Expert Witness by Anna Sandiford Page A

data reviewed by people who would sign confidentiality agreementsand then look at the data as a whole set rather than focusing on one case where there may well be a problem. Any doubts about the reliability of DNA databases could be scotched by allowing a review. We all have our dreams, and I hope the scientists’ comes true.
    Â 
    I don’t know whether the USA was inspired by the British to undertake their nationwide review of forensic sciences, but it’s interesting that in 2008 the British government appointed a chap called the Forensic Science Regulator to start a review of forensic science. One of the major things he did was shut down the Council for the Registration of Forensic Practitioners (CRFP), which was a bit of a shock. Not least because I paid a load of renewal subscription money for being reassessed in several areas and it took me over a year to get any of it back. As I under stand it, it wasn’t that the CRFP was doing anything wrong, more that it wasn’t doing it very efficiently. It was originally set up to bring some kind of regulation and accreditation to the forensic science industry and partly to keep out people like the now-jailed Mancunian imposter. It had been funded by the government and had the backing of MPs and all kinds of important people, but it just couldn’t quite get to where it needed to be. Still, these things have to start somewhere.
    As one of the few professional bodies in England and Wales dealing specifically with the forensic sciences, the Forensic Science Society had many things to say on the subject of the review. Among their comments was this: ‘Experience is not necessarily expertise although expertise is based on experience.’ The Society has a very good point.
    The Forensic Regulator is currently producing a Forensic Science Standards Guidance Manual that will detail how he plans to identify, develop, implement and enforce quality standards relating to the provision of forensic science services to the Criminal Justice System.
    Once he’s decided what makes an expert an expert, I’ll let you know. In the meantime, I generally fall back on the old favourites that include making sure people doing the forensic science are trained and qualified, other people recognise them to be so, they use methods that are tried, tested, reliable and don’t have a bad reputation — all pretty standard stuff, you’d think. And, as the Forensic Science Society rightly suggests, parties should check whether there is ‘any evidence to suggest the expert may not be impartial’ — this applies to both sides.
    Â 
    As a result of the issues I’ve outlined above, casework in England and Wales is now, and has been for many years, routinely examined by solicitors and barristers, whether the matters be criminal, civil, insurance, Family, Youth or whatever other tribunal. If a lawyer receives a specialist report of any kind they pick up the phone and talk to a relevant specialist to get some advice. Forensic scientists are very used to independent experts coming in to view their work and examine exhibits; they know it’s just a quality control check to make sure every thing is fully, fairly and accurately reported. In many cases, they know that the real work for the independent expert is in reinterpreting the information based on a new set of circumstances described by the defendant. Not that we tell them that’s what we’re doingor what those new circumstances are! Most prosecution experts have been to court enough times to know that the scientific issues at court aren’t usually about what they’ve reported but about what the defence says they mean based on the defendant’s account of events. Every thing is very open and friendly between the scientists because we all know that complete access to the information makes life easier for all concerned. The Criminal Procedure and Civil Procedure Rules facilitate this