Streamlined Forensic Reporting

AuthorKaren Richmond
Published date01 April 2018
Date01 April 2018
DOIhttp://doi.org/10.1177/0022018318772701
Subject MatterArticles
Article
Streamlined Forensic Reporting:
‘Swift and sure justice’?
Karen Richmond
University of Strathclyde, UK
Abstract
The Criminal Justice System Efficiency Program aims to deal ‘promptly and efficiently’ with ‘low-
level, straightforwardcases’ in order to dispense ‘swift and sure justice’. To meet these objectives,
the Ministry ofJustice places a duty on defence solicitors to reducethe ‘costs and delay associated
with forensic evidence’. It justifies its requirements with reference to the Criminal Procedure
Rules, highlightingthe need for solicitors to actively manage criminal cases,to take part in pre-trial
hearings and to engage with forensic evidence through a new form of discourse: Streamlined
Forensic Reporting(SFR). The SFR scheme operates ‘by taking a more proportionate approachto
forensic evidence through the early preparation of a short report that details the key forensic
evidence the prosecution intends to rely upon’. The aim is to avoid the costs associated with
thorough forensic analysisby encouraging an early guilty plea. In circumstances where such a plea
cannot be elicited,the scheme aims to secure agreement on forensic issuesat the earliest stage. It
places an obligation on the defence to identifythese problematic areas. Drawing on comparative
ethnographic research within the forensic science and criminal justice sectors, this article
questions the safety or utility of these attenuated and instrumental forms of ‘efficient’ forensic
discourse. It demonstrates that streamlined reports are often compiled by non-expert admin-
istrators, lack contextual evaluation or technical explanation and are frequently inaccurate or
misleading. It asks whether the veiled and incremental approach to the issue of disclosure forms
an adequate basis for proper scrutiny or legal challenge, and questions whether this scheme,
which exhibits a markedambivalence towards forensic expertise, may ultimatelysubvert the duty
placed on the courts to place forensic evidence in its proper context.
Keywords
Evidence, Forensic Science, DNA
Introduction
The deployment of measures of economic rationalisation across the criminal justice system has led to the
introduction of instrumental approaches to the construction of forensic DNA evidence: approaches that
dispense with expert scientific evaluation and purposefully limit the amount of contextual information
Corresponding author:
Karen Richmond, Leverhulme Research Centre in Forensic Science, Ewing Building, Dundee, DD1 4HN.
E-mail: k.richmond@dundee.ac.uk
The Journal of Criminal Law
2018, Vol. 82(2) 156–177
ªThe Author(s) 2018
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0022018318772701
journals.sagepub.com/home/clj
available to the courts. This article explores the economic discourses that led to the introduction of these
procedurally novel—but scientifically attenuated—forms of scientific reporting. It focuses on ‘Staged
reporting’ and its successor, Streamlined Forensic Reporting (SFR).
The article explores the use of Streamlined Forensic Report Stage 1 (SFR1) reporting as an evidential
agonist, one which has been deployed in response to perceived shortcomings in the ability of DNA to
answer questions relating to ‘transfer and persistence’. Further, it explores the way in which expert
scientific inputs have been limited by a mode of forensic reporting (and case construction) that aims to
foreclose discussion of context. Finally, it considers the implications of the introduction of SFR for the
role of the forensic DNA expert.
Discussion is placed in both theoretical and practical perspective. It is demonstrated that these
developments can be traced to a crisis of governmentality brought about by a confrontation between
scientific expertise and the realities of legal fact-finding: a crisis that precipitated the subsequent
restructuring of forensic roles. The article also demonstrates the way in which scientifically ambivalent
forms of reporting carry the potential to contribute to miscarriages of justice at the pre-trial stage and
may ultimately detract from the quality and content of expert scientific opinion, thus affecting the court’s
ability to arrive at sound determinations on questions of fact.
Background: The Criminal Justice System Efficiency Program
SFR is an innovative evidential procedure, which was introduced across England and Wales for the
purposes of criminal case management and the construction of forensic evidence. Its stated aim is to
minimise bureaucracy and reduce unnecessary costs and delays in the criminal justice system. The
scheme operates ‘by taking a more proportionate approach to forensic evidence through the early
preparation of a short report that details the key forensic evidence the prosecution intends to rely upon’.
1
The objective is thus to avoid the costs associated with thorough forensic analysis by encouraging an
early guilty plea. In circumstances where such a plea cannot be elicited, the scheme aims to secure
agreement on forensic issues with the defence at the earliest stage. Should such agreement be unattain-
able, SFR places an obligation on the defence to identify the problematic issues.
The SFR scheme was established throughout England and Wales as part of the Ministry of Justice’s
(MoJ) ‘Criminal Justice System Efficiency Program’, which aims ‘to [modernise] the Criminal Justice
System (CJS) by reducing or removing the movement of paper, and people, around the system’.
2
The
government white paper, Swift and Sure Justice,
3
sets out the objectives of the programme:
From a so-called ‘system’ which operated in silos, we are moving to a criminal justice service where police,
prosecution and courts work more effectively together. None of these reforms will compromise historic legal
rights or important principles of justice. Rather the reverse: justice must be swift, sure and seen to be done, or
it is not done at all.
4
The targets of the reforms are cases which the MoJ categorises as ‘low-level, straightforward and
uncontested ...where a quick response is appropriate’.
5
Such cases are to be dealt with ‘promptly and
efficiently’ and in order to better dispense ‘swift justice’, the CJS Efficiency Program seeks to ‘transform
criminal justice from a fragmented, paper-based system to a seamless, digital service’.
6
In pursuance of
these objectives, the programme embraces technological innovations, such as the introduction of digital
1. Association of Chief Police Officers (2012), Streamlined Forensic Reporting. London: ACPO.
2. Ministry of Justice Defence Practitioner FAQ, Version 3.92 (14 May 2012).
3. Ministry of Justice, Swift and Sure Justice: The Government’s Plans for Reform of the Criminal Justice System (Cm 8388)
(TSO: London, 2012).
4. Ibid. at 4.
5. Ibid. at 5.
6. Ibid. at 43.
Richmond 157

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT