Man wrongly charged with rape after forensics error

A man was wrongly accused and charged with raping a woman as a result of an error and contamination during laboratory testing, according to the Forensic Science Regulator.

The error came to light this week following the publication of a report by the regulator Andrew Rennison, which concluded that Adam Scott, who was charged with an offence of rape by Greater Manchester Police (GMP) and held in custody for five months, only came about after a plastic tray containing a sample of his DNA was re-used in the analysis of a swab from a rape victim in Manchester by private firm LGC Forensics.

Mr Scott was charged on October 23, 2011, over the rape of the woman in Plant Hill Park, Blackley, and remanded in custody until the case was withdrawn on March 7 this year.

Mr Rennison said the evidence was a partial DNA profile developed by the firm at its Teddington laboratory and believed, at the time, to be from one sample taken from the victim of the rape.

However, this was later shown to be an error and the result of contamination during laboratory testing. Mr Rennison subsequently investigated the matter; both to examine the events that led to the error and to determine what lessons could be learnt.

Mr Rennison said: “Mr Adam Scott was the innocent victim of avoidable contamination from an unrelated case that did contain his DNA.

“The contamination was the result of human error by a technician who failed to follow basic procedures for the disposal of plastic trays used as part of a validated DNA extraction process. The procedures themselves were not adequate leading to no records maintained by the technicians and nothing done to mark used trays as such.”

He added: “Contamination was identified in the control negative processed in the same batch as the GMP rape sample. This presented an opportunity to investigate fully and establish a wider problem than that concluded at the time.”

The report said the error that led to the contamination has occurred on at least two occasions, however, checks against approximately 26,000 samples and the results of their DNA profiling results have identified no further cases of contamination across or between unrelated cases processed from March 1 to October 12 2011.

Mr Rennison said the errors were compounded by the failure at LGC Forensics to consider the possibility of contamination despite concerns expressed by the investigating officer about the reliability of the DNA profile.

“It is unlikely that the case against Mr Scott would ever have proceeded to trial and, in the absence of any further evidence, the case would probably have been discontinued. However, this is of little comfort to Mr Scott,” he explained.

LGC Forensics expressed its regret over the incident, but despite the error, both the UK Accreditation Service (UKAS) and Mr Rennison have recommended that the firm retain its accreditation after it put in place “a number of mandatory improvement actions”.

An LGC Forensics spokesperson said: “The Forensic Regulator and the United Kingdom Accreditation Service have expressed their satisfaction with our investigation into the incident, the corrective actions and LGC`s overall contamination avoidance and checking processes. LGC treats incidents like this with utmost seriousness and we look forward to continuing to provide excellent forensic services to the criminal justice system.”