Thread by @JeSuisTC

thread - Future state of #forensic science provision in england and wales, a tale of three reports /1

TLDR - after over a decade of disasterous forensic crises, police forces finally move from denial to acceptance on the change curve, waving the white flag, telling the government they're unable to manage forensic science nationally* and ask for help
*England and Wales - /2

House of Lords report publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201719/ld… recommend a National Institute for Forensic Science and a Forensic Science Board both independent from policing /3

essentially, in combination this is the role the FSS had back in the day, independent from the police, with the exception that the proposed structure doesn't include having any laboratory or service functions. It's "high level" only. /4

the HOL stopped short of recommending a return to the FSS of old, and didn't recommend re-nationalising the service, but neither was it wholeheartedly in support of the private sector either wanting the #forensic regulator to economically regulate the market

in summary - a national body independent from the police that could steady the ship, buying time for the government to figure out what on earth to do next for the CJS as a whole. /6

The NPCC review of the FCN ("the Mackey Review" in police terms)
drive.google.com/file/d/14s2ukI… is clear that current policing structures are inadequate when facing managing a national service, it's too risky for them /7

they accept entirely, the need for a national service /8

they plead for help, recognising at last, for the first time in over 10 years that I can see on record anywhere from police leadership, that forensic science has role to play beyond policing and is part of the wider CJS. They say "it's not simply a mattter for police forces". /9

this review was welcome because it brought some home truths to bear. Whilst the police *could* manage a national service with serious reforms needed to do so, the report seriously questions whether this *should* be the role for police given the risks to them and the CJS /10

finally the third report "THE FINAL REPORT OF THE STRATEGIC REVIEW OF POLICING IN ENGLAND AND WALES " policingreview.org.uk/wp-content/upl…

recommends a national #Forensic Science Service to be contained within the National Crime Agency /11
National Crime Agency

I couldn't see the Mackey review referenced in this report and TBH the recommendation appears somewhat obsolete when considered against the findings in the Mackey review, perhaps they were unaware of it, (considering I only got a copy of it myself from the NPCC via FOI ;-) ) /12

all three reports are clear on the need for a national #forensic service of some sort. There are differences over independence from the police (turkeys don't vote for christmas) and over precisely what the forensic science service (lets call it that for a change) should do. /13

all three reports skirt around the private market, but none are wholheartedly in support of it and none recommend a return to what the FSS used to be. On that basis all three reports appear to be recommending "something else", but appear ill equipped to define it. /14

We are in a forensic version what Star Trek fans call "The undiscovered country". Neither wholly public nor wholly private, somewhere inbetween. Too toxic to fully nationalise or fully privatise. But all parties agree now that only the government can sort this out /15

We no longer need to argue about how rubbish the provision of #forensic science in England and Wales is, because it appears, finally, everyone agrees. /16

We no longer need to argue that the police really shouldn't be in charge of it, because finally, the police agree that too. /17

Neither should be waiting for some massive miscarriage of justice to cause the dam to break and prompt the government to act. We've had them already, #StephenPort being the most recent high profile one. /18

MCJs happen every day, they're there in the crime figures of the growing number of unsolved crimes. Lack of forensic evidence is a signficiant factor in many of them, failure to collect evidence, submit it, or not submitting enough. /19

The police demand that the govt do something saying it's not just a matter for the police. Kit Malthouse, Minister of Policing turned up at @CommonsSTC and said that he can't tell the police what to do. The battle for reform appears to be one of fighting govt indifference /20

I agree with the police when they say that they can't do this on their own, but the government don't appear capable of doing it on their own either. /21

Reviews from police organisations, think tanks and even parliamentary enquiries are all very well but none are equipped to deal with issues of this scale which penetrate a fundamental building block of our society - the Criminal Justice System. /22

You could perhaps call for a public enquiry but honestly this government appears to attract public enquiries like bees to honey and there are far more serious and pressing enquiries at the head of a long queue than this, sadly. /22

Besides I would rather the money be spent on actually getting proper forensic science work done then on an enquiry. /24

so forensic tweeps what can we do? We need to come up with proposed solutions and start lobbying all the political parties ahead of the next general election (which is coming round fast), get forensic science into all of their manifestos. /25

and the solutions need to be better than "let's have the forensic science service back" or "let's privatise the lot" neither of those two extremes will work, because they polarise public opinion and feed the culture war which should be avoided at all costs. /26

the solutions need to take into account the prosecution and defence side of the CJS and need to be more sophisticated than "give us more £". No proper govt should support anything that does not have proper buy-in from major players -if we heed lessons from the FCN review. /27

Is the entire forensic community is united in the view that serious, substantial and fundamental reforms are needed, across the board, traditional and digital, public and private, prosecution and defence in E&W? I think so /28

But so few of us speak out either in public or in private. We all know why and I completely understand. But at some point we all become part of the problem out of fear of repercussions both for ourselves and for the organisations we represent. /29

The irony is that all of us are paid to give our expert opinion in our chosen field, we do so courageously in hostile environments without prejudice or fear of the consequences of telling truth to power, but not on the very topic that affects our ability to do precisely that /30

that's a reality, I accept that, I accept its unlikely to change, at least in the short term. I don't intend it as a criticism of any of my professional colleagues far from it. My point in this is we need a safe space for people to share their ideas without fear /31

All the parliamentary enquiries were good, in their own way, but only a very small select number of people gave evidence to them, and they tended to be the same ones, even if they changed roles in the interim. We need more voices and better ideas. /32

An @IndependentSage type model for forensic science reform could work in that regard, perhaps. Is there any forensic organisation brave enough to actually do something for once or do we have to create something new? You never know I might even join. rant over / ends /33