One of Britain’s top forensic scientists, Zakaria Erzinglioglu, has caused uproar by claiming many of his peers have been pressured into securing convictions by giving false scientific evidence. His findings have been submitted to Lord Justice Auld, who is reviewing the courts system. Here, Dr Erzinglioglu explains his concerns and offers a controversial solution ...

Forensic science, that indispensable tool of criminal investigation, has no legal recognition in Britain whatsoever. Under the law it simply doesn't exist. Anyone over the age of 18 may practise as a forensic scientist if they wish – and there is no law to stop them.

Nor is this just a hypothetical situation; many unqualified people make a comfortable living out of practising forensic science. You, the reader, could put a brass plate on your door today proclaiming that you are an authority on anything from DNA fingerprinting to forged documents. Even if you know nothing about these subjects, you will be consulted by a certain type of lawyer interested solely in winning cases and making money. This type of lawyer would pay you handsomely for arguing, in however ill-informed a manner, against the conclusions of the scientist consulted by the other side. That’s the blunt truth and let no one doubt it.

I have been involved in several cases in which I have witnessed forensic chicanery. I was once asked by a solicitor to make a ‘wholly unscientific guess’ in a case, and on more than one occasion I have been told by the police to destroy the evidence after I have examined it so it could be withheld from the defence. I have always refused such demands.

Sometimes I have received fraudulent evidence, like the time a police officer faxed me a document with figures crossed out and new numbers written down beside them.

Everyone knows a witness is required to speak the truth in court, but this obligation is often actively discouraged by barristers. Once, while acting as a prosecution witness, I gave an answer to a defence barrister supporting his client’s case. He looked at me sharply and demanded to know if I was a hostile witness – one who switches sides during the case. My reply was that I was here to speak the truth. He was not pleased.

Only a few weeks ago, I was asked to consider the reports of two forensic scientists whose conclusions about the same evidence were diametrically opposed. My examination of the evidence showed that one report was excellent while the other was sheer nonsense.

The problem with forensic science stems from the fact that its practitioners are consulted by police officers or lawyers, who, obviously, would like them to support their arguments. If a forensic scientist consulted by one side finds in favour of them, the other side will almost certainly be able to find someone else to say the opposite. Moreover, since the scientist is paid by the side that consults him, if he fails to ‘satisfy’ his clients he is unlikely to be hired by them again. ‘When money speaks, the truth is silent,’ says a Russian proverb. This, in my experience, is most certainly true in many cases of forensic science malpractice.

The fact that many forensic scientists are responsible for many miscarriages cannot be disputed. One example is the case of Paddy Nicholls: he was jailed in 1975 for the murder of an elderly woman who, according to forensic science, had died after being severely beaten and suffocated. Mr Nicholls was freed in 1998 after new evidence suggested the woman had simply died from a heart attack. Another example is the case of the Bridgewater Three, who were wrongly imprisoned for the killing of the paperboy Carl Bridgewater on the basis of a forged confession authenticated by forensic ‘experts’.

There are many people who are in prison today for no reason other than forensic chicanery – people convicted as a result of deception, greed, ignorance and prejudice, not real evidence.

One prison governor has said he believes that five per cent of the inmates in his prison are innocent. If that is true in all British jails, then more than 3,000 people in this country are serving sentences for crimes they did not commit.

So what can be done to address the problem? Most importantly, the pressure on forensic scientists to please the side that pays them must be removed. The court, not the prosecution or defence, should instruct and pay the scientist, who should be as neutral as the judge.

Next, a state-funded forensic science laboratory should be set up and placed under the control of the judiciary. Other scientists could still be consulted, but they, again, should be paid by the court.

These two proposals would mean that forensic scientists would have only one concern in future: to find the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

And if some lawyers feel that they would be denied the opportunity to put certain forensic science practitioners in their pockets for a fee, I shed no tears for them. I reserve those for the victims of injustice.

Maggots, Murder And Men, by Zakaria Erzinglioglu is published by Harley Books, price £13.95