Study reveals worrying biases of forensics experts

Researchers at the University of Oslo gave 53 digital forensics examiners from eight countries, including the UK, the same hard drive to analyse, The Guardian reports.

Some were given basic contextual information, while others were told the suspect had confessed or had a strong motive or that the police thought she had been framed.

The examiners led to believe the suspect might be innocent found the least amount of incriminating evidence while those primed to believe they had a motive found the most.

“I cannot overemphasise the importance of forensic scientists understanding the potential for unintentional bias, and of ensuring they take measures to minimise the risks,” said Dr Gillian Tully, of King’s College London and former UK forensic science regulator.

Dr David Gresty, a senior lecturer in computer forensics at the University of Greenwich, said: “We have every reason to believe that an expert acting in good faith, but through a mistake of interpretation, could easily mislead a courtroom.

“Without the defence instructing another expert to review the evidence it is entirely possible this could go unnoticed, and realistically it is likely there are undetected miscarriages of justice where cases have relied heavily on digital evidence.”

A spokesperson for the National Police Chiefs’ Council said: “Digital forensics is a growing and important area of policing which is becoming increasingly more prominent as the world changes. This report is from a very small sample size and is not representative of the operational environment police in this country work in.

“We are always looking at how technology can add to our digital forensic capabilities and a national programme is already working on this.”