Reporting forensic experts play a crucial role in the administration of justice. The NRGD aims to ensure justified confidence in forensic expertise for stakeholders. This confidence must be based on the demonstrable independently safeguarded quality of forensic investigators and their reports on the basis of (inter)national forensic-specific standards.

The NRGD is managed by the Board of Court Experts (hereinafter: Board). The Board’s core task is to rule on the applications for registration or repeat registration in the register of the NRGD (register). To that end the Board first defines the field of expertise. This is important in order to inform applicants, assessors and users of the register (e.g. judge, public prosecutor and attorney) about the activities an expert in the field of expertise in question engages in and about the activities that fall outside the field of expertise. The demarcation of the field of expertise is set out in Part II of these Standards.

The Board also determines the criteria on the basis of which an assessment is made for each field of expertise as to whether an application complies with the quality requirements. The generic requirements are set out in the Register of Court Experts in Criminal Cases Decree (Besluit register deskundige in strafzaken). These requirements are elaborated further for each field of expertise. This elaboration is set out in Part III of these Standards.

Furthermore the Board determines the assessment procedure. This procedure is described in Part IV of these Standards.

The NRGD has a system of periodic repeat registration. Court experts must demonstrate every five years that they still meet the requirements in force at that time. The Standards are dynamic and are being developed further in order to enhance the quality of the experts. These Standards set out the current state of the (sub-)field of expertise.

The NRGD distinguishes two types of applicants: the initial applicant and the repeat applicant. The initial applicant is a reporter who at the time of submission of the application is not yet registered in the register for the field of expertise to which the application relates. The repeat applicant is an expert who is already registered in the register for the field of expertise to which the application relates.

These two types of applicants are subdivided as follows:

Initial applicant:

1. (i)

   independent reporter: a reporter who has independently written and signed the required number of case reports;

2. (ii)

   reporter without work of his own: a reporter who has not independently written and signed the number of case reports required for registration.

   If the assessment is favourable, the reporter without work of his own will only qualify for conditional registration.

Repeat applicant:

1. (i)

   Repeat applicant after unconditional registration (before: full registration);

2. (ii)

   Repeat applicant after conditional registration (before: temporary registration).

The initial applicant is an applicant who at the time of submission of the application does not have an NRGD registration. An initial applicant could be:

1. –

   the independently reporting expert;

2. –

   the newly-trained expert;

3. –

   the applicant whose earlier application has been rejected by the Board;

4. –

   the applicant whose registration was previously stricken.

In respect of initial applicants, it is necessary to make a clear distinction between the independent reporter and the reporter without work of his own. An example of a reporter without work of his own is the newly-trained expert. This expert has completed the forensic training (reporter’s training), but has not yet been able to independently write the number of reports required for the assessment because these are written under the supervision of a tutor during the training. Another example of a reporter without work of his own is the reporter whose earlier application was rejected and who has been working (partly) under supervision following this rejection.

The Board adopts the following principle. Every applicant must draw up a List of Case Information. This list must include a specific number of cases in a period specified by the Board immediately preceding the application. If the List of Case Information includes one or more cases which have been prepared under supervision, the applicant will be qualified as a ‘reporter without work of his own’. An additional requirement applies to the applicant who was rejected earlier: the case reports included in the List of Case Information must have been drawn up after the date of the Board’s decision rejecting the earlier application (Policy Framework on Application after Rejection).¹

The distinction between the various types of repeat applicants is important in the context of the assessment procedure: the documents a repeat applicant must submit, the composition of the Advisory Committee on Assessment and the assessment method.

These Standards have been established by the Board in accordance with the Register of Court Experts in Criminal Cases Decree (Besluit register deskundige in strafzaken) and the Experts in Criminal Cases Act (Wet deskundige in strafzaken). Representatives from the various domains were consulted; users (judges, public prosecutors and lawyers) and subject matter experts in the field (professional organisations, representative associations, experts both at home and abroad). The draft of the Standards has also been published on the NRGD website for public consultation.

The Standards are valid from the date shown on the cover. The validity runs until the moment of publication of a new version. In principle it will be checked annually as being up-to-date. This check can lead to a new version. The aim is to publish the new version no more than once a year.

All changes made to the Standards lead to a new version. Newer versions of (parts of) the Standards are designated with a higher version number.

In the case of editorial changes the old version number is increased by 0.1. Editorial changes have no substantive impact. In the case of substantive changes the version number is increased by 1.

The revision history starts with version 1.0 as the first formally approved version. Substantive changes made are briefly described in the revision history (Annex C). This makes it possible to trace which Standards are valid at any given moment at all times.

Within the field of expertise of Drugs Analysis and Interpretation, a distinction must be made between four types of examinations:

1. 1.

   identification and quantification;

2. 2.

   trace examination;

3. 3.

   production process examination;

4. 4.

   comparative examination.

In respect of these four types of examinations, different questions are of relevance in two different stages: the stage of the chemical-physical examination and the interpretation stage. In all types of examination it is important that the expert has the skills to conduct a proper sampling and to analyze samples in a correct manner. Additionally, all types of examination must include an interpretation within the framework of the relevant legislation, i.e. the Dutch Opium Act, the European guidelines referred to in the Misuse of Chemicals Prevention Act and the Dutch Medicines Act. The expert must be aware of his limited knowledge in this respect.

Identification aims to determine the presence of:

1. –

   any agents listed in the Dutch Opium Act or the European guidelines referred to in the Misuse of Chemicals Prevention Act;

2. –

   a substance seen on the drug users market, such as new psychoactive substances and/or a substance that may be covered by the Dutch Medicines Act, such as cutting agents and falsified medicines;

3. –

   or chemicals used in production processes.

Quantification aims to determine the concentration and/or amount present of the above-mentioned agents.

The following questions are, inter alia, of relevance here:

‘Can drugs or related substances be identified, if so which?’

‘What is the concentration and/or amount of the agent present?’

Trace examinations are also intended to determine the presence of agents and substances listed under 1.1.1. These examinations are carried out on trace carriers (anything on which a trace is available or could be present) or specific samples obtained from a suspected trace carrier.

The following questions are, inter alia, of relevance here:

‘Can traces of drugs or related substances be identified?’

‘If so, where are these traces to be demonstrably identified on the trace carrier?’

When requested, the probability of the results of the chemical-physical examination is evaluated by the expert within the context of the proposed activity scenarios that could have led to the transfer/movement of traces of drugs.

A comparative examination is carried out in order to provide an answer to the question whether, and to what degree or at which level, different samples/batches of drugs or drug precursors are from the same origin. In this context the term origin refers to a pre-existing quantity of substance that has been divided into different parts. The possibly corresponding origin is investigated by comparing features like physical characteristics and chemical composition.

The following questions are, inter alia, of relevance here:

‘What are the external features and physical qualities of the material for examination?’

‘What chemical components (e.g. major component, cutting agents, by-products, solvents) are demonstrably identified and in what (relative) concentrations?’

The following questions are, inter alia, of relevance here:

‘Do the examined samples or any processed materials contain drugs that are from the same origin?’

‘Are the examined samples or any processed materials from the same origin as previously examined materials (database)?’

In this stage the expert comments on the probability of the measured results within the context of the various hypotheses.

The production process examination aims at determining what agent has been produced and in what manner, and which waste material has been created during these processes. The drug related production processes examination is primarily carried out on material which has been secured at a crime scene. By combining the achieved results with information on the circumstances and materials found at the crime scene, comments can be made on possible processes and manufactured agents.

Examples of such processes are:

'Production of synthetic drugs and precursors’

'Extraction/conversion lab of cocaine’

‘Production of cutting agents e.g. in connection with heroin’

‘Cutting, (re)packing or making pharmaceutical forms of drugs (e.g. tablets, powders)’

‘Hash/hash oil production’

‘Cultivation and production of cannabis products’

The following questions are, inter alia, of relevance here:

1. –

   ‘Can the presence of an agent listed in the Dutch Opium Act or an agent listed in the European guidelines referred to in the Misuse of Chemicals Prevention Act;

2. –

   or a substance seen on the drug users market, such as new psychoactive substances and/or a substance that may be covered by the Dutch Medicines Act, such as cutting agents and falsified medicines;

3. –

   or chemicals used in production processes be demonstrated and if so, in what concentration or what quantity?’

The following questions are, inter alia, of relevance here:

‘Was an agent as referred to under 1.1.4.a manufactured²?’

‘Which production processes have been used or could have been applied?'

‘Which agents (precursors) and equipment for the production of the agent were present at the crime scene?’

'What is the production capacity of the equipment found at the crime scene?'

‘What do the expected proceeds of drugs amount to, according to the equipment and agents found at the scene?’

‘Which production process can be linked to the discarded materials? (in the event of illegal waste dumping)’

Drugs examination is concerned with samples that are expected to contain:

1. –

   agents listed in the Dutch Opium Act and the European guidelines referred to in the Misuse of Chemicals Prevention Act;

2. –

   a substance seen on the drug users market, such as new psychoactive substances and/or a substance that may be covered by the Dutch Medicines Act, such as cutting agents and falsified medicines;

3. –

   or chemicals used in production processes that are not of human origin.

Within the field of expertise of Drugs Analysis and Interpretation a distinction must be made between two categories for registration: Drugs Comparison and Drugs Production.

For both categories experts will be able to answer the questions of identification, quantification and trace examination in the chemical-psychical examination stage (see 1.1.1.a, 1.1.2.a).

In addition experts with a registration for Drugs Comparison are involved with answering questions related to comparative examination in the interpretation stage (see 1.1.3.b). Furthermore these experts will be able to answer questions of comparative examination in the chemical-physical examination stage (see 1.1.3.a).

Experts with a registration for Drugs Production are involved with answering questions related to production process examination in the interpretation stage (see 1.1.4.b). Furthermore these experts will be able to answer the questions of production process examination in the chemical-physical examination stage (see 1.1.4.a).

Experts in the field of expertise of Drugs Analysis and Interpretation must be aware of the opportunities and limitations of their answers to questions concerning trace examinations in the interpretation stage (1.1.2.b).

Experts must be aware that standard equipment and routine methods will not automatically detect and identify all new and previously unknown substances or detect low dosed substances.

The register will record the name of the relevant expert as an expert in the field of Drugs Analysis and Interpretation.

Within the field of expertise Drugs Analysis and Interpretation experts can be registered for:

005.1 Drugs Comparison; and /or

005.2 Drugs Production

The general (repeat) registration requirements are given in the next paragraphs in italics with a reference to Article 12 paragraph 2 in the Register of Court Experts in Criminal Cases Decree (Besluit register deskundige in strafzaken).

An expert will only be registered as an expert in criminal cases upon submission of the application if, in the opinion of the Board, the expert:

1. a.

   has sufficient knowledge and experience in the field of expertise to which the application relates;

2. b.

   has sufficient knowledge of and experience in the field of law concerned, and is sufficiently familiar with the position and the role of the expert in this field;

3. c.

   is able to inform the commissioning party whether, and if so, to what extent the commissioning party’s question at issue is sufficiently clear and capable of investigation in order to be able to answer it on the basis of their specific expertise;

4. d.

   is able, on the basis of the question at issue, to prepare and carry out an investigation plan in accordance with the applicable standards;

5. e.

   is able to collect, document, interpret and assess investigative materials and data in a forensic context in accordance with the applicable standards;

6. f.

   is able to apply the current investigative methods in a forensic context in accordance with the applicable standards

7. g.

   is able to give a verifiable and well-reasoned case report on the assignment and any other relevant aspects of their expertise in terms which are comprehensible to the commissioning party, both orally and in writing;

8. h.

   is able to complete an assignment within the stipulated or agreed period.

9. i.

   is able to carry out the activities as an expert independently, impartially, conscientiously, competently, and in a trustworthy manner.

(...) has sufficient knowledge and experience in the field of expertise to which the application relates.

¹ European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System, 1 ECTS = 28 study hours.

¹ European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System, 1 ECTS = 28 study hours.

¹ European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System, 1 ECTS = 28 study hours.

¹ European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System, 1 ECTS = 28 study hours.

(...) has sufficient knowledge of and experience in the field of law concerned, and is sufficiently familiar with the position and the role of the expert in this field.

1. –

   In general an applicant should have adequate knowledge of Dutch criminal law:

   1. •

      context of criminal law:

      1. ○

         Trias Politica, distinction between civil law, administrative law and criminal law.

   1. •

      criminal law procedure:

      1. ○

         pre-trial investigation;

      2. ○

         coercive measures;

      3. ○

         stages of the proceedings;

      4. ○

         actors in the criminal justice system (tasks/powers/responsibilities);

      5. ○

         regulations concerning experts laid down in the Dutch Code of Criminal Procedure (position and powers of commissioning party, legal position of expert, position and powers of lawyer, forms of counter-analysis, register of experts in the context of criminal law);

      6. ○

         legal decision-making framework of the court in criminal cases (decision-making schedule laid down in Section 350 of the Dutch Criminal Code of Procedure), also with a view to the relevance of the commission to the expert and to the question at issue;

      7. ○

         course of the criminal trial;

      8. ○

         position of the expert in the court procedure.

      9. ○

         substantive criminal law:

      10. ○

          sanctions and grounds for exemption from criminal liability (very basic).

   2. •

      knowledge of the legal context of safeguarding the quality of the expert and the analysis/investigation:

      1. ○

         position and role of the co-operating organisations in the criminal justice system in safeguarding the quality of the reports;

      2. ○

         professional codes and relevant regulations in relation to the NRGD Code of Conduct.

2. -

   In addition to the above requirements, an applicant for the field of expertise Drugs Analysis and Interpretation:

   1. •

      should be aware of the possible effects of the specific Dutch regulations on the conclusions of their examination. Therefore applicants should have a working knowledge of the Dutch Opium Act, the European guidelines referred to in the Misuse of Chemicals Prevention Act and the Dutch Medicines Act (articles 1, 18, 38 and 40).

(...) is able to inform the commissioning party whether, and if so, to what extent the commissioning party’s question at issue is sufficiently clear and capable of investigation in order to be able to answer it on the basis of their specific expertise.

An applicant should:

1. –

   have knowledge of the limitations of his own examination and must know when another expert in the same or a different field of expertise should be asked for advice or when follow-up examination must be recommended;

2. –

   have knowledge of other fields of expertise such as dactyloscopy/DNA and the aspects which may affect the own field of expertise (such as the order and planning of the examination).

(...) is able, on the basis of the question at issue, to prepare and carry out an investigation plan in accordance with the applicable standards.

An applicant should:

1. –

   have knowledge of the pros and cons of the various scientific methods (including sample preparation and chemical analysis) applied in the field of expertise, be aware of the possibilities and limitations of these methods, be able to explain them;

2. –

   have knowledge of the (current) guidelines (see Annex A).

(...) is able to collect, document, interpret and assess investigative materials and data in a forensic context in accordance with the applicable standards.

An applicant should:

1. –

   be able to take samples in an appropriate manner (e.g. safety, contamination and technical protocol such as Drug Sampling (see Annex A));

2. –

   be able to evaluate samples according to the guidelines and be aware of the possibility of contamination;

3. –

   have knowledge of the logistic processes regarding the material for examination (chain of custody).

(...) is able to apply the current investigative methods in a forensic context in accordance with the applicable standards.

An applicant should:

1. –

   have knowledge of quality and controlling systems for the examination;

2. –

   have knowledge of the uncertainty of the measurements of his own quantitative examination;

3. –

   have knowledge of selection procedures for sampling;

4. –

   be able to modify existing examination methods while preserving validity.

(...) is able to give a verifiable and well-reasoned case report on the assignment and any other relevant aspects of their expertise in terms which are comprehensible to the commissioning party, both orally and in writing.

An applicant should:

1. –

   be able to report to a layman on the interpretation and conclusions (both orally and in writing) and to provide statistical evidence insofar as relevant, on the basis of the results;

2. –

   be able to formulate hypotheses and interpret results;

3. –

   be able to indicate the evidential value of the examination (supporting information, assumptions and limitations);

4. –

   – In addition to the required administrative data (principal’s name, date of the assignment, date of the report, references of the principal, own references, number and nature of annexes, etc.) a report must contain the following items:

   1. •

      a description of the received material, including information on the date and manner of delivery;

   2. •

      a detailed description of the material under investigation;

   3. •

      any and all relevant background information possibly affecting the interpretation of the results of the examination with notification of when taken and from whom and this information comes;

   4. •

      the questions asked by the commissioning party, if at all possible by means of hypotheses, and where relevant the related connected communication;

   5. •

      the examination method(s) applied;

   6. •

      the results of the examination;

   7. •

      the interpretation of the results of the examination;

   8. •

      the conclusions, including the probability scale applied.

(...) is able to complete an assignment within the stipulated or agreed period.

(...) is able to carry out the activities as an expert independently, impartially, conscientiously, competently, and in a trustworthy manner.

An applicant should:

1. –

   comply with the NRGD Code of Conduct determined by the Board of Court Experts and published on the website of the NRGD.

The Board may decide not to apply or deviate from a registration requirement if application of such requirement would produce very unreasonable results. The hardship clause may only offer a solution in certain exceptional situations. It is up to the applicant himself to submit facts and circumstances showing that a certain registration requirement is unreasonable in his specific case.

In all fields of expertise the assessment will be based on the written information provided, including as a minimum requirement case reports and items of evidence, supplemented in principle with an oral assessment. However, such an oral assessment will not be necessary if the applicant's expertise has already been clearly demonstrated by the written information.

The assessment will in principle be carried out on the basis of the information provided by the applicant:

1. –

   general information as part of the application package

2. –

   documentary evidence of competence.

If it is felt necessary in the context of the assessment an additional case report and/or information, for example information about the way collegial review and/or supervision is organized within the organization, can be requested.

¹ It is left to the applicant to decide in which form this evidence is provided, e.g. in the form of a logbook or by means of certificates.

¹ It is left to the applicant to decide in which form this evidence is provided, e.g. in the form of a logbook or by means of certificates.

¹ It is left to the applicant to decide in which form this evidence is provided, e.g. in the form of a logbook or by means of certificates.

¹ It is left to the applicant to decide in which form this evidence is provided, e.g. in the form of a logbook or by means of certificates.