---

Forensic Science

: The hon. Gentleman tempts me to go in another direction. Finally, I shall turn my attention to the relationship between forensic science and the courts. There has been a huge increase in the use of forensic evidence. The Forensic Science Service alone dealt with 140,000 cases in 2004–05, and its staff appeared as expert witnesses in 2,500 of those cases. In most cases, forensic evidence is non-contentious, but several recent high-profile trials, including those of Sion Jenkins and Angela Cannings, have hinged on strongly contested evidence from so-called expert witnesses. Clearly, something is wrong with the system. Are juries, judges, lawyers and experts properly equipped to do what is asked of them in such complex cases? I am sure that other hon. Members will want to take up that important question, which needs to be answered by Parliament. Indeed, should there be an alternative to the adversarial system? When the Attorney-General, Lord Goldsmith, appeared before our Committee last November, he acknowledged that there was room for improvement, but he believed that the adversarial system provided the best safeguard against problems. However, the adversarial system is critically reliant on the ability of lawyers to test the evidence that is presented. Cases such as those of Sion Jenkins and Angela Cannings cast serious doubt on whether that is happening. The father of DNA fingerprinting and veteran expert witness, Professor Sir Alec Jeffreys, told the Committee during its inquiry:"““I lost my faith in the adversarial legal system the first time I stood up in court””." He was pointing to the fact that the charisma or presentational skills of the expert, rather than the arguments that they present, is the key factor in influencing a jury. The police and the Crown Prosecution Service have also acknowledged the importance of securing the best expert witnesses, making no bones about cherry-picking experts who go down well in court. The Committee even heard that some experts refused to appear in opposition to other experts who were deemed to be particularly powerful in their ability to perform in court. It is astoundingly complacent of the Government to think that that situation is acceptable and leads to good justice. To be fair, the Attorney-General's new guidance for expert witnesses and the increasing use of pre-trial meetings to identify areas of genuine disagreement between experts before the arguments are rehearsed in front of the jury is welcome, but it does not go far enough. Nor does it address the concerns of many expert witnesses who increasingly feel that it is they who are on trial. I hope that the Minister will say what steps the Government have taken to restore expert witnesses' confidence in the courts system following the public vilification of Roy Meadow, and to remedy the shortage of expert witnesses willing to give evidence, particularly in the paediatric specialities. My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) wishes to catch your eye on that issue, Mr. Pope. I shall deal with the input of scientific evidence into the legal system. It is up to the judge to determine whether an expert witness is needed, whether an expert is suitably qualified to give evidence and whether an expert is straying outside their area of expertise under questioning in court. However, the Committee found that training given to judges on forensic evidence was sporadic and far from comprehensive. Furthermore, there is no compulsory training for lawyers in forensic techniques. It is therefore easy to see how serious mistakes can be made in dealing with expert evidence. Professor Sir Alec Jeffreys told the Committee of the tension created by the"““fundamental gulf between the philosophy of science and the philosophy of law””."