Headline

Subt



	House of Commons Science and Technology Committee
	Forensic Science on Trial Seventh Report of Session 2004–05
	HC 96–I



	House of Commons Science and Technology Committee
	Forensic Science on Trial Seventh Report of Session 2004–05 Report, together with formal minutes
	Ordered by The House of Commons to be printed 16 March 2005
	HC 96–I Published on 29 March 2005 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £0.00


	The Science and Technology Committee
	The Science and Technology Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration and policy of the Office of Science and Technology and its associated public bodies. Current membership Dr Ian Gibson MP (Labour, Norwich North) (Chairman) Paul Farrelly MP (Labour, Newcastle-under-Lyme) Dr Evan Harris MP (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West & Abingdon) Kate Hoey MP (Labour, Vauxhall) Dr Brian Iddon MP (Labour, Bolton South East) Mr Robert Key MP (Conservative, Salisbury) Mr Tony McWalter MP (Labour, Hemel Hempstead) Dr Andrew Murrison MP (Conservative, Westbury) Geraldine Smith MP (Labour, Morecambe and Lunesdale) Bob Spink MP (Conservative, Castle Point) Dr Desmond Turner MP (Labour, Brighton Kemptown) Powers The Committee is one of the departmental Select Committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No.152. These are available on the Internet via www.parliament.uk Publications The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House. All publications of the Committee (including press notices) are on the Internet at www.parliament.uk/s&tcom A list of Reports from the Committee in the present Parliament is included at the back of this volume. Committee staff The current staff of the Committee are: Chris Shaw (Clerk); Emily Commander (Second Clerk); Alun Roberts (Committee Specialist); Hayaatun Sillem (Committee Specialist); Ana Ferreira (Committee Assistant); Robert Long (Senior Office Clerk); and Christine McGrane (Committee Secretary). Contacts All correspondence should be addressed to the Clerk of the Science and Technology Committee, Committee Office, 7 Millbank, London SW1P 3JA. The telephone number for general inquiries is: 020 7219 2793; the Committee’s email address is: scitechcom@parliament.uk


	Forensic Science on Trial 1
	Contents
	Report Page Summary 3 1 Introduction 5 2 Background 6 What is forensic science? 6 Key organisations 6 Forensic Science Service 6 Home Office 6 Police 8 Use of forensic science by the criminal justice system 8 Intelligence-led policing 9 DNA Expansion Programme 10 Forensic services market 12 3 Changing Status of the FSS 13 Decision to move to PPP 13 Recent history of the FSS 13 McFarland Review 13 Attitudes towards PPP 15 GovCo 20 Next steps 23 Market in forensic services 24 Regulation of the market 26 4 National Databases 29 National DNA Database 29 History 29 Taking and retention of samples 30 Custodianship arrangements 34 New applications 38 Platform technology 40 Other national databases 42 5 Education and Training 43 University courses 43 Accreditation scheme 45 Implications for pure science 46 Training of forensic scientists 47 Police training 48 Identification of best practice 50 Implications of GovCo/PPP 52 6 Research and Development 54


	2 Forensic Science on Trial
	Home Office and police R&D 54 Police Science and Technology Strategy 54 Funding for R&D 55 Other sources of funding 55 EPSRC Think Crime Programme 56 Exploitation of research 56 Implications of GovCo/PPP 58 Intellectual property rights 59 7 Use of Forensic Evidence in Court 60 Expert witnesses 60 Role of experts 60 Council for the Registration of Forensic Practitioners 60 Presentation of evidence 63 Training of experts 64 Adversarial system 66 Single joint experts 67 Pre-trial meetings 67 Services for the defence 68 Presentation of risk and probability 70 Presentation of DNA evidence 70 Communication between scientists and legal profession 71 Juries 72 Scrutiny of expert evidence 74 Systems failure 74 Admissibility of expert evidence 75 Early warning system 76 Training of judges and lawyers in forensic evidence 78 Lawyers 78 Judges 79 Specialist judges and lawyers 80 Conclusion 81 Conclusions and recommendations 82 Formal minutes 90 Witnesses 91
	Written Memoranda	92


	Forensic Science on Trial 3
	Summary
	Forensic science is a vital instrument for the detection of crime and the administration of justice. The Forensic Science Service (FSS) plays a critical role in the delivery of forensic services to the criminal justice system and has established itself as a world leader in forensic science. In this inquiry we sought to investigate the likely implications of the Government’s plan to develop the FSS as a Government owned company (GovCo) and possibly a public-private partnership (PPP). This Report welcomes the fact that, during the course of this inquiry, the Home Office stated its intention to fully test the GovCo model for the FSS, rather than automatically progressing to a PPP. However, we regret the confusing way in which the Home Office announced this decision: the mixed messages it sent out have only added to the uncertainty over the future of the FSS. The staff of the FSS have contributed enormously to building the reputation of the organisation and are essential to its future success. We urge the Home Office and senior management at the FSS to take positive steps to address the concerns of staff and rebuild confidence within the organisation. The lack of adequate independent oversight of the process of developing the FSS into a GovCo and possibly a PPP is unsatisfactory and we call for the Government to improve the transparency of this process. In addition, we identify a need for the Government to implement measures to ensure that the criminal justice system has uninterrupted access to the full range of forensic services of the required quality standards and at affordable prices. We recommend that a Forensic Science Advisory Council be established to act as a regulator of the forensic services market, and to provide a much needed overview of the process by which forensic science is used in the criminal justice system. In light of the changing status of the FSS, the Council could also provide a source of independent impartial advice on forensic science to the Government, police and others. We further criticise the fact that the Home Office has failed to establish an independent body to oversee the work of the National DNA Database, or to make adequate provision for ethical and lay input. We additionally note the need for better management of the technology transfer process to facilitate exploitation of academic research with potential for application to crime prevention and detection technologies. Although we accept that flaws in expert evidence are unlikely to have led, in isolation, to a significant number of miscarriages of justice, it is impossible to determine the number of cases which have been adversely affected by the conduct of an expert, or the handling of expert evidence in court. We emphasise that where miscarriages of justice have arisen in association with problems in expert evidence, this reflects a systems failure. We recommend various measures to improve the handling of expert evidence in court, including better provision of training for expert witnesses, lawyers and judges. We also recommend the establishment of a Science and the Law Forum and a Scientific Review Committee within the Criminal Cases Review Commission, to promote communication between the scientific and legal professions and to provide for ongoing scientific scrutiny of expert evidence.


	Forensic Science on Trial 5
	1 Introduction
	1. Crime is estimated to cost the UK economy around £50 billion each year.¹ Forensic science is a vital instrument for the detection and deterrence of crime, and the administration of justice. In the UK, around 85% of forensic services are delivered by the Forensic Science Service (FSS). On 17 July 2003 the then Home Secretary, Rt. Hon. David Blunkett MP, announced the Government’s intention to develop the FSS as a public-private partnership (PPP).² The decision was welcomed by the management of the FSS, but greeted with dismay by the trade unions representing the majority of FSS staff. 2. We announced our inquiry into forensic science on 21 July 2004. Our aim was to investigate the likely impact of the Government plan to develop the Forensic Science Service as a public-private partnership on the competitiveness of the FSS and on the effective provision of forensic science services to the criminal justice system. We also sought to examine the quality of forensic science education and training and the supply of skilled personnel in forensic science; levels of investment in forensic science R&D; and the use of forensic science, including novel forensic technologies, in criminal investigations and court proceedings. We have concerned ourselves with the criminal justice system in England and Wales only and have not addressed the systems in Scotland or Northern Ireland, or the use of forensic evidence by HM Customs and Excise. 3. In the course of this inquiry we held five oral evidence sessions, during which we heard from: • Home Office officials and the FSS; • The Council for the Registration of Forensic Practitioners, the Forensic Science Society, private sector providers and trade unions; • The Association of Chief Police Officers and academics; • The Crown Prosecution Service, the Bar Council and a Crown Court judge; and • The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Reducing Organised and International Crime, Police Science and Technology, Anti-Drugs Co-Ordination and International and European Issues. The transcripts of these sessions are published with this Report, together with the 34 written submissions received in response to our call for evidence and requests for supplementary information. We are grateful to all those who have contributed to this inquiry and would also like to place on record our thanks to our specialist advisers: David Blakey, formerly one of Her Majesty’s Inspectors of Constabulary; and Professor David Barclay, formerly Head of Physical Evidence, National Crime and Operations Faculty.
	1 Safety in Numbers, Audit Commission, 1998 2 17 Jul 2003: Column 62WS


	6 Forensic Science on Trial
	2 Background
	What is forensic science? 4. Forensic science is science used for the purposes of the law. We have adopted a broad definition of the term and include the full spectrum of forensic science from basic research to applied technology. Thus, the term “forensic science” here refers not only to the typical services offered by the main forensic science providers, such as toxicology, DNA, hair, fibre, footwear, toolmark, firearms, drugs and document analyses; but also to the research that underpins the development, testing and introduction of new forensic technology. Forensic pathology, the examination of human bodies to determine the cause and manner of death in criminal or suspicious circumstances, is also included within this definition. Fingerprints (usually referred to as fingermarks) are obviously part of forensic science as well, but we have not considered the arrangements for their effective use separately in this Report. Key organisations *Forensic Science Service* 5. The Forensic Science Service (FSS) is an Executive Agency of the Home Office. The Agency, through its seven laboratories and more than 2,500 staff, delivers forensic science services to the 43 police forces in England and Wales, the Crown Prosecution Service and HM Customs and Excise. The four main services through which the FSS supports the criminal justice system are: • Scientific analysis and interpretation to support criminal investigations; • Maintenance of the National DNA Database; • Analysis of DNA for inclusion on the National DNA Database; and • Expert testimony in support of prosecutions. In addition, the FSS carries out R&D, fulfils advisory functions to Home Office Ministers, and undertakes some private sector and international work. In 2003–04 the FSS had a turnover of £149 million.³ *Home Office* 6. The Home Office is the Government Department with responsibility for the use of forensic science in the criminal justice system. Effective use of forensic science will be required to enable the Home Office to meet at least three of its seven Public Service Agreement (PSA) targets:
	3 FSS Annual Report 2003–04


	Forensic Science on Trial 7
	• PSA target 1: Reduce crime and the fear of crime; improve performance overall, including by reducing the gap between the highest Crime and Disorder Partnerships areas and the best comparable areas. • PSA target 2: Improve the performance of all police forces, and significantly reduce the performance gap between the best and worst performing forces; and significantly increase the proportion of time spent on frontline duties. • PSA target 3: Improve the delivery of justice by increasing the number of crimes for which an offender is brought to justice to 1.25 million by 2007–08. Figure 1: Science and technology in the Home Office
	Science Policy Unit The Science Policy Unit of the Home Office (SPU) has responsibility for developing and delivering policy on police use of science and technology. This includes the development and implementation of the overarching Police Science and Technology Strategy (see paragraph 116), in addition to programmes such as the DNA expansion programme and the prisoner DNA sampling programming. The SPU also acts as a sponsor unit for the Forensic Science and Forensic Pathology Services. The Police Scientific Development Branch The Police Scientific Development Branch (PSDB) is a core unit of the Home Office that provides impartial advice and technical, operational and policy support to Ministers, Home Office policy units and the police themselves. The PSDB evaluates, develops and advises on science and technology equipment and techniques. Police Standards Unit The Police Standards Unit (PSU) aims to raise standards and improve operational performance in the police forces and in crime reduction in general. The PSU measures and compares performance between forces, with the objective of understanding the underlying causes of performance variations, identifying and disseminating good practice and supporting those who need assistance. The PSU forensic science team works with the Association of Chief Police Officers, the SPU and Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary to identify good practice and reduce variability in police forensic processes. The PSU has also been leading a “cold case” review programme in collaboration with the DNA Expansion Programme and the FSS. The review programme has identified 215 cases that were mainly undetected serious sexual offences for which DNA samples were able to be recovered and analysed. Twenty five per cent of these cases have now produced matches on the National DNA Database (NDNAD) leading to the identification of 34 named suspects. Other Home Office sources of science and technology The Police Information Technology Organisation (PITO) is a Non-Departmental Public Body (NDPB) responsible for managing the development of national IT and communications systems for the police. Together with the PSDB and FSS, PITO forms one of the three main providers of science and technology services and advice to the police. Other sources of science and technology and related advice used by the Home Office and police include the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (DSTL) and private sector companies. Source: Home Office 7. Our 2003 Report on the scientific response to terrorism noted the “weak scientific culture in the Home Office” and we heard in this inquiry that there were “black holes” in its understanding of forensic science.^4,5 The Government, in its Response to our Report on terrorism, “accepted the need to continue developing the use of science within the Home Office” and told us that it was “confident that the scientific culture across the Home Office will continue to improve through the work of Professor Wiles [the Chief Scientific Adviser
	4 House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, Eighth Report of Session 2002–03, The Scientific Response to Terrorism, HC 415-I 5 Q 375


	8 Forensic Science on Trial
	to the Home Office] and the Home Secretary”.⁶ We have been surprised by the conspicuous absence of input from Professor Wiles during this inquiry. In response to our inquiries, the Home Office told us that Professor Wiles was “clearly aware of the way in which corporate policy is being developed and will have been copied into quite a lot of material”.⁷ The Home Office subsequently noted that one of his advisers had also been part of the project group overseeing the transformation of the FSS.⁸ Nevertheless, the low visibility of the Home Office Chief Scientific Adviser is a source of concern, particularly in view of the history of weak scientific culture in the department. *Police* 8. The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) forms a single point of reference for the 43 police forces of England and Wales. ACPO is the professional association of the chief officers of these police forces and has responsibility for the following: • Formulating guidance for the service, e.g. for interpretation of new legislation. • Speaking for its members when appropriate, for example with regard to the Service’s relationship with the Home Office. • Serving as a professional advisor on policing matters to the Home Secretary. • Co-ordinating the Service’s response when it needs to act as a single force, in times of national emergency or when there is a major or catastrophic incident. 9. Each of the 43 police forces in England and Wales employs scientific support staff. The titles may differ slightly, but typically a police force will have a Scientific Support Manager (SSM) and a number of Scenes of Crime Officers (SOCOs). Scientific Support Managers serve as heads of the administrative departments that co-ordinate the work of SOCOs, manage budgets for forensic science and fingerprints, and assist in the development of forensic science policy within the forces. They may have a scientific, business or police background but very few are police officers. SOCOs are employed to visit scenes of crime to look for DNA, fingerprints or other traces; again, very few of them are police officers. Some will be graduates, others will have come from a variety of backgrounds. They will all have attended training courses both locally and nationally. Training for police staff is discussed further in paragraph 104. Use of forensic science by the criminal justice system 10. Forensic science is critical to the efficiency and effectiveness of the criminal justice system. The main contribution that forensic science makes to the criminal justice system is the generation of intelligence to assist investigations: the provision of actual evidence to convict the guilty or exculpate the innocent represents a small, although very significant, part of its role. DNA profiling, sometimes called DNA fingerprinting, is perhaps the most well known forensic technique and an increasing number of investigations rely on DNA
	6 Cm 6108 7 Q 538 8 Q 535, footnote by the witness


	Forensic Science on Trial 9
	evidence. Data are not available on the numbers of convictions that have been aided by the availability of DNA evidence. However, it is known that in 2002–03 there were more than 21,000 detections in crimes where a DNA profile had been obtained, a 132% increase since 2000.⁹ HMIC has described DNA analysis as “by far the most significant breakthrough in crime detection since the inception of fingerprint identification”.¹⁰ 11. An overview of the process by which forensic evidence is obtained and used by the criminal justice system is provided in Figure 2. In summary, once a crime has been identified, potential evidence at the scene (or on the victim or suspect) is identified and recovered, usually by SOCOs, although in more serious cases forensic scientists from the forensic service providers may also be involved. Fingerprints found at scenes are checked against national databases directly by police forces. Other potential evidence, some of which will be recovered in the laboratory rather than at the crime scene, is subjected to detailed examination and analysis using a range of techniques. (e.g. DNA tool marks, glass, shoe prints etc.). The value of any forensic evidence is critically dependent on the interpretation of the scientific test result, necessitating an awareness and understanding of the particular circumstances of the case in question. The choice of items to be submitted for testing, and the priority awarded to them, also has a major impact on the benefit to the investigation that is derived from forensic analysis. Furthermore, appropriate action needs to be taken by the police once the forensic test results become available. The power of forensic science to facilitate the administration of justice is therefore entirely dependent on the ability of the police, and others, to use it effectively. 12. The Thematic Inspection Report, Under the Microscope, and its follow-up, Under the Microscope Refocused, carried out by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) in 2000 and 2002 respectively identified a number of problems with the use of forensic science by police forces.^11,12 These included the failure of senior officers to “champion” the scientific support function, a lack of performance data on volume crime and scientific support, and difficulties associated with crime scene attendance and in managing the process of turning identifications into detections. See paragraph 109 for further discussion of best practice in forensic science in the police force. *Intelligence-led policing* 13. Since Under the Microscope and Under the Microscope Refocused, police forces have put significant effort into improving policies on scene attendance by SOCOs to help them manage and cost their work more effectively, and into measuring performance. It is now increasingly realised that scientific support staff are more effective when fully integrated into the whole intelligence and investigative process. This in turn reflects the recognition that forensic science can play a key role in the intelligence-led approach to policing enshrined in the National Intelligence Model that was adopted by ACPO in 2000. The Model represents the collected wisdom and best practice in intelligence-led policing and law enforcement and has played an important part in police reform, helping senior
	9 Home Office, DNA 21^st Century Crime Fighting Tool, July 2003 10 Home Office, Under the Microscope, Her Majesty’s Inspector David Blakey, July 2000 11 Home Office, Under the Microscope, Her Majesty’s Inspector David Blakey, July 2000 12 Home Office, Under the Microscope Refocused, Her Majesty’s Inspector David Blakey, June 2002


	10 Forensic Science on Trial
	managers to provide strategic direction; make tactical decisions about resources; and manage risk.¹³ The growing exploitation of forensic evidence for intelligence purposes is a key factor in the effective operation of the National Intelligence Model.¹⁴ *DNA Expansion Programme* 14. The increasing emphasis on forensic intelligence stems, in part, from the availability of large searchable national databases of forensic evidence. The Metropolitan Police Service, for example, told us of the “strategic shift” that had “taken place in the use of forensic science following the development of forensic intelligence databases that identify suspects rather than provide evidence for the courts”.¹⁵ The most significant database in this regard is the National DNA Database (NDNAD) which has undergone a substantial expansion programme over the past five years. The Home Office DNA Expansion Programme provided £186.2 million to the police forces in England and Wales between April 2000 and March 2004.¹⁶ The aim of the funding was to enable the police to take a DNA sample from all known active offenders and to increase the retrieval and use of DNA material left by offenders at scenes of volume crime e.g. burglary and vehicle crime. There are now more than 2.7 million criminal justice samples on the NDNAD and 243,627 crime stain records.¹⁷ The National DNA Database and DNA Expansion Programme are discussed further in chapter four.
	13 http://www.ncis.co.uk/nim.asp and http://www.police.uk/nim2/ 14 Ev 113 15 Ev 113 16 Forensic Science Service, The National DNA Database Annual Report 2003–04, 2004 17 Hitting the mark, Jane’s Police Review, 18 February 2005


	Forensic Science on Trial 11
	Figure 2: The use of forensic science by the criminal justice system


	12 Forensic Science on Trial
	Forensic services market 15. Total forensic provision is estimated to cost the police service in the region of £400 million annually, amounting to 0.04% of police expenditure (central and local) in England and Wales.¹⁸ Within each police force, expenditure on forensic science is estimated to comprise approximately 20% of the force’s scientific and technological spend. £210 million (or 52%) of police forensic spend is on services provided in-house by police forces—mainly fingerprinting and SOCOs.¹⁹ 16. The remaining £190 million (or 48%) reflects expenditure on services provided by external suppliers of forensic services.²⁰ The major external providers are the FSS and the private companies, Forensic Alliance Ltd and LGC Ltd. There are a number of smaller companies engaged in analytical and testing work, particularly drug testing and document analysis, and a small percentage of services is provided by individual forensic practitioners (see figure 3). The FSS accounts for around 85% of the external forensic services market, but this market share has been declining.²¹ The main services provided by external organisations (as opposed to services offered in-house to the police) are forensic analysis and more specialised and labour intensive casework. Figure 3: The market for forensic science in England and Wales (2004 estimates)

	18 Ev 95 19 Ev 95 20 Ev 95 21 Ev 95


	Forensic Science on Trial 13
	3 Changing Status of the FSS
	Decision to move to PPP *Recent history of the FSS* 17. The FSS became an Executive Agency of the Home Office in 1991. Prior to this, there was no charging mechanism for forensic services and services were, in effect, free at the point of use.²² In 1996 the FSS merged with the Metropolitan Police Forensic Science Laboratory and then in 1999 acquired Trading Fund status. These changes opened up the possibility of a market in forensic science services and, as noted by ACPO, “introduced financial discipline into forensic science provision and procurement” such that “Costs and value added by forensic support became clearer to police forces”.²³ During the 1990s the companies LGC and later Forensic Alliance started to penetrate the market. However, the FSS remained ACPO’s “preferred supplier” until 2002, with many forces opting to extend “what was effectively a ‘gentleman’s agreement’ with the FSS to provide services” despite the emergence of competitors and, until recently, formal contractual arrangements were the exception. ²⁴ 18. The Local Government Act 1999 required Police Authorities to obtain Best Value in local policing services. This obliged Authorities to challenge, consult, compare and compete when undertaking reviews of services. Clearly, this was not compatible with the historical approach of police forces to procurement of forensic services. This change in policy impacted directly on the FSS’s market share. In January 2003, following the new procurement requirements, a review of the Metropolitan Police Service procurement practices was carried out on behalf of the Mayor of London, the Metropolitan Police Authority and the Metropolitan Police Commissioner.²⁵ The review criticised the absence of a clear and accountable business relationship between the Metropolitan Police Service and the FSS and ultimately led to the Metropolitan Police purchasing services from all three major suppliers, rather than just the FSS. Many other forces have also adopted a mixed approach, purchasing a proportion of their services from the FSS and the remainder from the private sector suppliers, while Thames Valley Police now works exclusively with Forensic Alliance (whose main laboratory is sited within the Thames Valley force’s area). *McFarland Review* 19. Against this background of the developing market in forensic science and the changing relationship between the police and the FSS, the McFarland Review of the FSS was announced in July 2002 by the then Home Office Minister of State for Policing, John
	22 Ev 128 23 Ev 128 24 Ev 129 25 Accenture, Efficiency and Effectiveness Review Programme: Tranche 21 Forensics and DNA Review, May 2002


	14 Forensic Science on Trial
	Denham MP. Robert McFarland reported his findings to the Home Secretary in July 2003.²⁶ The Review addressed three principal issues: • The role that the FSS plays in the criminal justice system and, in particular, its contribution to meeting Home Office objectives; • The need to deliver high quality, timely and cost-effective forensic science services that meet the needs of efficient police investigation and the criminal justice system; and • The future organisational status of the FSS. 20. The Review stated that overall the FSS had been successful, was “on the whole well regarded by its stakeholders” and had “consistently met most of the operational and financial targets set by the Home Office”.²⁷ The Review stated that the FSS should “take particular credit for: • Its response to the significant increases in demand for forensic services over the last decade; • The development of the forensic applications of DNA, and the setting up and managing, with the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO), of the NDNAD; and • Pioneering new ways of working with and in support of the police”.²⁸ 21. The Review concluded, however, that “the emergence of a fully open and competitive market has been constrained by what the private sector saw as the entrenched monopoly of the FSS”, whilst “the FSS feels that its effectiveness is hampered by the way the Trading Fund framework operates”.²⁹ The Review attributed the increasing competition in provision of f