A Home Office study has raised fears that killers could literally be getting away with murder because the police are failing to call in a forensic pathologist soon enough when an unexplained death takes place.
Analysis of 33 recent cases in which a Home Office pathologist was eventually called in to take over the case found that 10 turned out to be homicides and a further five were suspicious deaths in need of further investigation. It concludes that all 15 – nearly half the cases – should have been treated as suspicious deaths from the outset.
The cases where a forensic pathologist was not immediately called included one where a severely wounded body had been found in a remote rural location, a stabbing of a young male, and another where a large volume of blood had been found at the scene.
The report by the Home Office’s forensic pathology unit was completed in January but was only released on Tuesday. It discloses that a further 150 similar cases have been reported to the Home Office since January 2014 but have not yet been investigated.
The report raises serious concerns over the potential for the police and other professionals to “miss” possible murders at the scenes of unexplained deaths.
The Home Office report said there was no evidence that police cuts were a factor in the forces’ failure to immediately call one of the 35 Home Office registered forensic pathologists. Instead it blamed instinctive bias, especially in cases where the deceased was elderly or had been using drugs or alcohol.
Too often the first officer on the scene decides whether a death is suspicious, sometimes believing the first account they are given.
“Although the cases concerned are examples where the ‘system worked’ and homicides (which may otherwise have gone undiscovered) were identified as such, it is concerning that evidence uncovered in this limited study has identified cases where apparent and obvious indicators of suspicion were overlooked by those making decisions at the scene of unexplained deaths,” says the report.
“It therefore seems reasonable to suspect that homicide cases may have been missed in the past, and could continue to be missed or that forensic evidence has been lost. Action is required to address the shortfalls in adequacy of the assessment of death cases and the associated decision making process concerning the use of Home Office registered forensic pathologists.”
The report does not draw a direct link between financial cuts and the possibility that police and coroners are reluctant to call in forensic pathologists. But it does disclose that at least one constabulary has proposed that all cases should in future be conducted as “special postmortem” examinations – attracting a fee of only £260 – and only calling in a forensic pathologist if it were then deemed to be suspicious or a confirmed homicide. “Clearly therefore pressure to reduce spending may have some bearing on the use of Home Office registered forensic pathologists in some areas,” it notes.
The Study into Decision Making at the Initial Scene of Unexpected Death was commissioned by the Forensic Science Regulator after a 2012 audit identified the possibility of missed homicides and described it as a potential miscarriage of justice.
Chief Constable David Crampton of the National Police Chiefs’ Council said: “While it is important to recognise that there is no evidence that homicides have been missed, it is equally important to acknowledge that this potential exists and that procedures for dealing with deaths are being reviewed in order to reduce the likelihood of this occurring.”
He said the report had been sent to all chief constables to ensure their local response was adequate.
