Editorial

The contribution of a forensic laboratory, properly equipped, organised and staffed, is often vital to the solution of certain crimes that are brought by the police before the courts. We have deliberately used those qualifications because although we have no reason to doubt the ability of the forensic experts who work in the laboratory, we are not at all sure that they have been operating in a congenial atmosphere.

A report The Times carried last week highlighted several lacunae, not the least of which has been the peripatetic experience of the laboratory itself. Its location has been changed a number of times. It is now settled in new premises at the Malta National Laboratory (MNL) at San Gwann.

Not only ought the process of shunting the laboratory around be unnecessary from an organisational point of view. It has been unnerving for the staff who often have to work on serious analysis of evidence which must be presented to the courts. Switching locations means equipment having to move and, during moves, the inability of the laboratory to function efficiently, if at all.

But if forensics is the application of medical knowledge to a legal problem, it is imperative that that knowledge is applied swiftly to evidence that more often than not is lifted from the scene of the crime, evidence that is as fresh as possible, evidence that is conveyed to the laboratory under a system of strict control. The revelation that there have been occasions when such evidence has taken as much as a week to be passed on to the laboratory by a scene-of-the-crime officer gives rise to some concern. Such procrastination is surely unacceptable.

It has also been confirmed to us that once in court, exhibits are kept in "highly secure strongrooms in a preserved condition". This is as it should be. In the light of this, however, it is surprising to learn that forensic experts use their own transport to convey the evidence to court. This cannot be a secure method of conveyance - no escort, no guarantee that this private transport does not break down or, indeed, that if it does and if there is undue delay between the laboratory and the courts that the evidence may not be compromised. These flaws, to which an inoperative scanning electron microscope has to be added, need to be addressed.

Given that the work of what used to be known as the forensic laboratory is provided by the MNL, which, we were informed by a spokesman for the IT Ministry, "is a commercial company which happens to be within the Ministry of IT and Investment's portfolio", we did not think it untoward on our part to ask for permission to visit the MNL forensic section at San Gwann. The ministry seemed to have found some difficulty with this and pleaded confidentiality and the inappropriateness of media access without the authorisation of the Ministry of Justice.

We understand perfectly the MNL's inclination not to have its premises open to every Tom, Dick and Harry. We are as perfectly certain that total and permanent inaccessibility to the media for a specific purpose, namely to see the state of the forensic section in its new premises, is mistaken. It is in the interest of the section and of the MNL, not to mention the public interest, that the media should be shown around the place - naturally in a controlled manner.