PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "Less than 10% of police forces have met basic quality standards for fingerprint evidence, the government’s forensic science regulator has warned. All UK forces were ordered three years ago to ensure their laboratories met international standards for analysing prints found at crime scenes. But only three forces have complied, with almost every force missing a deadline set by the regulator to gain accreditation by November. Police forces that have failed to obtain accreditation, which include the Metropolitan police and Greater Manchester police, will have to declare this in court, prompting concerns that cases could collapse as a result of unreliable evidence. Gillian Tully, the government’s forensic regulator, said: “The shortcomings identified do not mean that all fingerprint evidence is of poor quality, but they do highlight risks to the quality of evidence. “The risks are greatest in situations where the comparison is complex, for example because the fingermark is partial or distorted. The National Police Chiefs’ Council lead for forensics, Ch Const James Vaughan, said: “We are treating delays in in gaining accreditation as a critical incident, with a chief officer overseeing forces’ progress and assisting them in gaining accreditation as soon as possible.” The failures are the latest problems to have affected forensics in the past year. Alleged data tampering at Randox Laboratories in Manchester led to dozens of criminal convictions being overturned and required thousands of samples to be reanalysed. Problems in digital forensics caused the collapse of a number of rape trials and police were criticised for outsourcing digital work to unaccredited private labs that are subject to no regulatory oversight. In a recent submission to a House of Lords inquiry, the Leverhulme Research Centre for Forensic Science raised broader concerns about the way fingerprints, tool marks, footwear, tyre marks and ballistics evidence were being used in courts. Prof Niamh Nic Daéid, the centre’s director, said: “The majority, if not all of those techniques, are not robustly researched. In a lot of cases, the comparative process is left to the subjective opinion of the person doing the comparison. It often could be described as no better than spot the difference.”
------------------------------------------------------------------
STORY: "Most police forces fail to meet fingerprint evidence standards," by Science correspondent Hannah Devlin, published by The Guardian on January 19, 2019.
"All UK police forces were ordered to ensure their laboratories met international standards, but only three have complied."
The entire story can be read at:
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/jan/07/police-forces-fail-to-meet-forensics-fingerprint-evidence-standards
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/
SUB-HEADING: "UK forensic science regulator warns of shortcomings that could cause cases to collapse."
"All UK police forces were ordered to ensure their laboratories met international standards, but only three have complied."
GIST: "Less than 10% of police forces have met basic quality standards for
fingerprint evidence, the government’s forensic science regulator has
warned. All UK forces were ordered three years ago to ensure their
laboratories met international standards for analysing prints found at
crime scenes. But only three forces have complied, with almost every
force missing a deadline set by the regulator to gain accreditation by
November. Police
forces that have failed to obtain accreditation, which include the
Metropolitan police and Greater Manchester police, will have to declare
this in court, prompting concerns that cases could collapse as a result
of unreliable evidence. Gillian Tully, the government’s forensic regulator, said:
“The shortcomings identified do not mean that all fingerprint evidence
is of poor quality, but they do highlight risks to the quality of
evidence. “The
risks are greatest in situations where the comparison is complex, for
example because the fingermark is partial or distorted. The National Police Chiefs’ Council lead for forensics, Ch (sic) Const
James Vaughan, said: “We are treating delays in in gaining accreditation
as a critical incident, with a chief officer overseeing forces’
progress and assisting them in gaining accreditation as soon as
possible.” The failures are the latest problems to have affected forensics in
the past year. Alleged data tampering at Randox Laboratories in
Manchester led to dozens of criminal convictions being overturned and required thousands of samples to be reanalysed. Problems in digital forensics caused the collapse of a number of rape
trials and police were criticised for outsourcing digital work to
unaccredited private labs that are subject to no regulatory oversight. In a recent submission to a House of Lords inquiry, the Leverhulme
Research Centre for Forensic Science raised broader concerns about the
way fingerprints, tool marks, footwear, tyre marks and ballistics
evidence were being used in courts. Prof Niamh Nic Daéid, the centre’s director, said: “The majority, if
not all of those techniques, are not robustly researched. In a lot of
cases, the comparative process is left to the subjective opinion of the
person doing the comparison. It often could be described as no better
than spot the difference.” She said more rigorous research was needed on error rates associated with this type of evidence. In her submission to the same inquiry, Tully said there had been a
resistance in fingerprint evidence to move away from the traditional
approach of an expert declaring an identification towards a more
transparent, scientific approach, with objective measures and an
acknowledgement of the possibility of false matches. Vaughan said forces that had failed to meet official standards had
been asked to consider outsourcing work to existing accredited labs, and
that they would be open in providing declarations to court if analysis
was carried out at unaccredited facilities. “It is then for the court to test the veracity and admissibility of
the evidence and, to date, no concerns raised have been raised by
courts,” he said.""
The entire story can be read at:
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/jan/07/police-forces-fail-to-meet-forensics-fingerprint-evidence-standards
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/
