Å®ÉúСÊÓƵ

Forensic science ‘is not as objective as its popular reputation’ says
a study carried out for the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice by researchers
from the Faculty of Law at the University of Bristol. ‘All science is subject
to inherent uncertainty, and there can be genuine disagreement between
forensic scientists just as there can be disagreement between nuclear physicists
or art historians,’ say the researchers.

The Royal Commission was set up in the wake of several celebrated miscarriages
of justice, including the acquittals of the Birmingham Six and the Maguire
Seven. In both cases forensic evidence helped to secure the original convictions.

However, the two researchers, Paul Roberts and Chris Willmore, deliberately
sought out more run-of-the-mill cases for study, mostly drawn from the Bristol
area. They say one problem with the present system is that scientists often
rely on the police to provide material for testing. ‘The danger is that
forensic science evidence will reflect this selective approach . . . rather
than giving a fair impression of the strength of the case against the defendant.’

One often heard criticism of the government’s forensic scientists is
that they are too close to the prosecution. Å®ÉúСÊÓƵs resist any overt
pressure from prosecution agencies, the researchers say. ‘But the effects
of subtle influences can never be eliminated entirely.’

They found that solicitors for the defence were reluctant to employ
the Forensic Science Service, either because they did not trust them or
because their clients would not accept ‘police evidence’. However, the researchers
say that there is a shortage of forensic scientists in private practice.