What next for UK Forensic Science?
It is now three years since the closure of the Forensic Science Service (FSS) in England and Wales and concerns expressed at the time have not gone away. An article in RSC News in April that year identified both insufficient consultation before the decision and the negative impact on forensics research that might result.
It was clear that work previously done by FSS would have to be allocated either to private labs or in-house police labs. With a declining trend in police spending on forensics at the time, there was concern that more work would be brought into in-house police labs as a cost-saving exercise – despite many such labs lacking the desired accreditation specified by the Forensic Science Regulator, with potential consequences for the criminal justice system/miscarriages of justice.
The NAO report…
A recent report by the National Audit Office (NAO) has confirmed these concerns. For a start, getting an accurate picture of the landscape has proved impossible. The NAO have not been able to obtain comprehensive detailed data on how much police forces are spending on the various forensics services on offer.
This makes comparisons between the 43 police forces in England and Wales very difficult. However, the NAO have pointed out that only one police force entirely outsourced its forensics work.
Despite the lack of detailed data on the size of the overall UK forensics market or the level of spending on forensic lab services by the police, it is clear that increased use has been made of in-house police labs since 2012.
The NAO report highlights that the external forensics services market has shrunk from £104 million in 2012-2013 to £81 million in 2014-2015. Meanwhile the internal market (i.e. police in-house labs) has grown from £113 million to £122 million over the same period.
In addition to the quality concerns held by many over unaccredited police labs doing more of the work, the overall fall in UK capacity is worrying. Delays caused by insufficient capacity, and quality issues, could significantly add to the cost of criminal justice in this country, as well as risking miscarriages of justice.
These points have been echoed by Andrew Miller MP, chair of the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, which invited the NAO to investigate. He was not surprised by these findings and has raised concerns over the adverse effect on the value of scientific evidence in criminal cases.
Addressing the need into the future…
Whoever is in government after this year’s UK election, there is a clear need for a thorough review of spending on forensic services, along with providing the Forensic Science Regulator with the teeth to insist that all forensic laboratories comply with accreditation criteria.
The long-awaited Home Office strategy on forensic provision will need to include a commitment to producing a sustainable system for forensic service provision in the future.
If the UK forensics research base is to remain strong – and to take the international lead in developing novel and improved technologies in forensic science – we need to engage the EPSRC and other bodies, for example the Forensics Science Society and the University Heads of Chemistry UK.
As immediate past president of our Analytical Division you’d expect me to extol the value of analytical chemistry, wouldn’t you? But if science is to bring startling clarity to criminal investigations (and we know it can) our community must highlight the vital importance both of the provision and quality of scientific services.
Alan Handley, CChem FRSC, is a Senior Scientist and Head of Knowledge Exchange and Development in LGC.