A review of quality procedures in the UK forensic sciences - what can the field of digital forensics learn?

Sep 30, 2026

Upload by James

Growing reliance on forensic science evidence in complex criminal investigations has increased scrutiny of quality measures. This review examines quality management systems used for fingerprint, body fluid, and DNA evidence, then identifies a lack of comparable quality assurance mechanisms in digital forensics. It proposes improvements for digital forensics by drawing on more established practices from other forensic disciplines, aiming to ensure valid results and maintain trust across the criminal justice system.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages23

Reading Time58 min

AccessFree to download

Introduction

Quality management in forensic sciences

Gap in digital forensics quality assurance

Proposed improvements drawing on other disciplines

A review of quality procedures in the UK forensic sciences: what can the field of digital forensics learn? Page, H., Horsman, G., Sarna, A and Foster, J. Abstract With a growing reliance on the various forms of forensic science evidence in complex criminal investigations, the measures for ensuring its quality are facing increasing scrutiny. Improvements to quality management systems to ensure both the robust application of scientific principles and the accurate interpretation and reporting of results, have arisen as a consequence of high-profile rebuttals of forensic science evidence combined with process improvements driven by evaluation of current practice. These improvements are crucial to ensure validity of results as well as maintaining the trust of all those involved in the Criminal Justice System. This work first examines the quality management systems utilised for the examination and analysis of fingerprint, body fluid and DNA evidence. It then proceeds to highlight an apparent lack of comparable quality assurance mechanisms within the field of digital forensics, the newest branch of forensic science. Proposals are provided for the improvement of quality assurance for the digital forensics arena, drawing on the experiences of, and more well-established practices within, other forensic disciplines. Keywords: Forensic Science; Digital Forensics; DNA, Fingerprint; Quality Assurance; Peer Review; Codes of Practice and Conduct. 1 Introduction In 2018, law enforcement and associated forensic practitioners are tasked with investigating large volumes of some of the most complex forms of organized crime to date (Skelly, 2018) . As a result, arguably almost all serious crime will at some point during an investigation, require input from at least one of the branches of forensic science to assist with evidence collection, analysis and reporting. Often this task involves cross-forensic disciplinary teams working together to analyse multiple evidence types and collaborate in the context of interpreting potential evidence in a robust manner, for presentation in court (Morgan, 2017) . The reliance on forms of forensic evidence to support criminal justice processes has arguably never been greater (Ludwig and Fraser, 2014), where in some cases such content may be the sole means of seeking a prosecution. Whilst judicial systems are now reliant on forensic evidence as a means of effectively investigating and policing crime, concurrently, the various disciplines of forensic science find themselves subject to some of the highest levels of scrutiny they have ever encountered (Ireland and Beaumont, 2015) . A growing concern that forensic science standards are falling below what might be expected to exist, orin some cases have already fallen, is surfacing in both media (BBC News 2017a, BBC News, 2017b; BBC News, 2016; BBC News, 2015a), Parliamentary ( [Parliament.tv](Parliament.tv), 2018) and academic (Collie, 2018) platforms, where miscarriages of justice as a result of ineffective forensic practices have been reported (for example, the case of Colin Pitchfork (BBC News, 2012; BBC News, 2015b)) . The following concerns surrounding forensic science standards have been expressed by the UK Forensic Science Regulator, Dr. GIllian Tully. With the multitude of competing pressures on senior police leaders such as safeguarding, anti-terrorism and serious crime, it is clear that ensuring quality has sufficient priority and attention has not yet been consistently achieved. There is a substantially different dynamic in large forensic science providers, whose only business is forensic science provision. Whilst it is understandable that senior police leaders have a wide range of priorities, if quality of forensic science provision is of insufficient priority to enable risks to be managed effectively and quality standards to be achieved, the logical result is that it will become unsustainable for any forensic services to be managed within

FAQs

Why is forensic evidence quality receiving increased scrutiny in the UK context?

Because complex criminal investigations rely heavily on forensic science evidence, and high-profile rebuttals and process evaluation have increased attention on the reliability, interpretation, and reporting of results.

Which forensic disciplines are examined regarding quality management systems?

The work first reviews quality management systems for fingerprint, body fluid, and DNA evidence.

What is the main issue identified for digital forensics quality assurance?

The review highlights an apparent lack of comparable, well-developed quality assurance mechanisms in digital forensics compared with more mature forensic disciplines.

Sep 30, 2026

Upload by James