I understand the issue that the hon. Gentleman is raising, but he surely cannot believe that faulty or non-standard forensic evidence should be tolerated within the judicial system or that we should have no sense of regulation or, indeed, standards that need to be adhered to. Of course, he will also recognise that while forensic evidence, underpinned by statutory codes or otherwise, is entered into court as evidence, it is still subject to challenge, as is the skill, the technique and the science used, by defence counsel or, indeed, prosecution counsel, when it is entered in. It is part of our adversarial system of justice that, whatever evidence is put in is still open to challenge and is not taken as definitive, and it is then for the jury to make a judgment. If forensic evidence is offered and it is from an accredited organisation, which is reaching a certain standard or not, then we would hope that had some weight with the jury, but it does not absent it from challenge by the defendant’s counsel.
Forensic Science Regulator and Biometrics Strategy Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Kit Malthouse
(Conservative)
in the House of Commons on Friday, 25 September 2020.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Forensic Science Regulator and Biometrics Strategy Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
680 c1294 
Session
2019-21
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-28 13:48:27 +0100
URI
http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Commons/2020-09-25/20092511000012
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Commons/2020-09-25/20092511000012
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Commons/2020-09-25/20092511000012