Streamlined forensic reporting (SFR), introduced as part of the United Kingdom Ministry of Justice’s drive to deliver swift and sure justice, is credited with generating both time and cost efficiencies. Through the provision of radically abbreviated forensic reports at an early stage in criminal proceedings, SFR is said to avoid the cost of long form reports, facilitate agreement between the parties, secure more guilty pleas and reduce the number of defence challenges to forensic science evidence. This article questions these claims and the value of SFR as conceived. It suggests that the limited empirical evidence is mixed, and that SFR is incompatible with emerging trends and the best advice on the presentation of forensic science evidence. SFR directs little attention to the quality—that is, the validity and scientific reliability—of forensic science evidence. In overlooking quality, SFR introduces new risks of misrepresentation, misunderstanding and mistakes, and is unlikely to align with long-standing and fundamental criminal justice values (such as transparency, rationality, rectitude, equality of arms and fairness), and so is unlikely to fulfil the fundamental goal of dealing with cases justly.

中文翻译：

---

Science Friction：简化的法医报告、可靠性和正义

简化的取证报告 (SFR) 作为联合王国司法部推动迅速而可靠的司法的一部分而引入，被认为可以提高时间和成本效率。通过在刑事诉讼的早期阶段提供极其简短的法医报告，据说 SFR 避免了长篇报告的成本，促进了当事人之间的协议，获得了更多的认罪，并减少了对法医科学证据的辩护挑战的数量。本文质疑这些主张和 SFR 的价值。它表明有限的经验证据是混合的，并且 SFR 与新兴趋势和关于法医科学证据呈现的最佳建议不相容。SFR 很少关注质量——也就是说，法医学证据的有效性和科学可靠性。在忽视质量方面，SFR 引入了虚假陈述、误解和错误的新风险，并且不太可能与长期以来的基本刑事司法价值观（例如透明、合理、正直、平等和公平）保持一致，因此不太可能实现公正办案的根本目标。