Seite - 168 - in Critical Issues in Science, Technology and Society Studies - Conference Proceedings of the 17th STS Conference Graz 2018

These disparities are facilitated by the lack of a shared conceptual framework, terminological fluidity, and a lack of expert understanding of other agencies needs. As a forensic expert, and QC, indicated: ‘I think there’s a lot of language used where people assume that they understand what they’re saying and meaning but in fact they don’t understand what each…actually means by it... It’s simply that there are a number of walls, if you like, not just silos, but walls, that stop people from thinking laterally about what the market actually is.’ This view would tend to contradict the typical view of Lawless and Williams, for example, who view the legal and forensic fields, as '[combining] in a mutually constitutive relationship to form a mode of production of scientific commodities, purchased by the police in support of criminal justice objectives.'. Further, the limitations of this current perspective have been thrown into deeper relief by the introduction of non-expert forms of forensic reporting, in particular the innovative Streamlined Forensic Reporting programme. Streamlined Forensic Reporting Streamlined Forensic Reporting is an innovative evidential procedure, which was introduced across England and Wales from 2012, for the purposes of criminal case management, and the construction of forensic evidence. Its stated aim is to minimise bureaucracy, and to reduce unnecessary costs and delays in the criminal justice system. Indeed, the scheme operates ‘by taking a more proportionate approach to forensic evidence through the early preparation of a short report that details the key forensic evidence the prosecution intends to rely upon.’1 The objective is thus to avoid the costs associated with thorough forensic analysis by encouraging an early guilty plea. In circumstances where such a plea cannot be elicited, the scheme aims to secure agreement on forensic issues with the defence counsel at the earliest stage. Should such agreement be unattainable, SFR places an obligation on the defence to identify the problematic issues. The SFR scheme was established throughout England and Wales as part of the Ministry of Justice’s ‘Criminal Justice System Efficiency Program’, which aims ‘to [modernise] the CJS by reducing or removing the movement of paper, and people, around the system.’2 The Government White Paper, Swift and Sure Justice,3 sets out the objectives of the program: ‘From a so-called ‘system’ which operated in silos, we are moving to a criminal justice service where police, prosecution and courts work more effectively together. None of these reforms will compromise historic legal rights or important principles of justice. Rather the reverse: justice must be swift, sure and seen to be done, or it is not done at all.’4 1 ACPO, Communication Strategy – Streamlined Forensic Reporting (2012) 2 Ministry of Justice Defence Practitioner FAQ, Version 3.92 (14th May 2012) 3 Ministry of Justice. (2012) Swift and Sure Justice: The Government’s Plans for Reform of the Criminal Justice System. (Cm 8388). London: TSO. 4 Ibid. at p.4 168