by Satish Sekar © Satish Sekar January 19th 2009
The Review
The review of the error made by forensic scientist Sian Hedges, then of the Forensic Science Service (FSS), in the Damilola Taylor Inquiry after the conviction of the Preddie brothers (Ricky and Danny) for the manslaughter of Taylor served a purpose – a log and dishonourable one. It took the previous miscarriage of justice off the agenda for a while at least.
It was conducted by emeritus professor in forensic science at Strathclyde University Brian Caddy and Alan Rawley QC. Both were appointed by the Home Office because Hedges missed crucial blood-staining that originated from Taylor on clothing and footwear of the Preddie brothers during the original inquiry.
Terms of Reference
The terms of reference of the review were: to conduct a review of the forensic examination of evidence conducted by the FSS during the Damilola Taylor Inquiry; to establish an agreed set of facts and time-line of the FSS examination of this evidence and to make recommendations to the Home Secretary on whether re-examination of forensic evidence in other comparable cases is required.
It was also tasked to make recommendations to both the Home Secretary and board of the FSS on whether changes are required to its examination procedures, recruitment, training and management of forensic scientists by the FSS. Finally, it had the power to make whatever recommendations it deems necessary on the future role of the Forensic Regulator in overseeing applicable standards to all suppliers of forensic services to the criminal justice system within the UK.
ʻIndependentʼ
However, the ʻindependentʼ review did not specifically investigate whether Hedges committed perjury in the trial earlier this year that resulted in the acquittal of Hassan Jihad on all charges and the Preddie brothers of murder and robbery. It is also unsatisfactory as it does not view the case as an integrated whole.
The Sentamu Inquiry, which was chaired by the Archbishop of York John Sentamu, looked at the treatment of vulnerable witnesses in isolation and this did the same regarding the scientific evidence.
The review did not consider how the Damilola Taylor Inquiry was mishandled in the first place. Hedges’ error does not explain how the original defendants were allowed to stand trial in 2002. Despite being obliged to deliver best value, neither the Metropolitan Police, nor its police authority have any plans for an inquiry into what went wrong – errors that almost derailed justice permanently.
We should be told how relying on a clearly unreliable witness (Bromley) without testing how such a witness would stand up to cross-examination delivers best value to the public, rather than placing an inexcusable drain on public resources that could have been put to far better use. The role of the CPS needs to be scrutinised thoroughly.
Lack of Interest
There seems to be no interest to establish what went wrong in the original investigation beyond the scientific evidence. That will not suffice. Had wrongful convictions been obtained in the original trial through highly dubious methods there would have been no cold case review which discovered Hedges’ error and the truly guilty Preddie brothers would never have been brought to justice.
The original inquiry was riddled with errors and questionable conduct which included sending a round robin invitation to inmates at Feltham Young Offenders Institution to make incriminating remarks about the original defendants that might be used to convict them. There was a review into the use of child witnesses, but the original defendants were not invited to participate. They have never been given the opportunity to participate in these inquiries, let alone one that looks at the whole case in the light of knowledge that is now available.