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.”
Overview
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.
Key recommendations
The Committee made a range of conclusions and recommendations, 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 analyzed.
- 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 defense 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 defense.
- Loss of specialist forensic skills: Specialisms such as fiber and footprint analysis are now at severe risk. This is largely because changing police practices have reduced demand to commercially unsustainable levels. Gallop cited the murder of Stephen Lawrence and the "coastal path murders" as cases where these specialist disciplines were necessary for a solution: "We would never have solved those without textile fibers."
- The Committee says the proposed forensic science reform must result in a credible plan to preserve these disciplines.
- 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 program of R&D to establish trusted AI and digital tools that forces can use to address the backlog.