timelines for implementing these changes.
“These much-needed and long overdue
reforms must not be allowed to be kicked into
the long grass.
“The need urgently to address the issues our
inquiry has identified within the forensic system, both now and
as part of these wider reforms, is critical if we are to fix
and rebuild what has become an increasingly dysfunctional
pillar of criminal justice in England and Wales.”
The Committees full conclusions and
recommendations begin on page 83 of
the report including:
-
Dysfunctional forensic science
market: Over 80% of external forensic
services are now provided by a
single large company Eurofins. This comes
with risks: for the range and quality of service
provision; for the stability of forensic science in the UK
should Eurofins exit the market; and for
the Forensic Science Regulator who may be
unwilling to impose sanctions on a near-monopoly
provider. The Committee says
the Government should assess the concentration
risks in the market due to
this near-monopoly, introduce
measures to stabilise the existing provision, lower barriers
to entry for new providers, and ensure that contracts from
police forces or a National Police Service pay a fair price
to the providers.
-
In-house police provision of forensic
science and lack of
independence: The
increase of forensic science
services being carried out by police
forces raises serious concerns about
oversight, quality, transparency, inconsistency
across the 43 police forces in England and
Wales. Ministers
acknowledged they currently
have limited visibility
over national capacity, quality, or
spending. In-house provision by
the
police also risks unconscious
bias in how evidence is
analysed. The Committee argues that any new
national service
must be established as a
priority
and must operate independently
from the police. It suggests learning
from the Scottish model, where
a “sterile
corridor” is maintained between
forensics analysis and police investigations
to maintain impartiality.
-
Fragmented evidence storage: The
current fragmented national approach to evidence storage
is a severe risk to the criminal justice system. Since the
closure of the Forensic Science Service in 2012,
responsibility for storing forensic evidence is dispersed
across 43 police forces and multiple forensic service
providers, producing inconsistent practice and
standards, including loss and improper storage of exhibits.
This can lead to the collapse of criminal
prosecutions and risks preventing re-testing and
appeals. The Committee says the burden of
long-term evidence retention and storage should be
taken away from the police and given to an independent
national storage capacity.
-
Inequality of arms and forensic science in the
courtroom: There is grave concern about
equality of arms for forensic science in
the courtroom. The defence community of
forensic experts is underfunded, fragmented, varying in
quality, small in scale, and it faces significant
administrative and financial barriers to taking part in many
trials. Rates of pay for defence experts are
less than those for the prosecution. This community
plays a vital role in ensuring justice is done, but it
is being allowed to wither away, risking miscarriages of
justice. Among other recommendations, the Committee
says that the Ministry of Justice should review the legal aid
rates that can be paid to forensic experts for the
defence.
-
Digital forensics backlog: Digital
forensics continues to be a growing area of
concern. The Committee highlighted the volume of
such evidence, and the forensic science sector's ability
to process, analyse and store it, in its 2019
report. The situation since then has barely improved,
with backlogs still undermining timely justice, and the
threat of deepfaked evidence which current methods
cannot identify. The Committee proposes a programme
of R&D to establish trusted AI and digital tools that
forces can
use to address the backlog.
