Introduction
40.1. The reliability of fingerprint identification depends to a significant extent on the competence of the examiners involved. Relevant factors include initial training, continuing professional development, competence monitoring and accreditation of examiners and of bureaux. Arrangements for these have all changed since 1997.
40.2. A new post of Forensic Science Regulator was created by the UK Government in 2007 and Mr Rennison has been the Regulator since 2008. The role involves advising the UK Government on quality standards in the provision of forensic science and includes:
40.3. Among the 'high level principles' the Regulator has set governing the regulation of quality and standards are that
40.4. The Forensic Science Advisory Council (FSAC) is an independent body established to advise and support the Regulator in the exercise of his duties.
Mr Nelson, Director of Forensic Services at SPSA, is a member of the Council. The Council has a number of specialist groups including one to consider fingerprint quality standards.3
40.5. The Regulator has also established a process to manage complaints about forensic science quality standards.4
40.6. The Regulator's jurisdiction extends primarily to England and Wales but he reached agreement with the authorities in Scotland and Northern Ireland that they should co-operate and that standards should be UK wide.5 It is within this context that the SPSA operates.
Accreditation
Historical perspective
40.7. In his evidence to the Inquiry, Mr Rennison noted that regulation can be at three levels: regulation of institutions, of individuals and of techniques.6
40.8. He told the Inquiry that it had been an essential part of UK Government thinking that forensic science would be regulated through the accreditation of the individual practitioners. However the situation had changed.7
40.9. The Council for the Registration of Forensic Practitioners (CRFP) had been at the core of the policy.8 It was set up in 19999 with the aim of developing, implementing and improving standards in the practice of forensic science. It was a professional regulatory body which maintained a register of currently competent forensic practitioners across eleven disciplines. Registration was by application, giving details of the applicant's career, qualifications and training. References were required. A list of recent casework had to be submitted from which examples were selected for detailed scrutiny and assessment. Each practitioner required to undergo re-validation every four years. The CRFP examined the steps taken to keep up to date with developments in the discipline, maintain competence, and develop professional expertise. Registration was voluntary, in the sense that there was no prohibition on practising as a forensic scientist without having registration.
40.10. The original target was to register the vast majority of forensic practitioners. This did not happen. Mr Rennison conducted a review and found that less than 30% of the practitioner population was registered. Most were "the police practitioners" and not those working in laboratories.10
40.11. In 1995 forensic scientists across Europe formed an organisation known as the European Network of Forensic Science Institutes (ENFSI).11 Membership of ENFSI was open to forensic science laboratories with 25 or more staff, offering a broad range of forensic expertise. Member laboratories were required to be accredited to ISO 17025, an international standard12 designed to guarantee the technical competence of testing and calibration laboratories.13 In the UK accreditation is through assessment by the United Kingdom Accreditation Service (UKAS). When Mr Rennison looked at the accreditation model through UKAS, he realised that practitioner competence was dealt with through that accreditation process. Requiring forensic scientists to be regulated through registration with the CRFP produced duplication. Moreover, he concluded that practitioners were assessed through the accreditation process to a higher level and, accordingly, registration was an unnecessary layer of regulation. Mr Rennison proposed the model of regulation of practitioners through accreditation of their employers and ACPO and NPIA agreed.14 The police backed away from the CRFP with the result that the numbers registered would decline rapidly. Its funding (via subscription) was going to decrease and the CRFP Board had no option but to wind up the company.15 Mr Rennison consulted with the Crown Prosecution Service and other experts. The question was whether there was a risk to the criminal justice system if the CRFP closed and Mr Rennison reached the conclusion there was not.16 The CRFP ceased to operate on 31 March 2009.17
40.12. Mr Rennison sees quality assurance through organisations such as SPSA as a better route for the regulation of practitioners than a stand-alone professional body. In his opinion accreditation of the institution is more testing and also consistent with the European model which is now emerging.18 He advised the Inquiry that he was impressed by an accreditation based model that he had seen in operation in the State of Victoria and other states in Australia where it was adopted some years ago.19
Accreditation of institutions
40.13. The National Academy of Sciences noted the importance of proper quality assurance procedures: "Forensic laboratories should establish routine quality assurance and quality control procedures to ensure the accuracy of forensic analyses and the work of forensic practitioners. Quality control procedures should be designed to identify mistakes, fraud, and bias; confirm the continued validity and reliability of standard operating procedures and protocols; ensure that best practices are being followed; and correct procedures and protocols that are found to need improvement."20
40.14. The Inquiry was addressed on a number of standards:
40.15. Mr Rennison gave evidence in July 2009. At that time discussions were about to start on a proposal for EU regulations mandating the accreditation of fingerprint laboratory activities, to cover all analysis and interpretation of fingerprint evidence. The idea was that such work should be operating within the international standard ISO 17025: International Standard, ISO/IEC 17025:2005 'General Requirements for the Competence of Testing and Calibration Laboratories'. This is the base standard of the Regulator's model.24
40.16. SPSA is registered to ISO 9001. SPSA has taken the decision to move to ISO 17025 in consultation with UKAS which expects SPSA to operate under that standard25 and Mr Rennison commented that in applying for accreditation under ISO 17025, SPSA are leading the way in the UK as SPSA is applying for one single accreditation for the entirety of SPSA Forensic Services.26
40.17. The Metropolitan Police has a quality management system assessed and certificated independently by the British Standards Institute to ISO 9001.27 Processes are documented and controlled.28 There are two internal audits per year. These internal audits seek to identify areas of non-conformity. The internal audit programme has introduced assessment of the technical competence of examiners.29
40.18. The Forensic Science Service is the one organisation in England and Wales that has achieved ISO 17025 accreditation for fingerprint work. Mr Chamberlain's understanding was that there were 16 European organisations that were also accredited for fingerprint comparison work.30 In order to obtain accreditation FSS had to demonstrate to UKAS that fingerprint comparisons were compliant with the requirements of the standard. In order to retain accreditation FSS must undertake regular in-house audits including internal and external case work trials. FSS is subject to regular external assessment by UKAS.31
40.19. Mr Rennison explained that the ISO standards were not written for the forensic science context and "mental contortions" are required to make them fit into the forensic context. Gaps had been identified but Mr Rennison's view was that, of the available standards, ISO 17025 was the standard most directly applicable to fingerprint services. Mr Chamberlain commented that ISO 17025 is considered by both ENFSI32 and other organisations, for example the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors (ASCLAD), as the most appropriate quality standard for laboratory based fingerprint examination. Mr Chamberlain acknowledged that ISO 17025 was a general standard for application to all testing laboratories, but he added that the International Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation (ILAC) had published a guideline 'Guidelines for Forensic Science Laboratories' ILAC-G19:2002 which relates the various requirements of the IS0 17025 standard to forensic science activities.33
40.20. ISO 17025 covers all three levels of regulation: the organisation, the individual and techniques. It holds the senior management in an organisation accountable for quality, it holds the practitioners accountable and it also demands proper validation of methods.34
40.21. ISO 17025 accreditation is obtained through the independent observation of UKAS. They employ trained assessors skilled in the relevant field. UKAS expects the organisation to have clear quality manuals that set out procedures including, for example, the audit processes, and requires clear operating procedures and evidence of the validation of methods.35
40.22. At the start of the accreditation process assessors review the operating and quality manuals of the organisation. Having understood those, they visit the organisation and see whether those procedures are working in practice. The accreditation process does not itself prescribe any qualifications or training36 but the review will cover recruitment, qualification and training records and staff are observed at their work bench to see that they are complying with training and operating procedures. A random sample of different case files is examined and a number of practitioners are interviewed.37
40.23. At the accreditation stage methodologies or techniques would be audited. In that regard Mr Rennison drew a distinction between (1) the techniques applied to the development of fingerprints (e.g. the powders applied at the scene of a crime) and (2) the interpretation of fingerprints.38 Mr Rennison stated that it was more difficult to assess the subjective judgments associated with the interpretation of fingerprints. His view is that ISO 17020 (which is designed for inspection bodies) is more appropriate for a function that employs professional judgment and in due course there may be scope for that standard to be applied to fingerprint work.39
40.24. If an organisation achieves its accreditation, then within six months UKAS return and undertake a first surveillance visit. Thereafter there is an annual surveillance visit.40
40.25. Mr Rennison carried out a risk assessment to identify where the gaps are in the application of these standards in the forensic context and a number of gaps had been filled with a set of standards that the Regulator published. He had introduced a requirement for all forensic practitioners and all organisations to use the National Occupational Standards developed by Skills for Justice.41
40.26. The standards that Mr Rennison published are at a generic level. There is a need to drill down to the detail of different forensic disciplines. He had carried out some analysis and found there were 60 to 65 different forensic disciplines. Some adjustment of the standards is required for each of these disciplines. Mr Rennison had put in place a programme over the following two years to complete that additional work comprising 60/65 appendices. One of those would be fingerprints, properly broken down into fingerprint development work and, as a separate discipline, the interpretation and presentation of results.42 In addition to foreseeing the need for more detailed standards, Mr Rennison had recognised that there is no coherent strategy for research and he had been pushing Government (both at the UK level and the devolved administrations in Scotland and Northern Ireland) for such a strategy, including contributions from academics and commercial providers.43
40.27. One of the gaps in ISO 17025 is proper standards regarding the interpretation and presentation of scientific evidence to the courts. At the time of the Inquiry hearings Mr Rennison was creating a specialist group of experts to advise on that with a senior judge, members of the Bar Council and statisticians nominated by the Royal Statistical Society. It would look at how best to present this evidence to the courts in a way that was useful to the courts and not confusing.44
Commentary
40.28. UK policy is now focussed on regulation at the institutional level, with accreditation of practitioners and the forensic science techniques that they apply being subsumed within that. Accreditation under ISO 17025 will provide an additional measure of quality assurance with the benefit of external scrutiny but there are gaps. SPSA Forensic Services is seeking to achieve ISO 17025 accreditation and this is to be encouraged. There are gaps in ISO 17025 as regards fingerprint examination work, and as noted in chapter 35 there is for example a wider issue as to the lack of objective standards for fingerprint examination work. Accordingly accreditation under ISO 17025 should not detract from the need for further work in such areas. As Mr Rennison recognises, that requires preparation of standards that encapsulate current best practice and also a coherent strategy for research, with that research feeding back in to an on-going review of standards.
Training of examiners
40.29. As already noted, the accreditation process does not itself prescribe any qualifications or training.45
40.30. One of the concerns of HMICS in its 2000 report had been that although there were areas of good practice regarding liaison by senior staff with other bureaux, SCRO appeared to have an 'internalised' culture. It was the biggest fingerprint bureau in Scotland and the fourth largest in the UK and partly due to its size it had viewed itself as self-sufficient in some respects including, to a degree, training.46 Although SCRO trainee fingerprint officers attended the initial and intermediate courses at the National Training Centre in Durham, much of their training was in-house and they did not use the advanced course at Durham because SCRO thought it was too focussed on English courts and legislation.47 HMICS's view was that the continued focus on in-house training by fellow staff members at SCRO presented "a risk that bad practices may be spread, elitist attitudes reinforced and new ideas stifled."48
40.31. One of the changes made following the HMICS report was that trainee examiners started attending all three courses at Durham.49
40.32. Mr McGinnies, who is in charge of training fingerprint officers in Scotland,50 explained that there had been further changes in training with a national fingerprint learning programme, supported by ACPO:
40.33. Under the national regime provided by the NPIA, trainees study the matters specified in a national curriculum. Trainees in Scotland follow a common training programme which applies across the SPSA52 and must achieve competence in respect of the Scottish criminal justice system and legal matters relevant to the work of a fingerprint examiner based in Scotland.53 The national standards of competence a trainee must achieve before becoming qualified are set out in National Occupational Standards published by Skills for Justice.54
40.34. The NPIA sets the framework of training and produces and leads NPIA courses. Some training is devised and delivered by the SPSA within this framework. There are a number of discrete stages, which Mr McGinnies described in detail to the Inquiry,55 culminating in an advanced course and assessment which a trainee undertakes after approximately three years of training.
40.35. A trainee who successfully completes the training programme obtains the Foundation Degree in Fingerprint Identification from the University of Teesside.56 The degree is awarded by the university as a result of external validation of the programme and the trainee's work.57
40.36. It is at this point that arrangements are made for a trainee to be recognised as a qualified fingerprint examiner or expert. Those arrangements are discussed later in this chapter.
Performance Management
40.37. The reliability of fingerprint evidence depends not only on the initial training of examiners but on arrangements for their continuing development and competence, and quality assurance measures to check the reliability of their work.
On-going development and competence
40.38. At the time of its inspection in 2000 HMICS noted that there was little refresher training or continuing professional development (CPD) and that this carried risks of perpetuating bad practices. It recommended that regular refresher training should be incorporated into a national training standard for fingerprint experts to ensure that expertise was maintained at the highest level taking account of developments in theory and technology.58
40.39. SPSA is seeking to integrate the training of fingerprint staff more firmly within the context of the work of SPSA Forensic Services as a whole.59
40.40. It has a training unit and there is a policy for the continuing professional development of fingerprint experts.60 The policy includes various essential elements such as annual competency testing. Further development opportunities, as set out in the policy, include secondments and workplace rotations, alongside membership of professional bodies such as the Fingerprint Society, the International Association for Identification and the Expert Witness Institute.61 The policy also mentions obtaining further and higher educational qualifications such as the University of Teesside's foundation degree in fingerprint examination, and Mr McGinnies explained that arrangements were being considered under which all fingerprint examiners could obtain a foundation degree from the university.62
40.41. The Metropolitan Police has developed a learning programme, and a professional development team, including experienced examiners, support workplace development and manage the foundation degree programme. Mr Pugh described the foundation degree from Teesside University as involving ten modules, which "map" to the relevant National Occupational Standards for fingerprint examination. Of 170 examiners 40 were enrolled on the foundation degree. The remaining examiners have to demonstrate competence by completion of a module based on the foundation degree. All examiners have to undergo a performance development review.63
40.42. The SPSA has adopted a personal development and review process developed by ACPOS. This includes the identification of individual development requirements to ensure core competence and standards are maintained, as part of an annual review process.64 The process involves the agreement of specific targets in an annual personal learning and development plan, which identifies training and development for core 'fingerprint examiner' skills.65
40.43. There is no policy that requires fingerprint examiners to undertake a certain number of hours of training per year but a fingerprint examiner must undertake relevant training on a regular basis and ensure that court skills are maintained. Mr McGinnies indicated that failure to undertake learning and development would lead to adverse comment in the next personal development review. There is therefore an incentive for fingerprint examiners to continue learning and developing. Training needs are also identified on a more informal basis. Fingerprint examiners often identify their own training needs and are expected to do so.66
40.44. Training can be sourced in a number of ways including internal courses. Until 2009, every two years SPSA held a compulsory two-day training course for all fingerprint examiners which covered 'core skills' such as court skills. The course was under review but the basic requirement for regular training would remain.67
40.45. The SPSA encourages examiners to attend external events such as the annual conference of the Fingerprint Society, the Forensic Science Society and courses provided by other providers, such as other fingerprint bureaux.68 SPSA's view is that the use of external providers is essential to ensure that fingerprint examiners benefit from the opinions of different experts and to prevent SPSA fingerprint examiners becoming insular.69
Monitoring competence
40.46. In the Forensic Science Service fingerprint examiners must maintain and produce evidence of competence. There is regular competence testing and participation in declared and undeclared (blind) trials.70
40.47. Mr McGinnies explained that SPSA examiners' skills are also monitored in a number of ways and that this assists in developing training and also in ensuring that the quality of work remains of a high standard.71 He considered that work was constantly checked as a result of verification in the ACE-V process.72
40.48. In addition, SPSA utilises dip sampling, an annual competency test and the personal development review process to make sure that people continue to operate to the level of competence they attained through their initial training and assessment and to develop their skills.73
Undeclared testing
40.49. Undeclared testing involves cases being submitted as if genuine to test procedures and the quality and accuracy of processes. HMICS had suggested in 200074 that this was a tool worthy of consideration but such tests are not in use at SPSA.
40.50. Mr Nelson indicated that the Collaborative Exercise Group which he chaired found that both in the UK and Ireland there were considerable practical difficulties. Staff in laboratories would phone police or interrogate police systems in order to find out more information and discover there was no information available on these systems. This would immediately reveal that it was an undeclared test.75 He observed that the Forensic Science Service may not have access to police systems in this way. Mr McGinnies spoke of other practical and technical difficulties.76
Dip sampling
40.51. Random dip sampling of at least 5% of completed casework at SPSA is carried out locally by nominated personnel. This commenced on a monthly basis in 2008.77 SPSA can track a case and go through all notes and examination procedures to make sure that the issued result was correct.78 The results of the sampling are reviewed locally by line managers and this will form part of a standard operating procedure within the ISO 17025 standard.79
40.52. Since becoming chairman of the Fingerprint Scientific Advisory Group80 in May 2009 Mrs Tierney had opened discussions with the other fingerprint managers about developing this process by making personnel available to carry out the dip sampling at bureaux other than their place of work. This would introduce an external element into the process and encourage sharing of best practice across each of the locations.81
Annual competency test
40.53. Mrs Tierney said that at one stage it was thought that the Council for the Registration of Forensic Practitioners would suffice to demonstrate on-going competency. NPIA were now trying to introduce a national dip sampling programme to measure competence.82 It appears that there is no uniform competency or proficiency system across the UK.83 Mr Pugh indicated that the Metropolitan Police have periodic competency tests,84 as do other forces of which he had knowledge.85 He was interested in a more efficient test being introduced.86
40.54. SCRO examiners had been subject to an annual competency test but it was set in-house. When HMICS recommended in 2000 that the external provision and management of competency testing for experts was an aspect that needed pursued with vigour "to seek an early, sustainable and defensible programme,"87 a test from an external provider was introduced instead, and that continues to be the position. All SPSA fingerprint examiners undertake an annual competency test provided by an external provider, CTS.88 Mr Nelson described it as an example of a declared trial.89
40.55. Mrs Tierney indicated that the test SPSA currently uses is the only external competency test available.90 It incorporates a range of marks designed to test the skill and expertise of the examiner and is made up of manual comparisons, as are the NPIA initial, intermediate and advanced assessments for trainee officers.91
40.56. The Inquiry was interested in competency testing based on 'close non matches': prints known to come from different sources which contain a number of features in agreement that could potentially lead an examiner towards a conclusion that they come from the same source.92 Professor Champod was unaware of any systematic search for illustrative examples and said that there are limited documented cases with the Mayfield print being the most notorious.93 Mr McGinnies said that the SPSA shows trainees examples and makes them aware of the fact that marks may be extremely similar but there is a risk that they may be 'close non matches'. SPSA discusses the Brandon Mayfield case with trainees as a means of highlighting the issue in a practical and real way.94
40.57. Mrs Tierney explained that Evett and Williams had raised the issue of using automated fingerprint recognition computer systems to incorporate 'near misses' in competency testing. While she was training manager, SPSA did incorporate a series of computer based assessments in internal fingerprint training. These were not specifically designed to include near misses but were based on the candidate donors returned as a result of each computer search. She saw the benefit of further testing of this nature if a practical means of managing the computer search programme to generate near miss respondents was established, and if such a programme was incorporated within an externally applied competency test.95
Addressing performance issues
40.58. Mr Wertheim commented that in his view a competent expert correctly following the comparison methodology would not confuse one person's fingerprint with someone else's fingerprint. The examiner would either correctly identify the fingerprint or would be unable to reach a conclusion because the distortion in the fingerprint was too great. If the examiner made an incorrect conclusion that was generally cause for removal from case work in the United States as having shown the examiner to be unreliable.96
40.59. The subjective nature of fingerprint evidence and research indicating the potential for variations among practitioners, particularly when comparing a complex mark,97 suggest that the performance of fingerprint examiners may not be so 'black and white'.
40.60. Mrs Tierney's evidence indicates that the proper handling of performance issues raises complex issues, not least because of the risk of prejudicing the necessary open and challenging culture within a bureau. She stated that at the Edinburgh bureau there was a significant volume of healthy debate among examiners. People were happy to exchange views and opinions and these would not be raised as disagreements or performance issues. If an examiner was persistently coming to conclusions that were different to those being arrived at by their colleagues that would be a 'performance flag' and she would wish to investigate further.98 That pragmatic balance is consistent with my observations on the need to avoid characterising differences of opinion as 'disputes' and for a discriminating approach to 'erroneous' identifications:99 a difference of opinion among examiners does not necessarily raise a performance issue.
40.61. In their 2000 report HMICS recommended that a common procedure, subject to validation by an external body, be put in place in all fingerprint bureaux to deal with failure in the course of competency testing.100
40.62. Mrs Tierney said that the competency tests are one in a series of indicators of an expert's competency. If an examiner failed to achieve the required standard on a particular test date that would not automatically suggest that all their work was subject to question or review. It would mean that on that particular date they failed to arrive at the consistent results.
40.63. She considered that to issue guidance on the implications of failing to pass a competency test would not be helpful. It could elevate the importance of passing the test. If an examiner repeatedly failed to achieve the required standard in the competency test that would be a flag to question how they were going about their job. The matter would be measured and monitored as a performance issue in the same way as if dip sampling showed up a failure to achieve the desired results.101
40.64. Mrs Tierney had experience of dealing with failure in a test. She had a conversation with the individual and explored the reasons for the particular problem. The discussion was recorded. An administrative and clerical error had led to the problem. One could not write such errors off and had such an error occurred in a case report it could have had significance. Accordingly some previous work of the individual was reviewed. Mrs Tierney satisfied herself that administrative errors were not occurring in the casework and that there was no significant area of concern.102
40.65. If it became apparent that an examiner was persistently missing identifications as a result of the dip sampling, that would be a performance issue. The first step would be to find out if there were circumstances that might be leading that individual to make mistakes. There might be extenuating circumstances affecting their concentration at work. Mrs Tierney would hope that an SPSA office would not view performance review as a negative but as a positive to find out how SPSA could help support an examiner's competence and develop the individual.103
40.66. Performance issues would be managed locally and involve development plans, setting objectives and monitoring. Mrs Tierney said that if an examiner made an erroneous identification a development plan for the training of the individual would be required. That might also be required in the case of an examiner who persistently missed identifications. The unit manager has responsibility for monitoring the performance of staff, identifying any areas of concern, and putting together a corrective action and development plan to develop the competency of that particular individual.104
40.67. Mr McGinnies also spoke in terms of these being 'line management' issues, with SPSA taking appropriate steps to ensure that the issues were addressed, such as removing the person from fingerprint duties or ensuring that all their work was checked and/or providing refresher training.105 The examiner would be monitored and more stringent dip sampling would be introduced.106 A failure at competency testing might necessitate further training. If there was a misidentification then the examiner would have their work dip sampled or all their work checked for the period before and after the misidentification. A progress report from Mr McGinnies, the examiner's line manager and probably their supervisor would have to go to the unit manager to say that the corrective measures/the training plan had been completed and the examiner was 'back on track'. This had occurred.107
40.68. Mr Nelson confirmed that if marks in the test were not identified by an individual, this would be addressed by the line manager on an individual basis. How this was done would depend on the circumstances. It might be an issue of training or another competence issue. There were no specific procedures which would be followed. Whether an individual would be permitted to continue to practise following the failure of a test would be assessed on an individual basis, depending on the nature of the inadequacies.108
40.69. In noting that there was no complete policy as to what happened when a fingerprint examiner failed a competency test, Mr Nelson agreed that there was room for a policy that distinguished between different types of error e.g. an occasional error and consistent error.109
40.70. At the Metropolitan Police, technical errors (comparison miss, wrong identification and administrative wrong identification) are dealt with in accordance with a procedure. These must be reported to a senior manager. An agreed action plan would follow. The examiner in question would have to complete a work-based sample successfully before resuming work.110
Disclosure
40.71. Mrs Tierney indicated that if someone failed a competency test this information would not be provided to COPFS. Provided she was satisfied that the examiner was competent to perform their job she would not see a need to disclose it. She assesses her staff, and accepts that she is responsible for their competency and if she allows them to work on live case work they are competent to do the job.111
40.72. Mr Nelson recognised that the fact that people undergo competency testing is relied upon to reinforce their expertise in the criminal courts. Accordingly if there was a real difficulty this is something of which the Crown should be made aware. If Mr Nelson had any concerns about anyone working in SPSA he would tell COPFS.112
40.73. Mr Pattison said that the Law Officers would wish to be assured that there was regular competency testing, verification and training. There would be an interest in being assured that the processes were sufficiently robust in relation to training and the assessment of competency.113
Commentary
40.74. HMICS had noted in its 2000 report that there was a "growing acceptance" that a 'time based' measure of experience and skills level was not the appropriate criterion for acceptance of a fingerprint expert. Some trainee fingerprint officers were competent to perform the role of expert much earlier.114 It supported a move towards a competency-based standard for expert qualification and recommended early progress towards this goal.115
40.75. It is evident that progress has been made.
40.76. SPSA has in place a range of systems and processes to ensure that trainees are appropriately trained and qualified examiners are kept up to date with refresher training. It is also clear that it has a number of processes to ensure that examiners maintain standards of competence. SPSA is seeking ISO accreditation and pursuing external dip sampling, which is important as it ensures there is external oversight of its systems and processes in respect of such matters.
40.77. SPSA is developing its arrangements for the on-going training and development of qualified examiners. Attendance at external conferences and courses is important as it helps ensure examiners are exposed to practices that may be different to those applied at their respective bureaux and to developments in their discipline. Although there is an annual review process, there is no mandatory requirement, as there is in various professions, for qualified fingerprint examiners to attend a certain amount of training about their core skills each year.
40.78. A number of measures are in place to monitor the continued competency of individual examiners.
40.79. The HMICS recommendation that there be an externally validated common procedure to address failure in the course of competency testing has not been completed, although there appeared to be a clear understanding in SPSA as to how performance issues would be addressed, whether they arose through the competency testing or other means such as from the dip sampling or verification processes. Neither is there a policy that, for example, distinguishes between different types of errors nor any policy on disclosure of competency related matters to Crown Office.
40.80. Improvements in the arrangements for training and monitoring of fingerprint practitioners have, however, to be seen in the context of the need for the technique of fingerprint comparison work itself to be the subject of research and monitoring. Practitioners are no more reliable than the technique that they apply and the Forensic Science Regulator identified the need for regulation of forensic science techniques as well as regulation of providers and practitioners.116 The theme running through this Part of the Report has been that there is limited understanding of the limitations of the technique of fingerprint comparison work and, consequently, the limits of performance of practitioners are uncertain. The need to view training and performance management in the wider context of a proper understanding of the foundations of the technique is stressed by the National Academy of Sciences:
"Forensic examiners must understand the principles, practices, and context of science, including the scientific method. Training should move away from reliance on the apprentice-like transmittal of practices to education at the college level and beyond that is based in scientifically valid principles¿.For example, in addition to learning a particular methodology through a lengthy apprenticeship or workshop during which a trainee discerns and learns to copy the skills of an experienced examiner, the junior person should learn what to measure, the associated population statistics (if appropriate), biases and errors to avoid, other threats to the validity of the evidence, how to calculate the probability that a conclusion is valid, and how to document and report the analysis. Among many skills, forensic science education and training must provide the tools needed to understand the probabilities and the limits of decision making under conditions of uncertainty."117
40.81. I have recommended further research and also engagement with members of the academic community working in the field.118 Those recommendations are of equal relevance to (a) the rigorous validation and improvement of the techniques common to all practitioners and (b) the monitoring of the performance of individual practitioners in the application of those techniques.
40.82. The Inquiry heard evidence about the appropriate regulatory structure for fingerprint work. It is important to bear in mind that there is no such thing as a perfect regulatory structure. No system of external regulation can guarantee that an organisation or an individual practitioner is meeting the requisite standards of competence and reliability and that such standards will continue to be met. The responsibility for ensuring that such standards are achieved rests always with the individual examiners and their managers, who should be mindful of the onerous duties of experts.
Recognition as a fingerprint 'expert'
40.83. The National Academy of Sciences, writing in the context of the USA, recommended that: "Laboratory accreditation and individual certification of forensic science professionals should be mandatory, and all forensic science professionals should have access to a certification process. In determining appropriate standards for accreditation and certification, the National Institute of Forensic Science (NIPS) should take into account established and recognized international standards, such as those published by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO). No person (public or private) should be allowed to practice in a forensic science discipline or testify as a forensic science professional without certification. Certification requirements should include, at a minimum, written examinations, supervised practice, proficiency testing, continuing education, recertification procedures, adherence to a code of ethics, and effective disciplinary procedures. All laboratories and facilities (public or private) should be accredited, and all forensic science professionals should be certified, when eligible, within a time period established by NIPS."119
40.84. Training of fingerprint examiners has already been described. Mr McGinnies explained that if a trainee passes all of the assessments he or she is eligible to be considered for full qualification as a fingerprint expert. The final decision is taken by SPSA having assessed whether the trainee has reached the required level of competence or requires further time as a trainee.120
40.85. Currently in Scotland 'certification' of fingerprint examiners consists of registration on the National Register of Fingerprint Experts held by the NPIA at Durham and authorisation by the Scottish Ministers under section 280 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 for the purpose of making joint reports. Neither entails any external scrutiny of qualifications or competence, the applications being made when SPSA is satisfied that the trainee has reached the requisite level of competence.121
The National Register of Fingerprint Experts
40.86. There is no formal process for re-assessment of experts registered on the National Register. As an example, an examiner is not re-assessed on a five yearly basis.122
40.87. Mr McGinnies told the Inquiry that if a fingerprint examiner had not acted as such for a long time, for example as a result of a career break or a period in other employment, the examiner must pass the advanced course at the NPIA before recommencing work. If an examiner left the employment of the SPSA, whether by reason of lack of competence or otherwise, or ceased to be a fingerprint examiner then SPSA would write to the NPIA and the register would be updated.123
Authorisation by Scottish Ministers
40.88. Section 280(4) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 makes provision for the authorisation of 'forensic scientists'. Fingerprint examination is only one of the forensic science disciplines covered by the provision.124 The significance of "authorisation" is limited. It allows evidence to be admitted by way of a written report prepared by the authorised forensic scientists without the scientists being required to give evidence in person, provided the report is served on the other party timeously and is not challenged. It does not certify that the forensic scientists are 'expert witnesses'. In every case where an expert witness gives evidence in court his or her qualifications and expertise have to be established by oral evidence to the satisfaction of the court.125
40.89. Authorisation under section 280 is a matter for the Scottish Ministers and is handled by officials of the Scottish Government.126 COPFS has no involvement.127
40.90. Mr Christie Smith, Deputy Director of the then Police Division in the Police and Community Safety Directorate, explained the process.128 Criteria are specified for 'authorisation', which vary depending on the discipline involved. They were established in 1993 by the Scottish Forensic Science Liaison Group, which comprised the directors of the four forensic laboratories (prior to the establishment of the Forensic Service at the SPSA) and the head of Northern Ireland's forensic laboratory, and other interested parties (including COPFS) were consulted. For fingerprint examiners the criteria are expressed in these terms: "Successful completion of the advanced fingerprint course at the National Training Centre at Durham. All existing trainees should complete as many courses at Durham as possible."129
40.91. The head of section or equivalent for the organisation requesting authorisation must submit written confirmation that the forensic scientist for whom they are seeking authorisation meets the relevant criteria. Mr Nelson confirmed that at SPSA it is left to him and the relevant unit managers to assess whether any particular individual has reached the requisite level of competence.130 Neither Scottish Ministers nor Scottish Government officials directly assess the competence of forensic scientists. Using the information supplied by the organisation officials check that the forensic scientist meets the criteria. There is no interview. A record of authorised forensic scientists is maintained on an electronic database.131
40.92. It is requesting organisations that are responsible for ensuring that their staff are skilled and competent to carry out their work, and that the identification and verification procedures that apply to them are effective in underpinning that skill and competence.132 Authorisation is not time-limited. The authorisation process relies on the requesting organisation ensuring that its forensic scientist is suitably qualified and skilled. Should an organisation decide that an individual is no longer suitable to be authorised, the responsibility lies with the organisation to ensure that the individual ceases to sign forensic reports for use in court. The Scottish Government would expect to be informed of this decision so that the records could be amended.133
Commentary: accreditation and authorisation of examiners
40.93. HMICS in 2000 recommended that a review take place of authorisation under section 280. At that time 'authorisation' depended only on a criterion of time served (five years) in training. HMICS recommended a competency based qualification for expert status134 and that has been achieved through the foundation degree.
40.94. More generally, HMICS recommended that the concept of 'authorisation' needed further consideration.135 It questioned "the true value" of the section 280 authorisation process. The report noted: "It would also appear that 'authorisation' is a formality providing that the expert meets the set criteria¿ these criteria can be changed to suit the organisation to which the expert belongs which detracts from any notion that the candidate's competency or eligibility for expert status is being subject to any independent scrutiny."136
40.95. The initial qualification for 'authorisation' has moved on to the extent that it is now based on competence (the foundation degree) and not simply time served. However, there remains no independent assessment by Scottish Ministers at the date of application and no mechanism to assess continuing competence thereafter. There is no meaningful content to the checks undertaken by Scottish Ministers to warrant concluding that the forensic scientist is 'authorised' by them. The reality is that the forensic scientist is authorised by his or her employer, in the case of fingerprint examiners that now being SPSA. I endorse HMICS's conclusion that the concept of 'authorisation' requires review.
40.96. With the demise of the CRFP there is no external agency able to validate the continuing competence of fingerprint examiners.137 This brings into sharp relief the issue concerning the appropriate model of accreditation. The emerging policy favouring accreditation at the institutional level138 is consistent with current practice in relation to authorisation under section 280 because responsibility for assessing continuing competence effectively rests with SPSA. That should be the model for section 280. If, as would appear to be the case, section 280 operates effectively on the basis that reports will be accepted from whomsoever SPSA, acting reasonably, judges to be suitably competent, then the section should say so and should not impress with the imprimatur of Scottish Ministers those whom SPSA nominate.
40.97. A separate question arises as to the suitable standard for accreditation of SPSA. There is a consensus that ISO 17025 is currently the most appropriate quality standard for fingerprint examination but it has its limitations and a need has been identified for more specific standards. The regime for accreditation will require to be kept under review.
40.98. If the recommendation that accreditation of fingerprint examiners should be regulated through accreditation of SPSA is accepted it is doubtful that any purpose would be served by registration on the National Register of Fingerprint Experts, particularly given the current absence of any system for review of registration. Adjusting the registration arrangements to include a review mechanism would probably only duplicate the arrangements to be expected in a proper system for accreditation of SPSA but so long as registration is retained arrangements should be made to ensure that it reflects current competence.
40.99. The question of the appropriate model for accreditation or authorisation of other forensic scientists covered by section 280, some of whom may be employed in university laboratories and laboratories in private ownership, lies outside the terms of reference of this Inquiry but will have to be considered in the context of review of 'authorisation' under section 280.
Competence to give expert evidence
40.100. As noted, authorisation under section 280 is not intended to certify any forensic scientist as an 'expert' witness. Whether or not a witness qualifies to be regarded as an 'expert' in relation to any particular issue is a matter for the court in light of the principles summarised in chapter 30.
40.101. Two particular issues arose in the Inquiry. The first concerned the approach to witnesses from outside the UK. The second concerned the contribution that could be made by academics.
Fingerprint examiners qualified outside the UK
40.102. The approach to fingerprint examiners with qualifications gained outside the UK was an issue in the background to the Court of Appeal case R v Peter Kenneth Smith.139 The defence had intended to lead evidence from a fingerprint examiner who had a qualification from the USA but did not call her because the prosecution indicated that they would cross-examine her on the basis that her qualification was not recognised in the UK. The Court of Appeal did not reach any conclusion on that witness. One of the issues that the Court of Appeal raised was the inability of fingerprint examiners working outside police bureaux to become fully qualified in England and Wales, a matter that may impact on the availability of suitable 'experts' to be instructed by the defence.
40.103. Fingerprint comparison work is a truly international discipline. Countries do differ in relation to the standards applied to an identification. Some, like the UK jurisdictions, apply a non-numeric approach, while others continue to apply numeric standards with a variety of minima. That said, the underlying science and the principles applied are the same.
40.104. The Inquiry had the benefit of the assistance of Mr Wertheim (an American examiner who operates on a non-numeric basis) and Mr Zeelenberg (a Dutch examiner who practises by reference to a numeric standard). Incidental issues were raised concerning the reliability of their evidence. For example, the SCRO core participants criticised Mr Wertheim for raising doubts about the mark XF. As for Mr Zeelenberg, he was criticised by the same parties for his remarks to Mr Mackenzie and Mr Dunbar during and after the meeting at Tulliallan. Those matters have already been addressed elsewhere in this Report and were collateral to the debate concerning the interpretation of the marks Y7 and QI2 Ross. In addition, the reliability of Mr Zeelenberg was questioned, for example by Ms McBride, on the basis that the Dutch fingerprint examiners were said to have performed relatively poorly in the study conducted by Evett and Williams,140 the inference being that they were too conservative and would dismiss marks as fragmentary and insufficient that were 'truly' of comparable quality. I have no hesitation in accepting that all of the witnesses who participated were duly qualified, despite the transnational nature of their qualifications, and that they demonstrated expertise informed by study and practice sufficient to qualify them as 'experts'. There were benefits in their contrasting presentational styles and as for the suggestion that some may have been too conservative, it has to be recalled that a critical issue with complex marks such as Y7 and QI2 Ross is whether examiners are applying an inappropriate degree of tolerance in declaring a match between ridge characteristics that have some difference in appearance or location. There is no standard by which to measure an 'acceptable' degree of tolerance and in that situation there is merit in hearing a spread of views. That is what the Inquiry had available to it as a result of the extensive debate among the various witnesses who were heard in oral evidence and who contributed to the comparative exercise.
40.105. The base qualification in the UK is passing the foundation degree but there is nothing to suggest that there is something unique to that course to support the conclusion that only examiners who have completed it can be recognised as an 'expert' in a Scottish court. Provided they can satisfy the court as to their expertise, there is no objection in principle to examiners with qualifications from outside the UK giving evidence in a Scottish court.
Fingerprint evidence from witnesses who are not qualified fingerprint examiners
40.106. The second issue was the suggestion, advanced in particular by Mr Russell on behalf of the core participants that he represented, that fingerprint evidence should only come from those who practise fingerprint comparison work on a daily basis and, in particular, should not come from academics.141
40.107. There is no reason to suppose that fingerprint evidence can only come from an examiner engaged in daily examination of prints.
40.108. One has to start by identifying the issue to which the evidence relates. The Inquiry was greatly assisted by Dr Bleay, a scientist at the Home Office Scientific Development Branch, particularly with reference to the authenticity of the mark XF142 and the question whether Y7 may have been placed on the door-frame after the dusting with aluminium powder.143 There is no doubt that Dr Bleay can be regarded as an 'expert witness' and that the evidence that he gave was of relevance to those two matters, the first of which might otherwise be thought to fall within the domain of the fingerprint examiner.
40.109. The Inquiry has also heard evidence that image quality is relevant to the reliability of fingerprint evidence. Mr Kent is a retired scientist and formerly a member of the Home Office Police Scientific Development Branch.144 He has extensive experience of the application of technology to various aspects of fingerprinting and conducted a study into the relevance of digital image quality to the interpretation of fingerprints.145 He had been instructed by the Crown for the Asbury trial and in that context he examined the door-frame on which Y7 was deposited and photographed the mark.146 One of the matters on which he was asked to comment during the Inquiry, and on which he did comment with diffidence noting that he was not qualified to express an opinion on whether marks were identical or not, was whether one of the images of Y7 on which Mr Swann had charted matching characteristics - an image taken by Mr Kent himself - was of sufficient quality to admit of reliable interpretation of detail observed on the periphery of the mark.147 That evidence arises at the interface between an issue relating to technology (the quality of a photographic image) and fingerprint opinion (the observation and interpretation of 'events' in an image). I have no doubt that Mr Kent could be regarded as an 'expert witness' in relation to that evidence. In any case on which a difference of opinion between two fingerprint examiners potentially turned on image quality I see no reason why a scientist who has studied image quality could not give relevant 'expert' evidence.
40.110. Mr Kent's evidence that he observed signs of movement in the mark Y7 has been taken into account in chapter 25148 and is as deserving of attention as that of the fingerprint examiners who gave evidence.
40.111. More generally, comment has already been made on the need for fingerprint examiners to engage with members of the academic community working in the field and for further research, including scientific research.149 Achievement of those objectives will require a contribution from academics working in the field. The work already done has cast light on the relevance of third level detail150 and further work is to be expected on issues such as the incidence of specific ridge characteristics in different fingerprints, the impact of movement and to develop a statistical model to provide a basis for quantifying the probability of identity. These are all matters on which an academic could give relevant evidence as an 'expert'.
40.112. There is no reason to suppose that only a fingerprint examiner can give evidence bearing on the identification of a fingerprint mark. Close attention has to be given to the issue in dispute and the qualifications and expertise of the witness relative to that issue; and the question of admissibility of evidence from someone who is not a fingerprint examiner should be assessed with an open mind on the common law principles discussed in chapter 30.
Recommendations
Accreditation of bureaux in Scotland
40.113. The SPSA should continue to seek to obtain and retain the ISO 17025 external accreditation and such other accreditation as may become relevant in the field of fingerprint identification.
Performance management
40.114. The SPSA should introduce a requirement that fingerprint examiners have training and development in core fingerprint examiner skills each year.
40.115. The discussions about the possibility of having a national dip sampling regime should be pursued, as this would introduce an element of external validation. The proposal whereby some dip sampling will be carried out by SPSA personnel from other bureaux should be implemented in the interim.
40.116. The SPSA should develop a procedure for the provision of information to COPFS where issues have been raised about the performance of an examiner who may be required to report or give evidence. COPFS should provide SPSA with guidance as to the nature and extent of the information that should be provided in order to enable COPFS to comply with its duties of disclosure to the defence.
Accreditation and authorisation of examiners
40.117. The system for authorisation under section 280 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, so far as relating to fingerprint examiners, requires review.
40.118. A system should be devised whereby any authorisation of fingerprint examiners under section 280 would be confined to the authorisation of individuals who are employed by an institution which has achieved appropriate accreditation. It would be for the Scottish Government to satisfy itself in the course of the review referred to in paragraph 117 as to what constitutes appropriate accreditation, and by whom that accreditation should be carried out.
40.119. The system of registration on the National Register of Fingerprint Experts should be reviewed. If it continues in use it should be revised to ensure that the criteria for registration and the records are kept up to date and that the records indicate competence. Should SPSA for any reason decide that an examiner is no longer competent to practise, it should notify the NPIA so that the examiner's name is removed from the register and also the Scottish Government so that authorisation under section 280 is withdrawn.
40.120. Absence of authorisation under the Act should not be taken as disqualifying a witness from being treated as an expert in relation to fingerprint evidence. The witness should be prepared to demonstrate his or her expert status on ordinary common law principles.
1. EB_0001 paras 1-3
2. EB_0001 paras 1-15
3. The Fingerprint Quality Standards Specialist Group held its first meeting on 2 July 2010.
4. EB_0001 para 10. One of Mr Rennison's roles is to investigate complaints about quality standards in forensic science. He investigates complaints about breakdowns in quality or concerns about the validity of science being used in forensic science. At the time of the Inquiry hearings he had undertaken two such investigations, one in the use of low template DNA technology and one into the science behind the analysis of controlled drugs on currency. Mr Rennison 8 July pages 115-116
5. Mr Rennison 8 July page 77
6. See chapter 34 para 15
7. Mr Rennison 8 July page 116ff
8. See EB_0001 Report to the Inquiry by Mr Rennison, Forensic Science Regulator
9. UK Parliament. House of Commons Hansard Written Answers for 21 May 1998 (pt 4) URL:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199798/cmhansrd/vo980521/text/80521w04.htm#80521w04.html_sbhd3.
10. Mr Rennison 8 July pages 116-118
11. An organisation established with the purpose of sharing knowledge, exchanging experiences and coming to mutual agreements in the field of forensic science. Membership is made up of 59 institutes in 34 countries across Europe.
12. ISO (International Organisation for Standardisation) - a non-governmental organisation established in 1947. ISO standards are developed by technical committees comprising experts from the industrial, technical and business sectors which have asked for the standards, and which subsequently put them to use. These experts may be joined by representatives of government agencies, testing laboratories, consumer associations, non-governmental organisations and academic circles.
13. EB_0001 para 37
14. Mr Rennison 8 July pages 118-119
15. It was a not for profit company limited by guarantee.
16. Mr Rennison 8 July page 119
17. EB_0001 para 35
18. Mr Rennison 8 July page 121
19. FI_2411
20. Committee on Identifying the Needs of the Forensic Sciences Community, Committee on Science, Technology and Law Policy and Global Affairs, Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences, National Research Council. Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward, Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press, 2009, page 215
21. EB_0001 paras 45-47
22. EB_0001 paras 47-48
23. Mr Rennison 8 July page 84
24. Mr Rennison 8 July page 79
25. Mr Nelson 13 November page 53
26. Mr Rennison 8 July page 90 and Mr Nelson 13 November page 58
27. MP_0008 para 4.1
28. MP_0008 para 4.5
29. MP_0008 para 4.8
30. FI_0136 para 19 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Chamberlain; see also Professor Champod in ED_0003 para 44
31. FI_0136 paras 14-23 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Chamberlain
32. See EB_0001 para 37
33. FI_0136 para 15 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Chamberlain
34. Mr Rennison 8 July pages 82-83
35. Mr Rennison 8 July pages 85-86
36. Mr Rennison 8 July page 87
37. Mr Rennison 8 July pages 84-87
38. Mr Rennison 8 July page 88
39. Mr Rennison 8 July page 91
40. Mr Rennison 8 July pages 84-85
41. Mr Rennison 8 July pages 89-93. Skills for Justice is the Sector Skills Council covering employers, employees and volunteers working in the Justice, Community Safety and Legal Services sectors across the UK.
42. Mr Rennison 8 July pages 94-95
43. Mr Rennison 8 July pages 96-97
44. Mr Rennison 8 July pages 95-96
45. Mr Rennison 8 July page 87
46. SG_0375 para 8.14.1
47. SG_0375 para 7.2.3
48. SG_0375 para 7.2.8
49. See chapter 21 para 21
50. FI_0193 para 5 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr McGinnies
51. FI_0193 paras 10-15 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr McGinnies
52. FI_0193 paras 22, 24 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr McGinnies
53. FI_0193 paras 26, 31 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr McGinnies
54. FI_0193 para 21 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr McGinnies
55. FI_0193 paras 28-92 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr McGinnies
56. FI_0193 para 89 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr McGinnies
57. FI_0193 para 32 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr McGinnies
58. SG_0375 paras 7.5.1-7.5.4
59. FI_0193 paras 119-122 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr McGinnies
60. FI_0193 para 109 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr McGinnies and MM_0055
61. MM_0055
62. FI_0193 paras 119-122 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr McGinnies
63. MP_0008 paras 3.1-3.10
64. FI_0153 para 27 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Nelson and MM_0055
65. FI_0193 paras 109-112 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr McGinnies
66. FI_0193 paras 113-115 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr McGinnies
67. FI_0193 para 116 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr McGinnies
68. Mr Nelson 13 November pages 18-20 and Mr McGinnies 4 November page 117. Examples of conferences at the time of the Inquiry hearings included a European Conference in Glasgow, the Forensic Science Society and the Scottish Institute of Policing Research.
69. FI_0193 paras 117-118 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr McGinnies and Mr Nelson 13 November pages 18-19
70. FI_0136 para 35 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Chamberlain
71. FI_0193 paras 123, 126 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr McGinnies
72. FI_0193 para 125 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr McGinnies
73. Mrs Tierney 12 November pages 146-150
74. SG_0375 pdf page 14 para 6.6.
75. Mr Nelson 13 November pages 34-35 and FI_0153 para 102 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Nelson
76. Mr McGinnies 4 November pages 106-109
77. FI_0152 para 31 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mrs Tierney
78. Mr Nelson 13 November page 35
79. FI_0153 para 93 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Nelson. See later in chapter for the ISO standard.
80. Mr Shearn had recommended the formation of such a group in his report of December 2006 - DB_0649. Mr Nelson established the group in January 2007 with a representative from each of the four bureaux in Scotland. It was chaired initially by Mr McGregor - FI_0112 para 11 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr McGregor.
81. FI_0152 para 31 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mrs Tierney
82. FI_0152 paras 109-111 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mrs Tierney
83. Mr Chamberlain 18 November page 108
84. Mr Pugh 24 November page 46
85. Mr Pugh 24 November page 52
86. Mr Pugh 24 November page 57
87. SG_0375
88. Collaborative Testing Services Inc
89. Mr Nelson 13 November page 36
90. Mrs Tierney 12 November page 189
91. FI_0152 para 19 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mrs Tierney
92. ED_0003 para 61ff
93. ED_0003 para 61ff
94. FI_0193 paras 102-104 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr McGinnies
95. FI_0152 para 19 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mrs Tierney
96. Mr Wertheim 22 September pages 17-18
97. See chapters 35 and 38
98. Mrs Tierney 12 November pages 146-150
99. See chapter 38 para 47ff
100. SG_0375 para 8.9.1
101. Mrs Tierney 12 November pages 155-156
102. Mrs Tierney 12 November page 157
103. Mrs Tierney 12 November pages 148-149
104. Mrs Tierney 12 November pages 146-147
105. FI_0193 para 135 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr McGinnies
106. Mr McGinnies 4 November page 99
107. Mr McGinnies 4 November pages 100-101
108. FI_0153 para 91 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Nelson
109. Mr Nelson 13 November page 28
110. MP_0008 paras 4.9-4.10
111. Mrs Tierney 12 November page 37
112. Mr Nelson 13 November pages 28-29
113. Mr Pattison 13 November page 152
114. SG_0375 para 3.5.3
115. SG_0375 recommendation 5
116. See chapter 34 para 15
117. NAS Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward, 2009, page 217
118. See chapter 35
119. NAS, Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward, 2009, page 215
120. FI_0193 para 91 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr McGinnies
121. Mr McGinnies 4 November page 104
122. FI_0193 para 132 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr McGinnies
123. FI_0193 paras 130-131, 136 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr McGinnies
124. FI_0116 pdf pages 1-2 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Smith
125. FI_0114 para 67 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Pattison
126. FI_0114 para 66 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Pattison
127. FI_0114 para 67 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Pattison
128. FI_0116 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Smith
129. FI_0116 pdf page 2 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Smith
130. Mr Nelson 13 November page 25
131. FI_0116 pdf page 3 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Smith
132. FI_0116 pdf page 3 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Smith
133. FI_0116 pdf page 4 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Smith
134. SG_0375 para 8.11.5 recommendation 21
135. SG_0375 para 3.5.5 recommendation 6
136. SG_0375 para 3.5.4
137. Mr Nelson 13 November page 22ff
138. See para 28 above
139. [2011] EWCA Crim 1296, paras 61-62
140. FI_0039 paras 145, 147 Inquiry Witness Statement of Ms McBride
141. Preliminary hearing 21 November 2008 page 43ff
142. See chapter 27
143. See chapter 3 para 87ff
144. FI_0052 paras 1, 3 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Kent
145. FI_0052 para 49ff Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Kent
146. FI_0052 para 19 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Kent
147. Mr Kent 7 July pages 105-108
148. Para 185ff
149. See para 81 above
150. See chapter 35 para 101ff