Sunk Cost: No money, no problems
27,500 cases, multi-million pound investigation, no discernible outcome
“Currently insufficient funding”
I’ll let the first few sentences of this article speak for themselves:
A multi-million pound investigation into the suspected manipulation of data at two forensic science drug-testing companies has been dropped.
Greater Manchester Police (GMP) said it was taking no further action against seven people who worked at Randox Testing Services (RTS) and Trimega Laboratories before 2017.
The force launched an inquiry that year after two scientists were arrested on suspicion of tampering with data at a lab used by police to analyse samples used in prosecutions.
A GMP spokesman said its seven-year investigation had ended due to not having enough funds to go through the "unprecedented mass of materials" it had recovered. (emphasis added)
“Not enough funds.” The millions of pounds already expended in this investigation have just been flushed down the sunk cost toilet. A sunk cost is an expense that has already been made and cannot be retrieved. Sunk costs plague the criminal justice* system and especially forensic science* .Because these costs are irretrievable, they shouldn't influence future decisions. However, people often make the mistake of letting past expenses dictate their choices, a cognitive bias known as the sunk cost fallacy. This is different from prospective costs, which are costs that may be encumbered or altered if an action is taken. More on this later.
Two scientists were found to have “compromised” a number of toxicology results at Randox Testing Services (RTS). Because of that tampering, the number of RTS cases that should have been reviewed is now 10,500; 2,700 had been re-analyzed as of December in 2018. The samples requiring re-testing include those from unexplained deaths and driving offenses…and violent crimes and sex cases.
From a BBC analysis:
Randox, which is paying for samples to be re-tested by other laboratories, estimates it will cost the firm £2.5m.
Police are also likely to incur costs because of delays to other cases, while motorists whose careers and livelihoods have been affected after being wrongly banned from driving may sue for compensation.
But the most significant impact of this disturbing affair may be on public confidence in forensic science: can we be sure that the test results we almost take for granted are accurate?
…re-testing was taking longer than expected because there was a "chronic shortage" of scientific expertise and accredited laboratories, leading to delays in providing toxicology analysis in unrelated cases of sexual offence and rape.
I’m here about the forensic toxicology position…
Here’s some more fun facts: The investigation into the tampering led to another testing firm, Trimega Laboratories, where another 17,000 test results were investigated. Seven suspects who worked at Trimega were identified and three later worked at RTS. Holy mother forking shirt balls. This is like if a bad cop gets fired when a bad cop resigns prior to disciplinary action, they get another job in another jurisdiction as a cop.
All of this has happened over a 7-year period where the public had no knowledge (other than what the police offered to the press) or discussion of what, exactly, was happening.
My Hero, Tiernan
From Tiernan Coyle’s dogged LinkedIn posts on this issue and the general state of forensic science* in the UK:
GMP's announcement of NFA against persons alleged to have manipulated data in criminal cases marks the end of a 7 year period where the issues could not be openly discussed or debated in public. This period included several parliamentary inquiries the most recent being the inquiry held by the House of Lords in 2019.
I respect the GMP's position on the case, they have all the information and are best placed to reach their conclusions, although I am somewhat confused that costs and a lack of technology have been quoted as the reason for the dropping of the investigations.
There were no charges brought against the individuals in 7 years, the CPS confirmed this.
Why? Was it a question of a difficulty in identifying a criminal offence to which scientists in the private sector could be prosecuted with a reasonable probability of success?
Was there insufficient evidence to show the intent needed to prove a case of perverting the course of justice - (which was widely reported in the press at the time as being the offence which formed the basis of their arrest)?
Was there concern that the route the CPS took recently to prosecuting a scientist for misconduct in public office was not applicable to those individuals employed in the private sector?
There are huge questions that remain unanswered. In terms of the general risk landscape in forensic practice in England and Wales, do we now have an inequality in the capability of the state to prosecute individuals employed in the private sector compared to their public sector counterparts?
What a mess. We could do with some answers and if there do exist loopholes in the current landscape, we could do with closing them. I'll be asking my MP to campaign for finding answers to all this, I'd ask everyone to do the same. Contact your MP.
A big thank you to GMP and the CPS for dealing with my recent FOI requests so promptly and professionally.
In the U.S., the average cost of a wrongful conviction is estimated at $6.1 million, not to mention the other “costs,” like loss of freedom, jobs, friends, quality of life, and so on. Imagine how good forensic science* would be if we invested the money paid out to compensate for bad science. That number, by the by, since 2019, now exceeds $4 billion. Yup.
That’s $4,000,000,000.
Germany and Japan have GNPs of around $4 billion. Just saying. Ponder on that for a second, if you will. So, as a prospective cost, it might be a really good idea to find the money to finish the review, given that it always costs more after the fact. But jurisdictions are willing to write big compensation checks rather than increase forensic budgets. Why? Because it appears to hold no financial consequences for some of the agencies at fault.1 They literally cannot learn from their mistakes.
Me? At this point, I’m going back to my hot piping cup of sadness…
The financial impact of varies based on the jurisdiction’s budgeting practices. While some agencies face budget cuts due to payouts, others have isolated litigation funds that do not affect their operational budgets.