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.

However, the “independent” 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 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 innocent 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.

There seems to be no interest to establish what went wrong in the original investigation beyond the scientific evidence. Had wrongful convictions been obtained in the original trial through highly dubious methods – which included sending a round robin invitation to inmates at Feltham Young Offenders Institution to make incriminating remarks about the defendants that might be used to convict them – 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.

by Satish Sekar © Satish Sekar January 19th 2009