FLASHY TV shows, true-crime podcasts and a growing interest in cracking cold cases might have you believing that forensic science has all the answers when it comes to solving difficult crimes. But quietly, a crisis has been emerging in the UK, and we are now starting to see the consequences â among them, 10,000 criminal cases currently under review after alleged data manipulation at a forensics laboratory in Manchester. Many forensics labs across the country are failing to demonstrate they meet certain quality standards. And one of the UKâs most important private providers nearly went bust last month.
âI think the problems weâre seeing are just the tip of some sort of ghastly iceberg that is building beneath the water,â says Angela Gallop, CEO of , a firm in Wantage, UK, supplying forensic expertise to lawyers and the police.
Many of these problems stem from the closure of the government-owned Forensic Science Service in 2012. Now, case evidence is examined by a mixture of private firms and in-house police labs. A żìĂš¶ÌÊÓÆ” survey of forensic scientists conducted at that time revealed widespread concerns: about three-quarters believed the closure would lead to more miscarriages of justice and reduce impartiality because of the transfer of work to police labs. âHow can the people who are chasing down criminals and seeing if there is any evidence against them also be charged with producing impartial, independent and objective evidence?â says Gallop.
Advertisement
âThe problems weâre seeing are just the tip of a ghastly iceberg that is building beneath the waterâ
The majority of forensic scientists surveyed in 2012 also believed that it would make it harder to accurately interpret evidence, because cases would be broken up and sent to various providers, or incomplete examinations would be requested in a drive to save money.
Cutting corners
Those fears now appear prophetic. Of particular concern is the increasing fragmentation in the way forensic services are commissioned: fewer items are being submitted for analysis, often without the relevant context, presumably in a bid to save money, says , a forensic scientist at the University of Kent.
Green cites the case of a recent attack that left a person seriously injured. Previously, it would have been normal to submit a sample of the victimâs blood, the weapon and the victimâs clothing, but in this case, only a blood sample and a single swab from the weapon were sent for analysis, says Green.
When the case came to court, the forensic scientist was asked whether the weapon was used in the assault. He cried foul, because he hadnât been asked to answer this question, only whether DNA on the weapon matched the victimâs blood. He would have needed to see the whole weapon and the distribution of blood on the victimâs clothes to answer the question with any confidence.
âIn other words, a restriction on the submission of items limited the overall value of what could or couldnât be said,â says Green.
Gillian Tully, the UKâs forensic science regulator, has also voiced concerns about funding shortages. âContinuing downward pressure on cost⊠has eroded the time available for professional development and even the availability of scientific literature,â she wrote in her , which was published in January.
It has also led to the collapse of several firms, which risks the loss of important evidence and data, along with scientific knowledge and skills as practitioners move into other fields.
For example, Contact Traces, a textile fibre laboratory, was . It specialised in looking at how fibres from someoneâs clothes can transfer to other people or objects, which can be crucial in solving cases, says Gallop.
âIt was textile fibres that unlocked several of our most high-profile and complex cases,â she says, including the racially motivated murder of Stephen Lawrence 25 years ago that sparked huge changes in UK policing. Now such evidence is often not gathered in an effort to save costs, she says.
âTextile fibres helped solve the murder of Stephen Lawrence â now they arenât gathered, to save costsâ
âCost pressures mean we have put the market under some strain,â says James Vaughan of the National Police Chiefsâ Council. âI think now is a really good time for private providers, police and the Home Office to review the situation.â
Few would like to see the reinstatement of the Forensic Science Service, however. âLike many large bodies, it had quite a bit wrong with it; it was top-heavy and so on,â says Green, who used to be employed by it. And the private sector has delivered innovation: Key Forensic Services, which was threatened with collapse until a buyer was found last month, recently developed technology that enables a DNA profile of a suspect or missing person to be generated in just 82 minutes. That means police forces can check a suspectâs DNA against the national database on the same day they are arrested, rather than having to wait three or four days.
A few police forces, including Londonâs Metropolitan Police, are experimenting with employing a private company to handle the entire forensic process. That means the same firm is responsible for deciding which evidence should be examined and for interpreting that evidence.
Done properly, this should introduce a degree of independence from the police officers investigating the case and reduce fragmentation because the provider sees the evidence in its entirety. The police pay a set price for the service, leaving scientists to choose which tests are needed, says Vaughan. âThey will do things in the order that is necessary, for the best outcomes.â
Such a system can only work if all the labs involved are accredited, meaning they can prove they meet certain quality standards â without it, the risk of unsound science is increased. Yet achieving this remains a challenge. As of November 2017, 12 out of 43 police forces in England and Wales hadnât demonstrated compliance with these standards, while inspections during the year from October 2016 found more than 700 nonconformities with standards.
Ultimately, it comes down to money, particularly as gaining accreditation is costly and may be difficult for small labs. Without more cash for forensics, this quiet crisis will continue. âOne simply cannot procure forensic services in the same way as you can office consumables,â says Green. âWe need to make a clear differentiation between cost and value.â
Life inside a UK forensics lab
âWhen you become a forensic scientist, there are a few things that are absolutely drilled into you: things like collaboration, corroboration, communication, impartiality. When you place people with this kind of ethos into a system where market pressures prevent you from doing parts of the work youâd like to do, like reading peer-reviewed journals to keep up with technical advances, it becomes very difficult to maintain a robust approach.
âYouâre constantly trying to maximise your efficiency because the profits are under such extreme pressure. Like any industry, if you feel you have very little time in which to complete tasks, thatâs when mistakes start to happen.
âBut if mistakes could mean a miscarriage of justice, it is unacceptable isnât it?
âIâm convinced that the tests that are being commissioned and the contracts that are being written up are largely based around cost. It is an easy thing to understand when you donât know much about forensics â everyone understands price.
âIf you donât have sufficient understanding of which tests need to be done in order to answer the questions the courts are interested in, like âdid he kick this man?â, or âdid she hit this person?â, then you can see why they might naturally fall back on cheaper tests.
âThe problem is that cases are getting to trial and this is when the questions are asked that should have been asked at the beginning of the investigation. Money is then having to be spent in a rushed manner as a result of last minute examinations. It is false economy.â
Jo Millington is a forensic scientist and a senior research fellow at the University of Surrey, UK. She has worked at the Forensic Science Service, and at police and private forensics labs.
This article appeared in print under the headline âEvidence of failureâ
Article amended on 9 May 2018
We corrected what kind of evidence Angela Gallop believes is required
