Response to the Forensic Science Regulator on Accreditation

Conclusion from our response to the Forensic Science Regulator

This is the conclusion of our response to the consultation paper from the Forensic Science Regulator on Accreditation of Forensic Practitioners. The full response is available as a pdf file, or a shorter version in this website.

The purpose and necessity of a thorough defence examination requires that any and all scientific documentation used to support any proffered fact or opinion should be available to the defence in a form that enables detailed examination and assessment sufficient for the purposes of verification and discovery of the Crown, and if necessary the investigative, material in criminal cases.

Accreditation is a limited mechanism for examining and certifying some aspects of forensic science. We support an effective accreditation scheme for analytical methods. This does not affect the necessity for proper scrutiny in individual cases and can not be a substitute for proper verification and discovery. The current ISO17025 requirements are deficient in several important respects as a suitable system for forensic science, but are capable of being improved to a satisfactory level. Validation is and should remain a scientific function because accreditation does not and can not verify all aspects of the underlying science, the competence of the scientists, the reliability, validity or accuracy of the methods or how they applied, and the validity or significance of how scientific results are evaluated and presented in court.

To suggest that accreditation is able to do so, is a superficially appealing solution to minimizing the costs and uncertainties associated with science and expert evidence. It is also, however, a dangerous and unwarranted elevation of accreditation to a status beyond its capabilities. Until appropriate scientific standards of analytical and personal performance are developed then the merit of any form of assessment is questionable. Organisational accreditation should not be used as the criterion for inclusion or exclusion, and in particular funding, of an expert, or to justify any forensic practice or area of expertise in a criminal trial or civil proceeding. It should not be used as a cover for the identified deficiencies in the scientific underpinning of many forensic practices.

For the sake of providers and the courts, the Regulator should consider whether there is any evidence that accreditation is the most cost-effective or cost-efficient solution to whatever problem is perceived to exist with the delivery of expert evidence in court given that it can never form the sole basis for admissibility nor be used to exclude evidence.
The Regulator should consider whether the limited funds available would be better deployed in developing proficiency testing systems which are already in use within forensic science (e.g. for those submitting DNA profiles to the National DNA Database) by broadening their scope and frequency. Models such as NEQUAS (United Kingdom National External Quality Assessment Service) exist for such testing.

Consideration should also be given to whether a better use of such funds would be to address the gaps in research identified elsewhere5, and to use these and current knowledge to develop robust standards which can then be used in a considered and credible assessment process.

back to top