---

Susan May

I said that I would draw the attention of the chairman of the Criminal Cases Review Commission to the debate. He will note what my hon. Friend has said. I am trying hard not to make specific comments about a case that is under consideration by that body, which is the proper body to decide on these matters. I am trying to deal with the general issues. My right hon. Friend raised a general issue about the Forensic Science Service, and about the circumstances in which its services should be secured. The Forensic Science Service is an executive agency of the Home Office, and is the principal provider of impartial forensic science services to the police and other investigating forces. It provides information to support the investigation of crime and evidence for the Crown Prosecution Service and the courts, and it also gives independent advice to the Home Office and others who serve the administration of justice, including the Criminal Cases Review Commission. The Forensic Science Service works within the criminal justice system for both the defence and the prosecution, and takes pride in its impartiality. I think it perfectly possible for an independent forensic science service to provide proper advice on different occasions and examine evidence scientifically for different parties in circumstances such as these. I think we should make it clearer that the duty of experts giving evidence should be to the court and to justice. The Criminal Procedure Rule Committee has published a consultation paper that examines the issue of expert evidence and responsibility in relation to the court. While there may be contestability in regard to particular issues of expert evidence, it is important that the court should be satisfied about the expertise, and satisfied that it has been deployed properly in specific cases. I asked about the different tests in the Susan May case to which my right hon. Friend referred. I was told that the tests for the police were for blood, while those for the commission were for DNA. Two different processes are involved. The tests for the commission were carried out in Birmingham, and a report on the results was compiled by a Forensic Science Service employee in Wetherby. Those involved in the DNA tests were not involved in the original inquiry. I believe that it is quite possible for a body such as the Forensic Science Service not to seek to justify an initiating decision, but to provide impartial, accurate, expert evidence in cases such as this. If there is evidence that demonstrates that it has failed to do that in a particular case, it should be taken into account by the Criminal Cases Review Commission in its review.