The study adopted a case study approach to explore the social processes that

contribute to
the effective or ineffective use of forensic science in the criminal justice
system. In all, 11 cases of
serious crime were analysed in-depth. In this context, the term �ineffective�
refers to actions
(or omissions) by actors involved in the case that led to either the sub-optimal
use of forensic
science or a negative consequence that could have been avoided if the forensic
science had
been employed; for example, evidence contamination or destruction, relying on an
inappropriate
expert in the investigation of a particular case (such as a mechanic rather than a
crash
investigator; see, e.g. the case of a staged homicide analysed in Julian et al.,
2012), or not relying
on the appropriate expert in the investigation of a particular case (see, e.g. the
case of R v Jama,
unreported; Vincent, 2010). These can all be viewed as risk factors in the forensic
process; as
such, they have the potential to lead to significant errors and negative outcomes.

The qualitative data in the analysis of these case studies comprised court
transcripts, judicial
sentencing remarks, newspaper and media reports, police journal reports, and 26 in-
depth
interviews with personnel who had been directly involved in one or more of the 11
cases
analysed. Additional data came from interviews and focus groups with 103
participants who work
with forensic evidence in some capacity; this included police officers, detectives,
forensic
scientists, lawyers, judges, coroners, pathologists and forensic physicians.
Thematic analysis of
the qualitative data (Smith, 1995) enabled the researchers to identify the key risk
factors that
impact on the progress and direction of forensic-led criminal investigations.

Findings � key risk factors in the forensic process

It is not possible to report on all the findings of the research that relate to the
concept of �risk�
in the scope of this paper. However, six key risk factors in the forensic process
from crime scene
to court are identified and discussed below.

Low level of forensic awareness among first responders

Good forensic science begins at the crime scene. However, determining that a crime
scene has
occurred is not always straight forward. This important decision (detecting and
identifying a crime
scene) is most often the responsibility of first responders such as general duties
police officers.
However, first responders may also be emergency services personnel (e.g. paramedics
and fire
officers), or, in cases of physical or sexual assault, they may be health workers
(e.g. general
practitioners or doctors and nurses in hospital emergency departments) or welfare
workers (e.g.
child protection workers and social workers) with little, if any, training in crime
scene detection. If a
crime scene is not identified as such the protocols for sealing the scene and
keeping the scene
free from contamination will not be followed. This will compromise the integrity of
the scene and
the quality of the physical evidence and the traces that could be collected for
forensic analysis.
It is important that first responders �ask the right questions� to establish as
early as possible
whether a crime has occurred and, if so, that they prioritise sealing the scene
(see Julian et al.,
2012 for an example of a case where the crime scene was not identified and not
sealed). If this is
not done, there is a significant of risk of error occurring at the front end of the
investigation.

Crime scene examiners (CSEs) as technicians rather than professionals

Processing a crime scene is one of the most critical aspects of a criminal
investigation. Crime
scenes that are inadequately processed or inadequately managed can result in poor
quality
evidence being used and increase the risk of ineffective investigations and/or
wrongful
convictions, such as in the cases of Madeline McCann (UK), Azaria Chamberlain and
Farah Jama
(Australia) and Guy Morin (Canada). If the front end of a criminal investigation is
not handled
effectively and reliably, then there are significant flow-on effects in the
forensic process and,
potentially, in justice outcomes (Brown and Willis, 2009; Julian et al., 2011;
Kelty et al., 2012).

Importantly, the effective processing of a crime scene is dependent upon how well
CSEs do their
work. In the UK, the report on the Scientific Work Improvement Model (the �SWIM
Report�) found
that 25 per cent of CSEs outperformed their peers leading to fewer unsolved cases.
This two-year
quantitative analysis of the forensic process in 41 police forces across England
and Wales
(British Home Office, 2007) found wide differences in the performance of crime
scene officers
(CSOs) at volume crime scenes. The top quartile of forces had CSOs that on average
collected
higher quality traces, attended more scenes, were twice as fast at submitting
traces for
analysis, and the traces collected were more likely to lead to positive
identifications (Adderley and
Bond, 2008).

Our research identified the attributes of top-performing CSEs using job analytical
techniques
with 72 police investigators, forensic scientists, senior police managers and 18
top CSEs from
across Australia (Kelty et al., 2011). We analysed the data and found seven
distinct critical
skill sets for top performance in crime scene examination: knowledge, life
experience,
professionalism, approach to life, communication, cognitive abilities and stress
management.
The 18 top-performing CSEs identified in Australia performed well on all these
criteria and, as a
consequence, had multiple positive effects on the work of criminal investigators
and other CSEs.
Poor CSEs, in contrast, shifted responsibility to better CSEs with negative
consequences.
For example, poor CSEs had an impact on staff morale, increased the managerial
burden
of good CSEs, and increased the amount of perceived occupational stress and time
pressure
(Kelty et al., 2011).

Our research identified the level of training and professionalism of CSEs as a key
risk factor in the
effectiveness of a criminal investigation. While crime scene examination is slowly
being
recognised as a crucial discipline within forensic science (Crispino, 2008), we
argue that the
professionalisation of CSEs is an important step towards addressing the risks
inherent in poor
crime scene examination (Robertson et al., 2014).

Inefficient and/or ineffective laboratory processes

At the forensic laboratory, important decisions are made with respect to the
processing of
exhibits and the forensic analyses to be conducted; for example, how will the
physical evidence
be analysed; which exhibits and/or traces will be analysed and in what order? How
will the results
of forensic analyses be reported to police (and possibly to lawyers and/or
coroners).

Effectiveness and efficiency are both important at this stage of the forensic
process. Effectiveness
refers to the extent to which the application of forensic science achieves its
potential to have a
positive impact on the criminal justice system in general and on criminal
investigations in particular.
On the other hand, efficiency refers to the capacity to accomplish a task with the
least waste of time
and effort. Given the importance of timeliness in criminal investigations it is not
surprising to find that,
in the field of forensic science, effectiveness and efficiency are inherently
inter-related. In the context
of the �audit culture� associated with the introduction of the New Public
Management in policing,
however, efficiency is also understood to mean (and is measured by) a minimum
expenditure of
resources; that is, cost effectiveness. The tension between efficiency in time and
effort and cost
effectiveness is readily apparent in forensic laboratories in the form of backlogs.
Backlogs will lead
to delays in forensic analyses and, subsequently, delays in the results of forensic
analyses being
provided to police investigators. In some circumstances, this will mean that
investigators do not
receive the results of forensic analyses until after the case is closed. In these
cases, the forensic
analyses are not being used effectively. Rather than providing information that
could usefully inform
the direction of the investigation, the forensic analyses are being used after the
fact to confirm the
details of the case for the purpose of prosecution.

The effective and efficient use of forensic science at the laboratory begins with
�triage�. Triage is
the process by which specimens are sorted and decisions made about whether they
will be sent
for forensic analysis. This focuses the forensic examination on relevant traces,
i.e. those that are
more likely to bring valuable information to the investigation, intelligence or are
the more promising
in terms of evidence. Efficient triage is necessary to avoid flooding the
laboratory with
unnecessary items that contribute further to laboratory backlogs (Roux et al.,
2014). The process
of decision making at the triage stage differs across jurisdictions in Australia.
Sometimes it takes
place through a case conference and sometimes through a series of case conferences.
Participants in the case conferences vary across jurisdictions and may include
forensic personnel,
police investigators and legal representatives (e.g. sometimes the prosecutor and,
much less
commonly, the defence). Who attends these case conferences can have a significant
impact
on the decision-making process regarding what specimens are sent for forensic
analysis and in
what order.

Our research has shown that both backlogs and the triage process are risk factors
in the effective
use of forensic science in a criminal investigation. If backlogs are not addressed,
then the timely
reporting of forensic results to police investigators is compromised. During
triage, decisions are
made about which specimens will be sent for forensic analysis; this is based on the
urgency of the
case, whether the specimen is degradable, and the seriousness of the case (e.g.
major crime vs
volume crime) as well as scientific aspects such as the probability of extracting a
usable
DNA profile from a degraded specimen (Roux et al., 2014). Furthermore, the
decisions informing
the forensic analyses that are made in the triage stage will be influenced by
whether case
conferences are held and who is present in these deliberations. It could be argued
that the most
effective triage occurs when police investigators and forensic personnel
collaborate to identify the
most relevant traces for the case at hand (Roux et al., 2014). This is not routine
practice in
Australian jurisdictions and is more common in relation to some case types (e.g.
homicide) than
others (e.g. sexual assault).

Limited forensic literacy among key actors in the criminal justice system
Criminal investigations are led by police detectives. Police are the main decision-
makers in
serious criminal matters and increasingly their decisions require knowledge of
forensic science.
Research has shown that timely information, such as that derived from forensic
evidence, is
essential to operational decision making in the investigative context (Aepli et
al., 2011). Previous
research has identified a low level of forensic awareness among police officers
(McCulloch, 1996),
variability in the level of forensic science knowledge among lawyers and the
judiciary (Edmond,
2015) and less than optimal use of forensic science by police officers (Julian,
2005; Strom
and Hickman, 2010). Our research into the effectiveness of FS in the CJS
demonstrates that little
has changed.

With respect to the role of forensic science, the focus of previous Australian
research on the use
of forensic evidence (especially DNA) in the courts has been on juries (Goodman-
Delahunty and
Hewson, 2010); forensic scientists (Wheate, 2007); and judicial officers
(Freckleton et al., 1999).
Our research looked more closely at lawyers� experiences with DNA evidence (Cashman
and
Henning, 2012). Our findings mirror those of Findlay and Grix (2003) who found
�prevailing
ignorance amongst many lawyers and judges about the nature and potential of DNA
evidence�
(Findlay and Grix, 2003, p. 270). The overwhelming majority of lawyers interviewed
in our study
said they did not know enough about DNA evidence. This was particularly apparent
among
defence lawyers who commented that their limited contact with experts reduced their
ability to
understand and challenge DNA evidence (Cashman and Henning, 2012). Other
researchers have
identified a low level of forensic literacy among the judiciary that has
contributed to poor
gatekeeping practices, particularly in relation to the admissibility of expert
forensic evidence (see
Edmond and San Roque, 2012).

Poor communication between key actors in the criminal justice system

It is commonplace for the criminal justice system to be viewed as a unified entity
with agencies communicating and working towards a single purpose and goal. However,
Ross recently painted a very different picture of agencies operating as silos with
fragmented approaches to service delivery and collaboration (Ross, 2012). In the
policing field, structural barriers to the circulation or sharing of information in
serial crime investigation have been analysed in terms of �linkage blindness�
(Egger, 1990). Our research has shown that this concept can be broadened to reflect
the problems arising from the lack of sharing or coordinating of investigative
information and networking between law enforcement agencies and other agencies
inside and outside the criminal justice system. Termed the �justice silo effect�
(Kelty et al., 2012), it occurs when there is an absence of meaningful and regular
collaboration between the criminal justice agencies that work on the same cases and
criminal matters. In essence, justice silos mean that practitioners, even within
their own organisations, operate in isolation, unaware of the role and
responsibilities of other justice and non-justice personnel. This can lead to
forensic expertise being underutilised by police, coronial and criminal lawyers
because they are unaware of what some experts can offer (Kelty et al., 2012). The
wrongful conviction of Farah Jama in Victoria in 2009 demonstrated the negative
impact of poor communication (Vincent, 2010).

Poor communication between actors in the criminal justice system is a risk factor
in the effective use of forensic science. When compounded by a limited knowledge
and awareness of forensic science among key actors (such as first responders,
police investigators, lawyers and judges) the importance of communication cannot be
understated. Information-sharing is a key platform in intelligence-led policing and
this requires communication between relevant parties. At the same time, it is
important to take into account the risks associated with contextual bias in
forensic science (Edmond et al., 2014). Information-sharing needs to be �fit-for-
purpose� and domain relevant but the avenues for communication must be available
and utilised when appropriate. A lack of collaboration and appropriate information-
sharing between agencies and personnel in the criminal justice system creates an
additional risk of negative outcomes.

Financial resources not directed at the front end of the forensic process
A criminal investigation involves a number of stages: detection, investigation,
prosecution and adjudication. Forensic science has the potential to add value to
each of these stages. However, our research has shown that forensic science
predominantly plays a role in the latter two stages; namely, prosecution and
adjudication. Police investigators tend to value forensic evidence for its
contribution to the prosecution brief and the presentation of evidence in court.
Their focus is on the role that forensic evidence plays in the courts. Our research
mirrors that of international research in finding that it is commonplace for police
investigators to have a low level of understanding of the value of forensic science
in the detection of crime and in its capacity to provide direction to an
investigation (e.g. through eliminating and/or identifying suspects). Following the
pattern identified in international research (e.g. see Strom and Hickman, 2010)
forensic evidence is typically used to confirm rather than identify suspects in an
investigation. According to our interview data, the allocation of resources in
police investigations reflects this perspective; resources are predominantly
allocated to support activities at the backend (prosecutions) rather than the front
end (i.e. the detection and processing of crime scenes).

Our research identified activities at the front end of a criminal investigation as

crucial to the effective and optimal use of forensic science in contemporary
policing. The allocation of resources to the back-end at the expense of resources
at the front end is a risk factor in the optimal use of forensic science. Our
research suggests that, at the very least, the issue of resources and where they
are allocated should be reviewed if forensic science is to achieve its potential to
impact positively on criminal justice outcomes. Poor crime scene work and low
levels of forensic literacy among police investigators contribute to miscarriages
of justice. The redistribution of resources to enable increased levels of knowledge
and training among crime scene personnel and to improve the processes through which
the results of forensic analyses are communicated to police investigators (Howes et
al., 2013; O�Malley, 2015) is an important step in reducing this risk.

Conclusion
We argue that an analysis of the role of forensic science in the criminal justice
system must take a holistic perspective from the crime scene to the court. It needs
to examine the role of forensic science in each phase of a criminal investigation:
detection, investigation, prosecution and adjudication. Our research adopted a
systemic approach to address this issue. Overall our holistic examination of the
role and effectiveness of forensic science found that forensic science is not well
embedded in the criminal justice system. Current policies and practices engender
significant risks in the system. Unlike much of the previous research that has
focused on the problematic nature of forensic evidence in the courts, our research
has highlighted the importance of high-quality forensic science at the �front end�
of an investigation; namely, the crime scene. More specifically, this refers to:
identifying a crime scene as early as possible to avoid contamination; asking the
right questions to capture relevant forensic traces before they are �lost� or
degraded; identifying and relying on the �right� experts for the particular crime
under investigation; the problems of �extended expertise� (i.e. when experts in one
field extend their advice beyond the boundaries of their expertise); and, the
importance of forensic awareness and/or forensic training among �first responders�
and others in the early stages of an investigation (e.g. emergency services
personnel such as paramedics and fire officers).

Our research has also added weight to previous research pointing to problems in the
use of forensic science in the investigative and court phases such as: long delays
in receiving reports of forensic analyses due to extensive backlogs; limited
awareness of the value of forensic science in directing a police investigation; a
lack of knowledge about the proactive use of forensic science (e.g. as an
intelligence tool); and the use of forensic science to confirm the identity of
offenders towards the end of the investigation rather than to eliminate suspects
early in the investigation; inadequate knowledge of the critical/relevant issues in
forensic science by lawyers (prosecutors and defence counsel) and members of the
judiciary; and poor reporting practices by forensic scientists so that police,
lawyers and others do not necessarily have a clear understanding of forensic
scientists� conclusions.

Policy and practical implications

Our research suggests the need for an enhanced awareness on the part of internal
and external stakeholders (such as the government and general public) of the risks
inherent in the current practice of forensic science in the criminal justice
system. Also required, is a more acute understanding on the part of internal and
external stakeholders (e.g. government and the public) of the need for agencies in
the criminal justice system (e.g. police and forensic laboratories) to manage the
range of risks identified.

We argue that the risks can be reduced dramatically through:

� forensic awareness training among first responders;
� the professionalisation of CSEs;
� continued improvements in efficiency and effectiveness at the laboratory with a
focus on timeliness and quality;
� greater forensic literacy among actors in the criminal justice system;
� appropriate avenues of communication between agencies, practitioners and
policymakers in the criminal justice system; and
� increased allocation of resources to the front end of the forensic process.

While this paper has focused on serious crime, the findings presented here have
implications for volume crime. The turn towards forensic intelligence in addressing
volume crime is an important development; however, its capacity to deliver better
case clearance rates, is in part dependent upon addressing the risks identified
here. There is much work to be done in improving the ways in which forensic science
is used by police and other criminal justice practitioners and agencies if indeed
it is going to �revolutionise� policing and make a positive impact on the criminal
justice system as whole.