Written by: DS 5-0

Forensics and market forces

The closure of the Forensic Science Service (FSS) has caused ripples to run through the police service and create questions about the way that evidence may be dealt with in the future. As a Detective I am used to consulting on a daily basis with my colleagues over evidence recovered from both crime scenes and victims. The news that the FSS was to close and that the private market would meet the demand in its absence leads me to ask, conscious of existing cuts across the board to the police budget, how do we operate when forces and private enterprise need to obtain the best return for our money?

The way the individual labs operate is regulated by the government appointed Forensic Regulator, Andrew Rennison, who has spent over 30 years working at all ranks as a detective, including a period in charge of the scientific support functions in West Yorkshire. The regulator is appointed to provide independent advice on quality standards to the government and the criminal justice system. As such all service providers will have to work to set laboratory standards as laid out in the National Guidelines. But does this mean that there will be the same procedures across the board for the handling and examination of exhibits?

From having one base for evidence sent for forensic examination, forces have had to negotiate, sometimes in collaboration with others, to secure contracts that meet available budgets. The reality of the situation – crime doesn’t happen in a vacuum – maybe that whilst the service provider laboratory is contracted to a force, if the amount of submissions exceeds the work they can undertake will they have to sub-contract the work out? This could lead to challenges over continuity of evidence over which the police will have no control and will lead to an area open to be challenged at court. With the challenges to evidence at court, will the processes set in place for continuity of exhibits be the same from one service provider to another? Who will set these standards when they are all competing against each other and how will it affect cases as the procedures are established?

The FSS had a well established and internationally recognised system of continuing development of processes, research and innovation the benefits of which were felt by prosecution and defence alike. Advances in cases such as the recent Stephen Lawrence murder trial have lead to the conviction of offenders with evidence existing at the first trial but undiscovered without the technology subsequently developed by FSS.

Market forces
If market forces mean having to keep one step ahead of your rivals, would private companies want to share technology openly at a cost to their own research investment? If advances are made it is imperative that the technology is available to all and avoids the so-called ‘postcode lottery’ so often associated with medical services. And what if research is needed for which there is no commercial value. Who provides that service?

With the closure of the FSS it was hoped that there would be an influx of the brightest and the best scientists into these new ventures. Sadly for me, there are many who I worked with over many years who I highly regarded as experts with years of providing evidence at court who have taken the opportunity to move on and, for example, becoming lecturers. These individuals will no longer have the ongoing accreditation required within their field and so their vast experience will be lost; maybe only temporarily as they may be convinced to return once the marketplace settles down. One of the saddest factors for me that will be lost is the ‘personal approach’. I have developed contacts that were willing to discuss a case over the phone at short notice, confer over submissions and advise on evidential benefit (or not) that would allow progress of a line of enquiry. Their advice would assist me in determining whether to apply further police resource or send further forensic submissions. In reality is this going to happen when there is a fee that could be paid for such advice? Will this mean that there is yet more paperwork to be submitted and delays in results over something that could have been dealt with in a five minute phone call recorded in a policy book for disclosure purposes?

I suppose it would be easy to suggest that it is a reaction to change and from conversations I have had recently, the expected ‘problem’ transitional period from closure of the FSS to the new service providers has gone relatively smoothly. The real factors behind quite how smoothly will become apparent in the months and years to come as matters are progressed through the court system and later potentially challenged. It is an uncertain time and I like many working within law enforcement and the legal profession await the developments ahead.

4 Comments »

Print or Pdf

Forensic scientist

I can understand and appreciate that this officer, and many others, have apprehensions and reservations about the changes in forensic provision.
It is, however, worth noting a few points.
“Private” forensic providers have been serving many police forces for, at least 15 years. During this time they have often provided a quicker, better quality service than the FSS (police comments, not mine).
“does this mean that there will be the same procedures across the board for the handling and examination of exhibits?” Emphatically, yes. All forensic scientists are acutely aware of the requirements of the CJS.
The Steven Lawrence case was actually “cracked” by private sector forensic scientists and references to “new technology” discovered by the FSS are being very kind to the failures during the original examination.
Whether you knew it or not, you have been paying a fee to the FSS for over 20yrs; and I can give you many examples where bad advice was given.
There seems to be this image of a benign and benevolent FSS dispensing gifts of forensic knowledge to anyone who would listen. Hardly. The FSS was as secretive as any organisation; patenting most of its processes. Why would you patent if not to get a commercial advantage? Outside of DNA, virtually no research was done. A review of scientific papers published in the last 5yrs in Science & Justice (the Journal of the Forensic Science Society) shows an overwhelming majority published (i.e. shared) by the private forensic sector.
I, too, feel sorry for the challenges ahead for the very many excellent scientists from the FSS but this sympathy doesnt extend to the organisation which exercised a corporate arrogance from its untouchable position as a government company.
Before you ask; I was in FSS for 18yrs, a police scientific support unit for 4yrs and private companies (where I am today) for 10yrs.
How will it pan out? Dont know.
Remember though that private sector forensic companies employ many ex-FSS people (many ex-ited before the closures were announced. Ever wondered why?).
At the end of the day I guarentee that all individual forensic scientists FSS/Private will be doing their utmost to provide you and your colleagues with the service you need. Organisations come and go; thats been the clear message of the past 10yrs.
forensic scientist

I can understand and appreciate that this officer, and many others, have apprehensions and reservations about the changes in forensic provision.
It is, however, worth noting a few points.
“Private” forensic providers have been serving many police forces for, at least 15 years. During this time they have often provided a quicker, better quality service than the FSS (police comments, not mine).
“does this mean that there will be the same procedures across the board for the handling and examination of exhibits?” Emphatically, yes. All forensic scientists are acutely aware of the requirements of the CJS.
The Steven Lawrence case was actually “cracked” by private sector forensic scientists and references to “new technology” discovered by the FSS are being very kind to the failures during the original examination.
Whether you knew it or not, you have been paying a fee to the FSS for over 20yrs; and I can give you many examples where bad advice was given.
There seems to be this image of a benign and benevolent FSS dispensing gifts of forensic knowledge to anyone who would listen. Hardly. The FSS was as secretive as any organisation; patenting most of its processes. Why would you patent if not to get a commercial advantage? Outside of DNA, virtually no research was done. A review of scientific papers published in the last 5yrs in Science & Justice (the Journal of the Forensic Science Society) shows an overwhelming majority published (i.e. shared) by the private forensic sector.
I, too, feel sorry for the challenges ahead for the very many excellent scientists from the FSS but this sympathy doesnt extend to the organisation which exercised a corporate arrogance from its untouchable position as a government company.
Before you ask; I was in FSS for 18yrs, a police scientific support unit for 4yrs and private companies (where I am today) for 10yrs.
How will it pan out? Dont know.
Remember though that private sector forensic companies employ many ex-FSS people (many ex-ited before the closures were announced. Ever wondered why?).
At the end of the day I guarentee that all individual forensic scientists FSS/Private will be doing their utmost to provide you and your colleagues with the service you need. Organisations come and go; thats been the clear message of the past 10yrs.
forensic3

I can understand and appreciate that this officer, and many others, have apprehensions and reservations about the changes in forensic provision.
It is, however, worth noting a few points.
“Private” forensic providers have been serving many police forces for, at least 15 years. During this time they have often provided a quicker, better quality service than the FSS (police comments, not mine).
“does this mean that there will be the same procedures across the board for the handling and examination of exhibits?” Emphatically, yes. All forensic scientists are acutely aware of the requirements of the CJS.
The Steven Lawrence case was actually “cracked” by private sector forensic scientists and references to “new technology” discovered by the FSS are being very kind to the failures during the original examination.
Whether you knew it or not, you have been paying a fee to the FSS for over 20yrs; and I can give you many examples where bad advice was given.
There seems to be this image of a benign and benevolent FSS dispensing gifts of forensic knowledge to anyone who would listen. Hardly. The FSS was as secretive as any organisation; patenting most of its processes. Why would you patent if not to get a commercial advantage? Outside of DNA, virtually no research was done. A review of scientific papers published in the last 5yrs in Science & Justice (the Journal of the Forensic Science Society) shows an overwhelming majority published (i.e. shared) by the private forensic sector.
I, too, feel sorry for the challenges ahead for the very many excellent scientists from the FSS but this sympathy doesnt extend to the organisation which exercised a corporate arrogance from its untouchable position as a government company.
Before you ask; I was in FSS for 18yrs, a police scientific support unit for 4yrs and private companies (where I am today) for 10yrs.
How will it pan out? Dont know.
Remember though that private sector forensic companies employ many ex-FSS people (many ex-ited before the closures were announced. Ever wondered why?).
At the end of the day I guarentee that all individual forensic scientists FSS/Private will be doing their utmost to provide you and your colleagues with the service you need. Organisations come and go; thats been the clear message of the past 10yrs.
http://twitter.com/Strath4ensics StrathclydeForensics

Private forensics providers can and do prepare better evidence for criminal cases. My first interaction with the police as a digital forensics consulting, ended up in proving the processes of Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary on mobile phones being proven erroneous and unreliable.

Most police forces do not use simple scientific principles like the fact that the results of one platform should be the same as the results of another ! Searching twice with the same tool will just return twice the errors if the tool is not working well. Private companies have better safeguards in place.