Forensic Testing Scandal – Is Your Conviction Safe?
Forensic Testing Scandal – Is Your Conviction Safe?
New details have emerged about forensic testing deficiencies at two of the country’s leading laboratories. Police are currently investigating the circumstances, and a number of people have been arrested.
Randox Testing Services (RTS) and Trimega Laboratories handle samples for some of the most high-profile criminal and family law cases, the accuracy of the tests being of paramount importance to people facing criminal prosecution for offences ranging from drink driving to murder.
Home Office Minister Nick Hurd told parliament:
‘Most drug tests from RTS between 2013 and 2017 are being treated as potentially unreliable. RTS was mainly commissioned by individual police forces when investigating criminal offences.’
It is believed that the results from as many as 10,000 tests could be under question.
Is Your Conviction Safe?
If a conviction in your case rested wholly or partially on the reliability of forensic tests, it is essential that you seek further legal advice.
While the Crown Prosecution Service will be carrying out a review into criminal cases, this will take a considerable period of time, and many will question whether the body that brought the prosecution in the first place is ideally placed to make decisions as to the safety or otherwise of a conviction.
Those affected will, therefore, wish to consider whether any further forensic testing ought to take place, and even whether or not there are grounds to appeal. All convictions will need to be considered on a case by case basis.
Even if your cases did not involve the two laboratories currently under investigation, this scandal throws a spotlight on the hidden world of forensic testing and calls in to doubt results from other forensic testing providers.
How We Can Assist
Regardless of whether we handled your case initially our experienced team of lawyers has the expertise to ensure the safety of your conviction is beyond question.
If you believe that inaccurate forensic testing may have led you to be wrongfully convicted (and that includes pleading guilty to an offence), please contact John Howey on 020 7388 1658 or jhowey@jfhlaw.co.uk
Read More
Mass Spectrometry; the future of the fingerprint evidence?
A new technique for identifying criminals could be in use ‘within months’ following years of development by Sheffield Hallam University. But what is it and could there be problems?
Mass Spectrometry: analysing the ridges of the fingerprints
Fingerprints on crime scenes, weapons and stolen property have been the undoing of many a criminal over the years. With evidence being corroborated by DNA, CCTV and cell-site analysis the commission of crime, for the petty criminal at least, is getting harder and harder to get away with.
The latest development in fingerprint testing could potentially take prosecution evidence to a new level. Researchers have developed a technique called ‘mass spectrometry’, which analyses traces of substances ‘on or within the ridges of the fingerprints’.
Pros
It is claimed that the technique can reveal whether the print belongs to a male of female, whether there are traces of drugs and whether a person has handled a condom, the latter claim being so specific that the brand can be identified. This is a significant leap on from the current position of simply identifying the owner of a particular print.
Certain crimes should therefore be more detectable, for example a defendant denying that he/she has handled drugs will have a far more difficult time in court if the evidence shows that drugs have been taken.
Cons
Our concern is that unless the match is so precise it will be difficult to show a direct correlation between drugs seized and drugs taken. Any given batch of drugs is likely to have differences which could, of course, be reflected in the print it leaves. However, taking the condom claim, which is clearly intended to improve the quality of evidence in rape and sexual assault cases, an item such as that will be produced in a factory with rigorous quality controls. Deviations in product are, we expect, likely to be far fewer.
That of course brings us on to the obvious question; although the test can deduce that a suspect handled a brand ‘A’ condom is it able to provide any clue as to when? What if the complainant is mistaken and actually a brand ‘B’ condom was used in the assault? Will that negate their complaint and offer a defence.
Current problems associated to fingerprint evidence
Similar problems already exist with the use of fingerprint evidence as we currently know it. Whilst a fingerprint may well show that a suspect has a link to a particular place it does not provide the date/time on which it was left at the scene. Unless mass spectrometry is able to provide a specific date and time as to when the identified substance was handled by the suspect its use will face the same limitations as current methods. Although a significant jump forward the value of the evidence it produces will be limited unless there is other corroborating evidence against a suspect.
For years DNA was seen as infallible but recent reports show that the evidence it yields is not as clear-cut as it could be. Although an admirable leap forward and one which will no doubt be refined in years to come we should exercise caution in the reliance of mass spectrometry evidence as being the smoking gun in cases.
The biggest limitation though is the database itself. A print or sample is only ever going to be effective if there is a match on a database entry. There are numerous unsolved crimes committed each year ranging from murder and rape to theft and public order. Some will naturally lend themselves to having some form of physical evidence such as DNA or fingerprint. However, even a murder case with a fingerprint on the weapon and the perpetrator’s blood on floor means nothing if that person is not on the police database.
Duncan Roberts, Solicitor
Read More