A paper presented to the Second Joint Meeting of the
This evidence established that the victim, whose body was Forensic Science Society and the Forensic Science Service, found inside his burning home, had in fact been strangled 3 November 2000, Bromsgrove, Worcestershire.
long before the arson attack on his property. It had previ-Ladies and Gentlemen: I am delighted to have this opportunity to speak to you on the interrelation of science and justice within the criminal justice system.
ously been believed that the fire was started at the time of the murder, in order to destroy the evidence. The time discrepancy established by scientific evidence meant that the accounts given by the defendants in their 'confessions' to Obviously, I shall be approaching the subject from a prose-the police could not be true. This, in turn, meant that the cutor's perspective. After touching on a point of some hisconvictions were unsafe. torical interest, it is my intention to give you a brief outline of the prosecutor's role in the criminal justice process. I will discuss the status of expert evidence and the contribution it makes to the prosecution process, with particular reference to DNA and fingerprint evidence. I will refer to the importance of the recently established Council for the Registration of Forensic Practitioners (CRFP), and touch briefly on related issues of disclosure. I will clarify what it is that prosecutors need from expert witnesses in general, and forensic science services in particular, and I will look at how the police, the Forensic Science Service (FSS) and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) have co-operated in response to the demands of recent legislative developments. I also hope to highlight some of the apparent conflicts between scientific and related technological developments and the legal process, with brief reference to the Human Rights Act.