In from the cold

The death of Stephen Lawrence, burned into the psyche of all within the criminal justice system in Britain, continues to affect us some 18 years later. The conclusion of last month's trial was the third attempt to bring about some sort of resolution for the Lawrence family, following discontinued proceedings and a failed private prosecution.

The trial of Gary Dobson and David Norris heard evidence from, among others, Michael Mansfield QC and solicitor Imran Khan. The defence case focused on the results of forensic examinations of clothing seized from the defendant's homes two weeks after the killing. The defence claimed those results were unreliable due to contamination of the exhibits, handled and repackaged on a number of occasions during the various enquiries over the years.

A cold case review in 2007, using advanced techniques not available to the original enquiry, found a bloodstain, hairs and fibres, which the prosecution said linked Dobson and Norris to the murder. The bloodstain, only 0.5mm x 0.25mm matching Lawrence's DNA at the rate of 1:billion, was found on the collar of Dobson's jacket. Forensic scientist Edward Jarman gave evidence concerning tests he carried out on this bloodstain; his opinion was that the blood was wet when it alighted on the jacket. Defence counsel Tim Roberts QC had suggested that the speck was a loose flake of dried blood which had solubilised during saliva testing.

Also found on tapings from Dobson's jacket were two fibres matching those from Stephen Lawrence's jacket, and, in an evidence bag containing Norris' jeans, the 2007 laboratory tests found two hairs matching Lawrence at a rate of 1:1,000 and six fibres that 'could' have come from the teenager's trousers. At the time of the initial enquiry in 2003, the method of 'bagging' exhibits for later forensic examination would have been to place them individually into paper bags, fold over the top of the bag several times, and then seal the bag with Sellotape. Any exhibits wet with bloodstaining would by necessity have been allowed to dry before being sealed.

The defence has alleged a number of points at which the relevant exhibits in the trial may have become contaminated. Officers involved in the arrest and seizure of clothing from the two defendants had also visited the Lawrence household several times during the two weeks before the arrests, although one of the officers denied having worn the same clothes, and the other that he had ever sat down during his visits. Michael Mansfied QC was cross-examined as to whether he had removed exhibits from bags during the private prosecution in 1995, and he answered he was 'trying to recall court room events of 14 years ago... but thought he had not, as he would not have had to describe the clothing to the jury in the way he did'.

The cold case review examined all the exhibits in the enquiry starting from scratch, including the debris contained within the bags, many of which had been found to be open or damaged, requiring resealing. During the first six years following the murder, the bags had been taken to five different police stations for storage, and to court for the private prosecution in 1995 and inquest in 1997. In 1997 the exhibits were again moved, this time to Kent for an investigation into the Met's handling of the initial enquiry. Finally, they were taken to the laboratory of private forensic company LGC for analysis, resulting in the findings that allowed for the latest prosecution.

Detective Constable Alan Taylor gave evidence that he had reported on the entire history of the Lawrence enquiry exhibits in 2010, and agreed that Detective Constable Paul Steed had altered seal numbers and spoiled a computer record in a 'deliberate act of spiteful sabotage', following his removal from the enquiry having been convicted of assault in Spain.

Detective Constable Raymond Wood was cross-examined on behalf of Dobson concerning his repackaging of Dobson's jacket after photographing the exhibit. Tim Roberts QC suggested to the officer that 'what you were doing was not just introducing anything that had been inside the original package, but you were introducing things that might have been on the outside'.

In his closing speech Mark Ellison QC told the jury they only had to decide on the potential contamination of four key exhibits in the case, the jacket and cardigan belonging to Dobson, and Norris' sweatshirt and jeans, calling the alleged contamination 'a series of unlikely transfer steps'. In his speech Roberts criticised the whole system for handling exhibits in the '90s, saying that the review of the Lawrence exhibits' handling was 'like borrowing someone else's glasses'¦ looking back through history at imperfect records'. All that remained was for the judge to tell the jury that, among other key questions, they needed to ask themselves if they were sure the forensic evidence came from Stephen Lawrence, and not from contamination. It seems the answer to that was 'yes'.

Change of attitude

Reviewing the forensic evidence in the Stephen Lawrence murder trial, it seems there has been a sea change of attitude by scientists since 1993 when the teenager was killed. There have been many, well-publicised advancements in science which have enabled forensic experts to revisit cold cases going back many years, and there have been notable successes. Ever smaller amounts of blood and DNA have been recovered from very old exhibits, allowing for the arrest and conviction of suspects in cases such as rape and murder. They have also allowed for miscarriage of justice cases to be revisited, in some instances freeing prisoners from life sentences, and convicting the persons truly responsible.

What is also clear is that the current science is only as good as the evidence gathered at the time of the initial investigation, and the subsequent storage of that evidence. So much more is known about the evidential values of items such as fibres, paint chippings, soil samples, footprints and even entomology. I am sure that the view of scientists examining exhibits in today's investigations will be 'is this possible' rather than the view that appears to be coming from experts giving evidence regarding events of 1993, which is 'it wasn't considered likely so we didn't look'.

It will be some time in the future before reviews of cold cases will truly be able to benefit from the continuing advancements in science, following the lessons we are learning today about the issues of contamination and transfer, such as those arising from the Lawrence case.

Lost independence

However, at the same time that police forces are becoming more conversant with forensic integrity, the country is faced with losing the Forensic Science Service, set to close in March 2012. The FSS has been losing money as more police forces' forensic investigations are going in-house. The government hopes that by shutting down the FSS the marketplace will open up with private providers who will no doubt be competing with each other to show that they can each provide the service quicker and cheaper. So, not only will these incredibly important investigations be taking place at the behest of the police, there will be commercial pressure to produce results, and to produce them quickly and cheaply.

Bear in mind also that at present there is no current 'standard' for scientists other than those working in DNA to comply with. The proposed saving from the FSS closure is a mere £2m per month; I believe that the potential for miscarriage of justice cases arising from this short-sighted policy, and the costs involved, will far outweigh such a saving. And of course the defence are also forced by the Legal Services Commission to shop around for the best value, with an emphasis on cost rather than experience and qualifications of the best expert in their particular field.

I accept that savings need to be made, but wonder if there shouldn't be one completely independent service seeking to find the truth rather than being under pressure to 'deliver' in an adversarial system. After all, what price justice?

Copyright & permissions