It has been 16 years since the UK government declared its intention to shut down the Forensic Science Service (FSS) in England and Wales. Since that time, various reports have criticized this choice and pointed out its negative influence on the criminal justice system. Nonetheless, despite these apprehensions, there is scant progress toward reinstating a public service model for forensic services, even though governmental reform is recognized as essential.
In January, a policing white paper presented a plan for a new nationwide agency, the National Police Service, which would take on forensic responsibilities from the 43 existing forces. This initiative aims to improve guidance and reduce backlog issues in digital forensics.
Historically, the FSS originated as a public organization offering forensic services to law enforcement and other organizations, ultimately leading the way in DNA usage. Over time, governments transitioned the FSS to a commercial framework, pitting it against private and internal police forensic providers. When the closure was announced in 2010, the FSS had a 60% share of the market.
Concerns were voiced about the ability of other suppliers to manage the FSS’s workload, the potential loss of expert skills, the continuation of research and development, and the decline of impartiality. A recent inquiry determined that forensic science in England and Wales is currently so jeopardized that urgent measures are required beyond the structural reforms proposed by the Home Office. It criticized the fragmentation of forensic science, ongoing underfunding, and the decreasing independence of forensic services, as individual police forces frequently handle them.
The inquiry highlighted the adverse effects of increasing cases being split between in-house police laboratories and external providers, which risks commodifying forensic science and obstructing thorough, consistent scientific examination. Additionally, Sarah Jones, the minister for policing and crime, acknowledged a ‘postcode lottery,’ demonstrating a lack of comprehension about the national forensic science framework, including financial spending, delays, and the distribution of private versus in-house forensic tasks.
Proposed changes include creating a national, independent forensic service similar to the model implemented in Scotland, which ensures a ‘sterile corridor’ between forensic services and police activities. The inquiry also suggested establishing a centralized forensic archive and a national institute for research and training, stating these are essential elements lost with the FSS’s closure.
The anticipated competitive multi-supplier market in the FSS did not materialize as anticipated. Instead, the forensic services sector now resembles an almost monopolistic structure, dominated by a few major private providers, particularly after Eurofins acquired Cellmark. This has exacerbated existing challenges such as variations in service quality, financial viability, and the loss of specialized skills. This situation has highlighted the necessity for a new operational model that prioritizes skill retention and investment in equipment.
The shutdown of the FSS also fragmented the handling of forensic evidence across 43 police forces, resulting in inconsistencies in evidence preservation and access. Recent investigations have linked over 30,000 failed prosecutions in England and Wales to lost or mishandled forensic evidence. Misinterpretation of forensic evidence continues to affect cases, often recognized too late in the judicial process.
The responsibility encompasses evidence collection, preservation, and analysis, with shortcomings apparent under both the FSS and privatized systems, underscoring the persistent challenges and risks within the current forensic environment. The growing insourcing of forensic work into police laboratories raises worries about fair access to forensic science for defense, indicating a need for a fundamental reassessment of operational practices in forensic services.