Accreditation of forensic science service providers

The call for transparency with regards to the disclosure of errors in forensic science has permeated dialogues within the field, the legal arena and the public domain. While the challenges of meeting this need have been debated, no consistently accepted approach to recording or disclosing critical issues in forensic science has been developed. Part of the solution may lie in the quality system structures already present in forensic service providers world‐wide. However, while quality systems themselves may be standardized, the language used within them is not. We argue that the development of a common language for quality issues in forensic science may provide the key to unlocking this crucial information to support collaboration, continuous improvement, and the fundamental understanding of “error” in forensic science. This article is categorized under: Forensic Chemistry and Trace Evidence > Trace Evidence Jurisprudence and Regulatory Oversight > Communication Across Science and Law Jurisprudence and Regulatory Oversight > Interdisciplinary Collaboration Forensic Chemistry and Trace Evidence > Presentation and Evaluation of Forensic Science Output

Section: Quality Management In Forensic Science: Beyond the Paradigms...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Toward a common language for quality issues in forensic science

Heavey

Turbett

Houck

et al. 2021

“…However, the “needs” of the CJS can be largely overborne by contractual requirements, most often with police forces who will set out their requirements as the “specific customer.” There may not always be alignment between this “customer” and CJS needs, which encompasses more interested parties than simply the police (i.e., the defense). For example, defects in SFR and police procurement of commoditized forensic analysis indicates a clear divergence between the needs of customer and the requirements of the CJS (see McCartney & Amoako, 2019).…”

Section: How To Assess Whether the Fsr Is “Fit For Purpose”?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Overall, meeting these four objectives above should secure public confidence forensic science in the CJS. Yet the FSR role cannot assure quality and reliability by simply establishing and monitoring standards and “persuading” FSPs to seek and maintain accreditation (McCartney & Amoako, 2019). It can be seen in respect of the first four requirements, that the FSR is often poorly placed to enhance and support FSPs to meet all these requirements.…”

Section: How To Assess Whether the Fsr Is “Fit For Purpose”?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There may not always be alignment between this "customer" and CJS needs, which encompasses more interested parties than simply the police (i.e., the defense). For example, defects in SFR and police procurement of commoditized forensic analysis indicates a clear divergence between the needs of customer and the requirements of the CJS (see McCartney & Amoako, 2019).…”

Section: Reflecting An Understanding Of the Needs Of The Specific Customer And The Requirements Of The Cjs As A Wholementioning

confidence: 99%

“…We argue that, given the many criticisms of forensic science that provoked the creation of the FSR role, the effectiveness of the FSR role in achieving their purpose should be assessed within this dual assurance/improvement framework. In respect of the FSR role, the success, or otherwise, of the FSR in achieving these dual objectives has previously been interrogated by studying the work of the FSR via reports and publications primarily emanating from the FSR's office (McCartney & Amoako, 2018, 2019). But whether the role is fit for purpose is dependent upon both the ability of the Regulator to execute the role (duties) of the FSR and the correlation between these duties and the achievement of the aims of regulation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The UK forensic science regulator: Fit for purpose?

Amoako

McCartney

2021

Self Cite

The role of Forensic Science Regulator (FSR), created in 2007, was established to assure the achievement and maintenance of forensic science service (FSS) provision that commands public confidence. The FSR works at an organizational level, to assure, and improve the quality of forensic service provision and manage the risks of quality failures by Forensic Service Providers (FSPs). Despite this apparent introduction of “regulation,” forensic science provision in the United Kingdom has continued to receive a critical assessment. FSPs are meant to voluntarily adopt the Regulator's quality standards, achieve and maintain accreditation, and comply with regulatory requirements and guidance, including reporting complaints and quality failures to the Regulator. The effectiveness of the FSR thus cannot be gauged by examination of the actions of the Regulator alone, but also requires evidence of impact upon FSPs. Using public data, supplemented by interviews with FSS providers, to facilitate an initial assessment of whether the FSR's role is “fit for purpose,” we outline five demands made of FSPs in delivering FSSs to the criminal justice system and the five objectives of the FSR to support and enhance the ability of FSPs to meet these demands. We provide a prefatory commentary on whether the FSR is able to effectively fulfill this purpose. It is argued that the FSR role in its current form cannot be considered “fit for purpose” when evidence of the impact of regulation is lacking. Finally, we briefly summarize “inhibitors” that prevent the FSR from being more effective. This article is categorized under: Jurisprudence and Regulatory Oversight > Expert Evidence and Narrative

The long journey of resistance toward acceptance: Understanding digital forensic accreditation in England and Wales from a social science perspective

Wilson‐Kovacs,

Wyatt

2023

Drawing on topical academic and practitioner accounts, our contribution examines the challenges of accreditation in digital forensics (DF), specifically, the adoption of ISO/IEC 17025 standard for forensic science support providers in England and Wales. We built on the debate generated by the Forensic Science Regulator's introduction of this standard in DF to reflect on the position and status of DF community of practice. We argue that a social science approach can help illuminate the organizational and professional tensions generated by this development and to understand better the implications for the role of DF specialists and their position in the wider forensic science community.This article is categorized under: Digital and Multimedia Science > Cybercrime Investigation Crime Scene Investigation > Education and Formation