FSR Consultation, Jan 2009


		Home > Surveys > Current surveys > FSR Consultation Introduction • Understanding the issues • Our initial response • Our final response • Quick vote • How to respond

	Not logged in

	Log in now

	Join up!

Benefits for experts
Benefits for lawyers

	Did we help?

	Feedback
	Tell a friend
	Contact us...

Little Books

We have learnt the lessons from the mistakes of others, now you can learn them too!

Expert Witness
Year Book

Slip one in your bag, and you can be the expert with the facts at your fingertips!

Rate the Register's response to the Forensic Science Regulator’s Consultation

This survey closed on 31 March 2009. We received 319 responses.

Our response to the Consultation Paper sets out a number of key observations, statements and suggestions. One way you can respond to the Consultation is to endorse or reject our response using the feedback form below.

Section 1 of the feedback form contains questions that will help us to understand, and report back on, any differences in the views expressed based on the work profile of the experts who respond.

The other ways in which you can respond to the Consultation Paper are to:

respond in detail to the specific issues raised in the Consultation Paper tell me how...
send us your written response tell me how...
send your written response direct to the Regulator. tell me how...

	Section 1: About you...

	Your name:
	Your e-mail address:
	Your telephone number:

	What percentage of your workload is expert witness work?	%

	How is your expert witness workload split between:
	criminal cases	%
	civil cases	%
	family cases	%

	What percentage of your expert witness workload is publicly funded in:
	criminal cases	%
	civil cases	%
	family cases	%

Section 2: What needs accrediting?		Your level of support 1 = Strongly agree 3 = Neutral 5 = Strongly disagree
1	Do you agree that there is no evidence of a general problem with the quality of expert evidence?	1 2 3 4 5
2	Do you agree that there is little to accredit in an expert’s ability to form an opinion and bear witness to it?	1 2 3 4 5
3	Do you agree that what does need accrediting is an individual’s skill as an expert?	1 2 3 4 5
4	Do you agree that where an expert is already subject to regulation by a professional qualifying body, that system of competency checking should be left intact?	1 2 3 4 5
5	Do you agree that no system of a priori accreditation can prevent a first-class expert witness getting it wrong on the day?	1 2 3 4 5
6	Do you agree that the quality of forensic science evidence given to the courts can only be controlled by looking carefully at each expert’s evidence, in each case and from many angles – exactly the system of lawyers, judge and opposing experts we already have in place?	1 2 3 4 5

Section 3: The Regulator’s approach		Your level of support 1 = Strongly agree 3 = Neutral 5 = Strongly disagree
7	Do you agree that the Regulator is right to switch the focus of accreditation away from the individual and onto the organisation?	1 2 3 4 5
8	Do you agree that the Regulator is right to reject the CRFP ‘register’ approach to accreditation?	1 2 3 4 5
9	Do you think that where international standards relating to the operation of forensic science laboratories exist, it would be perverse not to adopt them?	1 2 3 4 5
10	Do you agree that care must be taken to prevent the NOS approach from stiffling innovation?	1 2 3 4 5
11	Do you think that where individual experts (i.e. those not employed by an accredited organisation) are concerned, the Regulator should rely on professional regulatory bodies rather than try to adopt the UKAS approach?	1 2 3 4 5
12	Do you agree that the Regulator should encourage any individual forensic scientist who does not have a professional regulatory body to join the Forensic Science Society?	1 2 3 4 5

	Section 4: Send your response
	Click this button to send your response to us.

	I wish this response, and my name, to be kept confidential to J S Publications and the Forensic Science Regulator (I understand that the Forensic Science Regulator, as a public body, may not be able to grant confidentiality as explained on page 4 of the Consultation Paper).