Miscarriages of justice more likely due to forensic science crisis, report finds
The forensic science sector is in a 'graveyard spiral', according to a parliamentary inquiry that has warned of biased criminal investigations, a rising risk of wrongful convictions, and murder and sexual offence cases collapsing due to missing evidence.
The three-year inquiry set up by the all-party parliamentary group on miscarriages of justice has outlined how a series of 'reckless policy decisions' over the past decade have brought forensic science to a point of crisis. A near-monopoly in the commercial sector means there is now a dangerous single point of failure and the increasing reliance on in-house police laboratories risks compromising scientific impartiality, the inquiry found.
'Forensic science in England and Wales as currently configured isn't working for anyone – not for the police, not for the lawyers or for the courts, not for the scientists themselves, and not for the general public who get caught up in the criminal justice system,' said Prof Angela Gallop, co-chair of the Westminster Commission on Forensic Science.
'Like a plane hurtling downwards in what has become known as a 'graveyard spiral', with the pilot in desperation making increasingly erratic decisions, it can only be a short time now before it impacts the ground.'
Since the closure of the Forensic Science Service in 2012, work has been divided between commercial providers and, increasingly, in-house police laboratories. However, the inquiry said there were now real concerns about bias due to the expanding types of investigations the police conduct, paired with inadequate legal aid funding for defence experts.
The report recommends an immediate halt to the expansion of police in-house forensic provision and, in the long term, removing forensic science provision from police oversight.
'The increased risk of miscarriages of justice is self-evident and the potential for investigative failures leading to further injustices is continuing to grow,' said Gallop.
The report also highlights the imminent collapse of the forensics market, which is heading toward a 'last man standing' monopoly after the UK's largest forensics provider, Eurofins, acquired the second largest provider, Cellmark, which was on the brink of insolvency last year. Eurofins now delivers more than 85% of external science provision, the report estimates, a proportion that could rise further, creating the risk of a single point of failure.
Another concern raised is the police handling of crucial evidence used to prosecute the most serious crimes, with a growing number of cases dropped due to 'disappearing material' including DNA samples, CCTV footage, weapons, drugs and mobile phone data.
Missing evidence was recorded as the reason for 30,552 prosecutions being dropped between October 2020 and September 2024, the report reveals. This included 70 homicides and 554 sexual offences, and represented just over 2% of all prosecutions nationally. The Metropolitan police had 4.6% of cases dropped because of missing evidence.
Prof Carole McCartney, a criminologist at the University of Leicester, who helped compile the figures, said: 'The most obvious cause for alarm is that each of these cases is potentially a victim who will never see their perpetrator in court or see their case brought to justice.
'And if we're not retaining evidence, people who are victims of miscarriages of justice can't get out of prison and cold cases will stay unsolved if you lose the evidence. It's a fundamental part of the criminal justice process.'
The inquiry adds to continuing criticism of the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), after the cases of Andrew Malkinson, who spent 17 years in jail for a rape he did not commit, and Peter Sullivan, whose murder conviction was overturned last month after 38 years. The report describes a culture of 'complacency in respect of a lack of scientific knowledge and understanding' among CCRC staff and recommends the recruitment of permanent staff members with scientific backgrounds.
Kim Johnson MP, the chair of the APPG on miscarriages of justice, said the Post Office Horizon scandal and the exonerations of Malkinson and Sullivan highlighted the need for urgent reform of forensic provision.
'These cases are not isolated incidents but symptoms of deep, systemic failings in our criminal justice system,' she said. 'We owe it to victims, their families, and the wider public to demand transparency, accountability, and meaningful reform. We must see the government act on this report without delay to restore trust and prevent future injustices.'
A CCRC spokesperson said that in response to an independent review of its handling of the Malkinson case it had taken a number of steps to improve its forensics provision, including training sessions for staff. It said its Forensic Opportunities Programme, announced last year, was analysing pre-2016 convictions to assess whether advances in DNA technology could identify an offender and that it had recently recruited a full-time forensic science and evidence adviser.
A government spokesperson said: 'We understand the importance of high-quality, timely forensic evidence for an effective criminal justice system that prevents crime, prosecutes suspects and gives victims the justice they deserve.
'In November 2024 at the NPCC/APCC summit, the home secretary acknowledged that the adoption of forensic science across the board has been uncoordinated. That's why we are appointing a national forensic science lead who will transform our approach by helping to create a new model of delivery with the police and forensic leaders to raise standards and improve efficiency, and ultimately build greater public confidence in our criminal justice system.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
13 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Shape of meow! Big cat sighting near Ed Sheeran's £3.7million country estate sparks loose 'panther' fears
A large panther-like animal has been spotted near Ed Sheeran 's £3.7million country estate, prompting fears a big cat is on the loose. A neighbour in Eye, Suffolk was left terrified when he saw the feline just five miles from the Shape Of You singer's swish home, but still found time to take a few snaps. They show a bulky black creature lurking by the trees on April 23 before disappearing from view. Matt Salusbury, who runs the Big Cats of Suffolk website said: 'The witness told me they'd seen a large black animal walking up and down along the tree line at the end of a field behind their garden. 'The distance from where they were to the animal when they photographed it was a good few minutes walk. 'They observed it for more than five minutes before it sat down with its head up.' The Perfect hitmaker, 34, lives in the large Framlingham property with his wife Cherry Seaborn and their two daughters. There have been many reports of big cats in Britain over the years, with most claiming to have spotted panthers or pumas. Locals have often been able to take a quick photo of the creature or a suspicious animal carcass they might have preyed on. Those who support the theory that such cats are roaming around the country tend to claim they are pets which have escaped. Others, however, think species have been illegally released into the wild. Sceptics reckon that sightings involve people mistaking them for large domestic dogs or cats, and that such animals could not survive in the UK's mild climate. Among the most famous alleged big cats in the country was the Beast of Exmoor in Devon in the 80s, which a farmer in the area claimed killed 100 of his sheep in three months. People regularly report puma spottings in Shropshire while Suffolk also remains a hotspot. As well as the recent sighting near the pop star's home, there was one in Hoxne in 2006, another near Eye in 2008, and one at Mendlesham in 2015. MailOnline has contacted Mr Sheeran's representatives for comment. There are fears that a large creature may be on the loose after the footage was captured on doorbell camera showing a huge black moggy on the driveway of a house It comes after a big cat which some suspect to be the notorious Beast of Bucks was spotted prowling in the dead of night. There are fears that a large creature may be on the loose after the footage was captured on doorbell camera showing a huge black moggy on the driveway of a house. The dark coloured cat appeared much bigger than a domestic feline as it balanced atop a skip. The sighting has added yet more fuel to the fire of a local myth in Buckinghamshire. Homeowner David Lawrence lives in a village near High Wycombe, where tales of a puma-sized Beast of Bucks are legendary, and said he saw a large cat which wasn't 'normal'.
BBC News
16 minutes ago
- BBC News
Tanya Nasir who lied to get Bridgend nursing job banned
A woman who lied about her qualifications to get a job as a senior nurse caring for sick and premature babies has been banned from the profession. Tanya Nasir, 45, from Rickmansworth, Hertfordshire, became ward manager on the neonatal unit at the Princess of Wales Hospital in Bridgend in 2019, after she lied about being a highly qualified neonatal nurse and an Army combat was found guilty on nine counts of fraud and false representation and jailed for five years in October 2024. The Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) committee concluded Nasir's actions would put vulnerable patients at "a real risk of significant harm, which could have had catastrophic consequences". Nasir, who did not attend the NMC fitness to practise hearing on 23 May, had shown "no evidence of insight or remorse for her actions" said NMC representative Naa-Adjeley Barnor. Ms Barnor said Nasir was previously convicted for fraudulently claiming welfare benefits in 2010, and there was a "significant risk" that Nasir would repeat such behaviour in the future. The panel also considered that Nasir took steps to cover up the fraud when she realised it was being said Nasir's actions had been "sophisticated and planned" which represented "deep seated attitudinal issues".As a result, Ms Barnor said the only appropriate and proportionate sanction would be a striking-off order.
Telegraph
20 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Beware the employee activists threatening to bring down British business
This was also true of issues like trans rights, which 64pc of respondents told us they felt 'well prepared' to deal with. But our survey was conducted shortly before the Supreme Court handed down its seminal decision on the meaning of 'sex' under the Equality Act 2010. From the intense public interest the decision has generated, it is reasonable to assume that not all employers may have judged this correctly. Why does any of this matter? Well, for one thing, because getting it wrong can end up in expensive and reputation-damaging litigation that an employer is unlikely to win if they have not been paying attention to their obligations. And if employers already think the Bill is going to drive up business costs, then finding themselves in court won't help. But it also matters because we found that employers are confronting an increasingly politicised workforce where issues that may have no relationship to the workplace itself are becoming topics of intense debate. For every social issue we asked about, from climate change to Israel and Gaza, employers told us it had at least doubled in salience in recent years. And this was particularly likely to be the case if the employer had taken a position on certain issues in the past (say the Ukraine War or Black Lives Matter). We found that once the employer expressed a view on one issue, the more likely they were to be expected to have a position on every issue. This means employers are increasingly being drawn into contentious issues where strongly held views may conflict, and there is a heightened imperative to strike the right balance between competing perspectives. And yet we found that employers are very often getting that balance wrong. Take, for example, the use of social media. Almost 40pc of employers who have a social media policy told us that they routinely reviewed the social media posts of staff and a quarter told us that they had either sacked or disciplined a current member of staff on the basis of something they had written online. Asked why they had taken disciplinary action, and almost 70pc told us that this was because they feared that what the employee had written could cause 'reputational damage' to the business. Around 60pc said it was because it could 'cause offence to other employees', roughly twice the proportion who said they had considered whether it impacted on the employee in question's ability to discharge their professional duties. But from a legal point of view, all of this must be viewed through the prism of the Court of Appeal's landmark decision in Higgs v Farmor's School that was handed down in February of this year. In a decision that was viewed as a vindication of free speech, the Court held that to discipline or dismiss an employee because they had expressed a religious or protected philosophical belief (here, a 'gender critical' view and criticisms of same sex marriage) to which the employer objected, could be unfair and amount to unlawful discrimination. They said it was insufficient to say that other employees had been offended because the employer 'does not have carte blanche to interfere with an employee's right to express their beliefs simply because third parties find those beliefs offensive.' None of which is to say that employees are free to say what they like either. The court described a balancing exercise in which relevant considerations might include whether the comments were made on a professional or personal account, whether guidance had been given about their post, what they had actually said (as opposed to what a third party may have chosen to read into it) and whether their post impacted on their ability to perform their duties. All of which adds up to a tricky situation for employers facing a more politicised (and often polarised) workforce. Protecting one set of views against another not only risks confrontation with members of staff but could also break the law. More than ever, employers need to prepare themselves with sound legal advice, clear internal communications with staff and a robust crisis plan for dealing with these kinds of eventualities. Because getting it wrong in an era defined by employee activism isn't just a management problem, but one that could impact the share price, affect consumer trends or even hit the balance sheet.
