Interpretation Standards & Guidance in Forensic Science

We recently attended the Interpretation Standards and Guidance in Forensic Science conference hosted by Kings College London and in partnership with the University of Lausanne.

This was an important day of discussion focussing on the evaluation of scientific findings in light of the recently published Guidance from the Forensic Science Regulator: Forensic Science Activities - Interpretation and communication (FSR-GUI-0004).

Themes relating to the calibration of expertise, management of bias in scientific evaluation as well as the benefits and challenges in maintaining competence as a scientist were strong.

The session on the Netherlands register of court experts (NRGD) was particularly well-received as the industry tries to identify a robust framework for practitioners to evidence competency in key disciplines.

Whilst we have long recognised the importance of communicating scientific findings in a clear and understandable manner, the conference highlighted that contractual frameworks that now exist between police forces and forensic service providers in England and Wales often specifically request source-level reports. In other words, the streamlined forensic reports that are produced only outline the factual outcomes and do not consider the findings in the context of the allegation or any alternative. In the absence of a contextual evaluation, which would usually be presented in an 'activity-level' report, the potential significance of the scientific findings could be misconstrued. It was another reminder that the courts must insist on securing an activity level report so that they have full sight of the potential strengths and limitations of the scientific evidence before they call their scientist to give evidence.

If you would like to discuss the themes raised in the conference in more detail, or want advice on a scientific report that you have recieved in a case, please email us at mail@millingtonhingley.co.uk.