Things to consider
What is proposed here is that pending the outcome of the Regulator’s work to create a single set of ISO based standards bespoke to the use of forensic science in the UK, all providers (as distinct from practitioners) should be accredited to the existing ISO 17025 standard. Is the ISO route the best one to take? Is it correct to think that most of the organisations that would be covered by this provision have already achieved, or could readily achieve, the relevant ISO accreditation? Is the claim in para 3.31, that forensic labs already spend up to 15% of operating costs on quality systems, correct across the board? Is there any need to have some ability to transfer ISO 17025 / 17020 accreditation into whatever standard the Regulator develops, or should the two be kept separate?

Our response
The UK Register of Expert Witnesses supports the drive by the Regulator to move to a multi-faceted ISO-based system of accreditation of forensic science provision to the criminal courts in the UK aimed at ensuring competence. We also support the Regulator’s ambitious initiative to develop a unified standard for forensic science in the UK. We understand that this work will inevitably take time if done properly. It seems, therefore, that to require providers to meet the existing international ISO standards for forensic laboratories pending the outcome of the Regulator’s work is an appropriate move. In taking the vast majority of the practitioner base  along the path towards eventual implementation of the Regulator’s unified standard, it is a powerful first step towards the kind of regulation that meets the BRE principles of good regulation.

Things to consider
Have you heard of National Occupation Standards before now? Are they the useful tool the Regulator claims, or are they just more pointless bureaocracy? Have you any personal experience of NOS in action in your workplace. If you are a small, independent provider of forensic science services how are NOS relevant to you? Do you agree that NOS have “ensured that the identification of the skills, knowledge and understanding needed by forensic practitioners is far easier than has previou;lsy been the case”? How would NOS work in a area that is under rapid development, such as digital forensics? In such a case, could a NOS deal with the underlying methodology of a particular process without having to deal with the specifics of a given implementation?

Our response
National Occupational Standards (NOS) describe competent performance in terms of outcomes. They allow a clear assessment of competence against nationally agreed standards of performance, across a range of workplace circumstances for all roles.’ www.skillsforjustice.com

NOS appear to offer a natural means by which to standardise the assessment of workforce skills across the many providers to the criminal courts of forensic science services. Skills for Justice was created as a Sector Skills Council for the forensic sector; not to adopt its NOS would seem odd.

Some practitioners may have concerns about individual NOS and their suitability. But that should not detract from the value of adopting the now widely accepted NOS approach to defining what amounts to competence in a particular task. Our only concerns are as follows:

  1. Do senior scientists view NOS, which are essentially an extension of the NVQ system, as relevant to them?
  2. Are NOS generally accepted in the independent sector?

Things to consider
This is closely related to the previous issue. Whilst it is natural for Skills for Justice to promote this view, how true is it in practice? Have you found NOS help you to communicate your skills and knowledge to colleagues, lawyers or the court? Do those outside your immediate specialism understand your NOS, or do you use some other system for communicating your competence?

Our response
It is laudable to try to create a common language to enable assessments across many and varied scientific disciplines and tasks to be open to comparison. Provided it is recognised that the aim is to allow independent assessment to be made of an individuals competence (i.e. that the individual has the necessary knowledge and skills to undertake a given task), and not whether the outcome of a given task is correct (i.e. even competent people can get it wrong on the day), we see little wrong with promoting the Skills for Justice NOS.

However, it must be recognised that there is a danger of the NOS approach creating a barrier to innovation, especially if the absence of a NOS for a given task comes to be seen as a negative. This must be guarded against. Science develops through innovation, and novelty should be nurtured so long as the greater uncertainties associated with new approaches are made plain.

Things to consider
Have you any experience of the CRFP assessment procedures? Did you make a positive choice to get involved or stay away? Have you any evidence for the CRFP system working or failing? In your view, could the CRFP system ever prevent experts giving ‘poor’ evidence in court?

Our response
The UK Register of Expert Witnesses has long been critical of the CRFP approach to the accreditation of experts as expert witnesses. Whilst its remote casework-based system of assessment by assessors who have effectively assessed themselves may have some merit, it simply cannot support the claims about quality that have been made for it to the wider world.

Things to consider
The Better Regulation Executives’s five principles of good regulation dictate that regulation should be proportionate and targeted. If the vast majority of forensic practitioners work within providers who are accredited to ISO 17025, a process that involves far broader assessment of competence within the context of the workplace, and with clear responsibility placed on in-line (senior) management, can the CRFP assessment of individuals add anything?

Our response
We agree with the Regulator’s view. Real benefit will come from the coordinated assessment of firms, people and processes around internationally recognised ISO standards, coupled with clear guidance about the limited purpose of the assessments (guaranteeing the competence of the individual not the quality of the evidence).

Things to consider
Is this assertion correct - is the competence of the individual best tested within the context of the organisation in which he/she works and its approach to quality management?

Our response
We agree. The proposed system of assessment of practitioners within the context of the provider’s own assessment processes is a better system than the status quo. But the smaller forensic businesses and independent forensic experts who feed into the CJS must also be accommodated by the new system. Ideally existing professional regulatory bodies should be encouraged to take up the regulatory slack.