Title: wetten.nl - Regeling - Standards Forensic Toxicology (004.1) - BWBR0039083

Source: https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0039083/

Content:
{"title": "wetten.nl - Regeling - Standards Forensic Toxicology (004.1) - BWBR0039083", "content": "Standards Forensic Toxicology (004.1)\n\nReporting forensic experts play a crucial role in the administration of justice. The\n                                          NRGD aims to ensure justified confidence in forensic expertise for stakeholders. This\n                                          confidence must be based on the demonstrable independently safeguarded quality of\n                                          forensic investigators and their reports on the basis of (inter)national forensic-specific\n                                          standards.\n\nThe NRGD is managed by the Board of Court Experts (hereinafter: Board). The Board\u2019s\n                                          core task is to rule on the applications for registration or repeat registration in\n                                          the register of the NRGD (register). To that end the Board first defines the field\n                                          of expertise. This is important in order to inform applicants, assessors and users\n                                          of the register (e.g. judge, public prosecutor and attorney) about the activities\n                                          an expert in the field of expertise in question engages in and about the activities\n                                          that fall outside the field of expertise. The demarcation of the field of expertise\n                                          is set out in Part II of these Standards.\n\nThe Board also determines the criteria on the basis of which an assessment is made\n                                          for each field of expertise as to whether an application complies with the quality\n                                          requirements. The generic requirements are set out in the Register of Court Experts\n                                          in Criminal Cases Decree (Besluit register deskundige in strafzaken). These requirements are elaborated further for each field of expertise. This elaboration\n                                          is set out in Part III of these Standards.\n\nFurthermore the Board determines the assessment procedure. This procedure is described\n                                          in Part IV of these Standards.\n\nThe NRGD has a system of periodic repeat registration. Court experts must demonstrate\n                                          every five years that they still meet the requirements in force at that time. The\n                                          Standards are dynamic and are being developed further in order to enhance the quality\n                                          of the experts. These Standards set out the current state of the (sub-)field of expertise.\n\nThe NRGD distinguishes two types of applicants: the initial applicant and the repeat\n                                          applicant. The initial applicant is a reporter who at the time of submission of the\n                                          application is not yet registered in the register for the field of expertise to which\n                                          the application relates. The repeat applicant is an expert who is already registered\n                                          in the register for the field of expertise to which the application relates.\n\nThese two types of applicants are subdivided as follows:\n\nInitial applicant:\n\n(i) independent reporter: a reporter who has independently written and signed the required\n                                                number of case reports;\n\n(ii) reporter without work of his own: a reporter who has not independently written and\n                                                signed the number of case reports required for registration.\n\nIf the assessment is favourable, the reporter without work of his own will only qualify\n                                                   for temporary registration.\n\nRepeat applicant:\n\n(i) Repeat applicant after unconditional registration (before: full registration);\n\n(ii) Repeat applicant after conditional registration (before: temporary registration).\n\nThe initial applicant is an applicant who at the time of submission of the application\n                                          does not have an NRGD registration. An initial applicant could be:\n\n\u2013 the independently reporting expert;\n\n\u2013 the newly-trained expert;\n\n\u2013 the applicant whose earlier application has been rejected by the Board;\n\n\u2013 the applicant whose registration was previously stricken.\n\nIn respect of initial applicants, it is necessary to make a clear distinction between\n                                          the independent reporter and the reporter without work of his own. An example of a\n                                          reporter without work of his own is the newly-trained expert. This expert has completed\n                                          the forensic training (reporter\u2019s training), but has not yet been able to independently\n                                          write the number of reports required for the assessment because these are written\n                                          under the supervision of a tutor during the training. Another example of a reporter\n                                          without work of his own is the reporter whose earlier application was rejected and\n                                          who has been working (partly) under supervision following this rejection.\n\nThe Board adopts the following principle. Every applicant must draw up a List of Case\n                                          Information. This list must include a specific number of cases in a period specified\n                                          by the Board immediately preceding the application. If the List of Case Information\n                                          includes one or more cases which have been prepared under supervision, the applicant\n                                          will be qualified as a \u2018reporter without work of his own\u2019. An additional requirement\n                                          applies to the applicant who was rejected earlier: the case reports included in the\n                                          List of Case Information must have been drawn up after the date of the Board\u2019s decision\n                                          rejecting the earlier application (Policy Framework on Application after Rejection).1\n\nThe distinction between the various types of repeat applicants is important in the\n                                          context of the assessment procedure: the documents a repeat applicant must submit,\n                                          the composition of the Advisory Committee on Assessment and the assessment method.\n\nThese Standards have been established by the Board in accordance with the Register\n                                          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\n                                          prosecutors and lawyers) and subject matter experts in the field (professional organisations,\n                                          representative associations, experts both at home and abroad). The draft of the Standards\n                                          has also been published on the NRGD website for public consultation.\n\nThe Standards are valid from the date shown on the cover. The validity runs until\n                                          the moment of publication of a new version. In principle it will be checked annually\n                                          as being up-to-date. This check can lead to a new version. The aim is to publish the\n                                          new version no more than once a year.\n\nAll changes made to the Standards lead to a new version. Newer versions of (parts\n                                          of) the Standards are designated with a higher version number.\n\nIn the case of editorial changes the old version number is increased by 0.1. Editorial\n                                             changes have no substantive impact. In the case of substantive changes the version\n                                             number is increased by 1.\n\nThe revision history starts with version 1.0 as the first formally approved version.\n                                             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\n                                             all times.\n\nThe description of the field Forensic Toxicology is stated below.\n\nToxicology describes the fate of substances in \u2013 and their potentially harmful effect\n                                          on \u2013 living organisms, with the aim of assessing the risks of exposure to these substances\n                                          for humans, animals and the environment, and minimising any undesirable effects. Toxicology\n                                          is an interdisciplinary field of study that is shared among the medical, biological\n                                          and chemical fields of science, and comprises all chemical compounds (of a biological,\n                                          mineral or synthetic origin).\n\nToxicology has a number of subspecialties, such as:\n\n\u2013 Environmental or Ecotoxicology\n\n\u2013 Medical or Human Toxicology\n\nGenerally speaking, forensic toxicology is regarded as an area of special interest\n                                          within the subspecialty of Human or Medical Toxicology.\n\nForensic toxicology can also be defined as the specific study of the consequences\n                                          of exposure to substances on behalf of the administration of the law in the widest\n                                          sense.\n\nFor a forensic toxicologist it is extremely important that he/she has an overview\n                                          of the entire specialist field of toxicology. A forensic toxicologist particularly\n                                          has to have a command of the principles of clinical toxicology and their application\n                                          to legal questions. Moreover, knowledge and experience in the field of bio-analytical\n                                          chemistry is required.\n\nForensic toxicology is important in criminal and civil law cases -knowledge in the\n                                          field of administrative and disciplinary law is also relevant- which relate to (a)\n                                          victim(s) or perpetrator(s).\n\nThe core tasks of a forensic toxicologist include consultation on the question at\n                                          issue, the examination plan, the choice of analysis and the interpretation of the\n                                          laboratory results.\n\nKey questions in this context are:\n\n\u2013 In the event of an unnatural death: are foreign substances present, which may (partly)\n                                                have contributed to the death?\n\n\u2013 In the event of non-deceased victims: are foreign substances present and are these\n                                                detrimental to the victim's health?\n\n\u2013 Are substances present in the body (such as drugs, alcohol, medicines) and what effects\n                                                can these have on behaviour?\n\nPre-analytical phase: choice of sample to be analysed and drawing up a bio analytical\n                                             examination strategy.\n\nAnalytical phase: supervision of the bio-analytical examination by qualified analytical\n                                             staff. It is of importance that the forensic-toxicological laboratory complies with\n                                             verifiable quality requirements that have been set in advance, and that said laboratory\n                                             has been accredited.\n\nPost-analytical phase: the indication of the probability of the bio-analytical results\n                                             clarifying the described effects. In the process all relevant facts, so far as known\n                                             from the post-mortem examination, the pre-analytical and analytical phase, and other\n                                             relevant facts are taken into account. The forensic toxicologist must be aware of\n                                             the possibilities and limitations of the analysis techniques used.\n\nWhen reporting as an expert registered for the field of Forensic Toxicology, the expert\n                                             should be aware of the possibilities and limitations of the techniques and/or specialisations.\n                                             The expert should also be aware of the pros and cons of these techniques, specialisations\n                                             and/or developments.\n\nThe field of expertise of Drugs comes under that of Toxicology to the extent that\n                                             it concerns the biological fate of the substance(s) and their effects on human beings.\n\nAs regards the above issues for examination, the forensic toxicologist is the first\n                                             point of contact, which means the forensic toxicologist must be aware that, from the\n                                             perspective of specialist subareas (for example psychopharmacology), statements can\n                                             also be made with respect to, for example:\n\n\u2013 the relationship between concentrations of substances and certain effects (such as\n                                                   on behaviour)\n\n\u2013 possible effects of substances in general,\n\n\u2013 the validity of bio-analytical investigation,\n\n\u2013 the estimated degree of exposure,\n\nand must be aware of his limitations compared to other areas of expertise.\n\nThe register will state the name of the relevant expert as an expert in the field\n                                             of Forensic Toxicology.\n\nThe general (repeat) registration requirements are given below in italics in the next\n                                       paragraphs in italics with a reference to Article 12 paragraph 2 in the Register of\n                                       Court Experts in Criminal Cases Decree (Besluit register deskundige in strafzaken).\n\nAn expert will only be registered as an expert in criminal cases upon submission of\n                                       the application if, in the opinion of the Board, the expert:\n\na. has sufficient knowledge and experience in the field of expertise to which the application\n                                             relates;\n\nb. has sufficient knowledge of and experience in the field of law concerned, and is sufficiently\n                                             familiar with the position and the role of the expert in this field;\n\nc. is able to inform the commissioning party whether, and if so, to what extent the commissioning\n                                             party\u2019s question at issue is sufficiently clear and capable of investigation in order\n                                             to be able to answer it on the basis of their specific expertise;\n\nd. is able, on the basis of the question at issue, to prepare and carry out an investigation\n                                             plan in accordance with the applicable standards;\n\ne. is able to collect, document, interpret and assess investigative materials and data\n                                             in a forensic context in accordance with the applicable standards;\n\nf. is able to apply the current investigative methods in a forensic context in accordance\n                                             with the applicable standards\n\ng. is able to give a verifiable and well-reasoned case report on the assignment and any\n                                             other relevant aspects of their expertise in terms which are comprehensible to the\n                                             commissioning party, both orally and in writing;\n\nh. is able to complete an assignment within the stipulated or agreed period.\n\ni. is able to carry out the activities as an expert independently, impartially, conscientiously,\n                                             competently, and in a trustworthy manner.\n\n(...) has sufficient knowledge and experience in the field of expertise to which the\n                                             application relates.\n\nBasic requirements:\n\n\u2013 have an academic Master\u2019s degree (preliminary medical-biological training);\n\n\u2013 work, for a period of at least 3 years, in a relevant specialist field at the level\n                                                            of a university Master's degree. For example: at hospitals, pharmacies, research laboratories\n                                                            and forensic institutes;\n\n\u2013 have obtained the ERT-registration;\n\n\u2013 be familiar with the basic concepts from the areas referred to in Annex A, and be aware of any personal limitations of knowledge in these areas;\n\n\u2013 be able to refer matters on to examiners in certain adjacent toxicological fields\n                                                            of expertise, such as environmental toxicology or veterinary toxicology;\n\n\u2013 mention membership of a relevant professional association upon application.\n\nSpecific requirements:\n\n\u2013 demonstrably have interpreted and reported a minimum of 10 case reports1 in the preceding 5 years that have been subjected to collegial review;\n\nIn case the applicant is also acting as a supervisor, at least two reports on the\n                                                               List of Case Information should be independently prepared reports.\n\n\u2013 have spent an average of 40 hours a year over the past 5 years on forensically relevant\n                                                            professional development (e.g. publications, attending conferences, running or attending\n                                                            courses).\n\n1 In these instances the applicant should have played a demonstrable role in the pre-analytical\n                                             and/or analytical and/or post-analytical part of the investigation (as far as applicable)\n                                             involving a complex substantive interpretation. This excludes, for example, reporting\n                                             a measured result without interpretation. In this sense, \u2018interpretation\u2019 does not\n                                             refer to the comparison of a threshold value. In the process, all relevant facts,\n                                             as far as known from the pre-analytical, analytical and post-analytical phase, and\n                                             other relevant factors are taken into account, with reference to the scientific literature.\n                                             An applicant should have recent experience of interpreting and reporting cases at\n                                             the time of his application for registration.\n\nBasic requirements:\n\n\u2013 have an academic Master\u2019s degree (preliminary medical-biological training);\n\n\u2013 work, for a period of at least 3 years, in a relevant specialist field at the level\n                                                            of a university Master's degree. For example: at hospitals, pharmacies, research laboratories\n                                                            and forensic institutes;\n\n\u2013 have obtained the ERT-registration;\n\n\u2013 be familiar with the basic concepts from the areas referred to in Annex A, and be aware of any personal limitations of knowledge in these areas;\n\n\u2013 be able to refer matters on to examiners in certain adjacent toxicological fields\n                                                            of expertise, such as environmental toxicology or veterinary toxicology;\n\n\u2013 mention membership of a relevant professional association upon application.\n\nSpecific requirements:\n\n\u2013 have concluded training on forensic reporting;\n\n\u2013 demonstrably have interpreted and reported a minimum of 4 case reports\u00b2 in the preceding\n                                                            2 years that have been subjected to collegial review;\n\n\u2013 having spent an average of 40 hours a year over the past 2 years on forensically\n                                                            relevant professional development (e.g. attending conferences, running or attending\n                                                            courses, publications).\n\nBasic requirements:\n\n\u2013 have an academic Master\u2019s degree (preliminary medical-biological training);\n\n\u2013 work, for a period of at least 3 years, in a relevant specialist field at the level\n                                                            of a university Master's degree. For example: at hospitals, pharmacies, research laboratories\n                                                            and forensic institutes;\n\n\u2013 have obtained the ERT-registration;\n\n\u2013 be familiar with the basic concepts from the areas referred to in Annex A, and be aware of any personal limitations of knowledge in these areas;\n\n\u2013 be able to refer matters on to examiners in certain adjacent toxicological fields\n                                                            of expertise, such as environmental toxicology or veterinary toxicology;\n\n\u2013 mention membership of a relevant professional association upon application.\n\nSpecific requirements:\n\n\u2013 demonstrably have interpreted and reported a minimum of 10 case reports\u00b2 in the\n                                                            preceding 5 years that have been subjected to collegial review;\n\n\u2013 an average of 40 hours a year over the past 5 years on forensically relevant professional\n                                                            development (e.g. attending conferences, running or attending courses, publications).\n\nBasic requirements:\n\n\u2013 have an academic Master\u2019s degree (preliminary medical-biological training);\n\n\u2013 work, for a period of at least 3 years, in a relevant specialist field at the level\n                                                            of a university Master's degree. For example: at hospitals, pharmacies, research laboratories\n                                                            and forensic institutes;\n\n\u2013 have obtained the ERT-registration;\n\n\u2013 be familiar with the basic concepts from the areas referred to in Annex A, and be aware of any personal limitations of knowledge in these areas;\n\n\u2013 be able to refer matters on to examiners in certain adjacent toxicological fields\n                                                            of expertise, such as environmental toxicology or veterinary toxicology;\n\n\u2013 mention membership of a relevant professional association upon application.\n\nSpecific requirements:\n\n\u2013 demonstrably have interpreted and reported a minimum of 4 case reports in the preceding\n                                                            2 years that have been subjected to collegial review;\n\n\u2013 an average of 40 hours per year in principle during the past 2 years on professional\n                                                            development (e.g. attending conferences, running or attending courses, publications).\n\n(...) has sufficient knowledge of and experience in the field of law concerned, and\n                                             is sufficiently familiar with the position and the role of the expert in this field.\n\n\u2013 In general an applicant should have adequate knowledge of Dutch criminal law:\n\n\u2022 context of criminal law:\n\n\u25cb Trias Politica, distinction between civil law, administrative law and criminal law.\n\n\u2022 criminal law procedure:\n\n\u25cb pre-trial investigation;\n\n\u25cb coercive measures;\n\n\u25cb stages of the proceedings;\n\n\u25cb actors in the criminal justice system (tasks/powers/responsibilities);\n\n\u25cb regulations concerning experts laid down in the Dutch Code of Criminal Procedure (position\n                                                            and powers of commissioning party, legal position of expert, position and powers of\n                                                            lawyer, forms of counter-analysis, register of experts in the context of criminal\n                                                            law);\n\n\u25cb legal decision-making framework of the court in criminal cases (decision-making schedule\n                                                            laid down in Section 350 of the Dutch Criminal Code of Procedure), also with a view\n                                                            to the relevance of the commission to the expert and to the question at issue;\n\n\u25cb course of the criminal trial;\n\n\u25cb position of the expert in the court procedure.\n\n\u2022 substantive criminal law:\n\n\u25cb sanctions and grounds for exemption from criminal liability (very basic).\n\n\u2022 knowledge of the legal context of safeguarding the quality of the expert and the analysis/investigation:\n\n\u25cb position and role of the co-operating organisations in the criminal justice system\n                                                            in safeguarding the quality of the reports;\n\n\u25cb professional codes and relevant regulations in relation to the NRGD Code of Conduct.\n\n\u2013 In addition to the above requirements, an applicant for the field of expertise Forensic\n                                                Toxicology:\n\n\u2022 should be familiar with the relevant Dutch Medicines Act, Opium Act, Road Traffic\n                                                      Act, Regulation Investigation regarding Blood and Urine, Regulation Breath Analysis\n                                                      and/or other legislation relating to traffic and transport and keep abreast of new\n                                                      legislation.\n\n(...) is able to inform the commissioning party whether, and if so, to what extent\n                                                the commissioning party\u2019s question at issue is sufficiently clear and capable of investigation\n                                                in order to be able to answer it on the basis of their specific expertise.\n\n(...) is able, on the basis of the question at issue, to prepare and carry out an\n                                                investigation plan in accordance with the applicable standards.\n\n(...) is able to collect, document, interpret and assess investigative materials and\n                                                data in a forensic context in accordance with the applicable standards.\n\n(...) is able to apply the current investigative methods in a forensic context in\n                                                accordance with the applicable standards.\n\n(...) is able to give a verifiable and well-reasoned case report on the assignment\n                                                and any other relevant aspects of their expertise in terms which are comprehensible\n                                                to the commissioning party, both orally and in writing.\n\nAn applicant should:\n\n\u2013 be able, on the basis of the results, to report to a non-expert about an interpretation\n                                                   and conclusion (both in writing and verbally) and should be able to support these\n                                                   with statistics where relevant;\n\n\u2013 if necessary, ask for more information about the case and should know the limitations\n                                                   of his expertise.\n\n(...) is able to complete an assignment within the stipulated or agreed period.\n\n(...) is able to carry out the activities as an expert independently, impartially,\n                                                conscientiously, competently, and in a trustworthy manner.\n\nAn applicant should:\n\n\u2013 comply with the NRGD Code of Conduct determined by the Board of Court Experts and\n                                                   published on the website of the NRGD.\n\nThe Board may decide not to apply or deviate from a registration requirement if application\n                                             of such requirement would produce very unreasonable results. The hardship clause may\n                                             only offer a solution in certain exceptional situations. It is up to the applicant\n                                             himself to submit facts and circumstances showing that a certain registration requirement\n                                             is unreasonable in his specific case.\n\nIn all fields of expertise the assessment will be based on the written information\n                                          provided, including as a minimum requirement case reports and items of evidence, supplemented\n                                          in principle with an oral assessment. However, such an oral assessment will not be\n                                          necessary if the applicant's expertise has already been clearly demonstrated by the\n                                          written information.\n\nThe assessment will in principle be carried out on the basis of the information provided\n                                          by the applicant:\n\n\u2013 general information as part of the application package\n\n\u2013 documentary evidence of competence.\n\nAn additional case report and/or information can be requested if it is felt necessary\n                                          in the context of the assessment.\n\nIf it is felt necessary in the context of the assessment an additional case report\n                                          and/or information, for example information about the way collegial review and/or\n                                          supervision is organized at your organization, can be requested.\n\nDocuments to be submitted:\n\n\u2013 NRGD application form;\n\n\u2013 Statement accompanying the application for registration with the NRGD;\n\n\u2013 Certificate of Good Conduct;\n\n\u2013 a clearly legible copy of a valid passport or identity card;\n\n\u2013 a curriculum vitae (CV), preferably in English;\n\n\u2013 copies of documents relating to the highest level of professional qualification;\n\n\u2013 Overview Continued Professional Development Forensic Toxicology;\n\n\u2013 certificates of education and experience (including the ERT-registration);\n\n\u2013 List of Case Information Forensic Toxicology;\n\n\u2013 3 case reports selected by the applicant from the List of Case Information Forensic\n                                                            Toxicology. These case reports should provide a clear and broad picture of the applicant\u2019s\n                                                            competencies. If possible the case reports should also contain the testimony delivered\n                                                            in court;\n\n\u2013 if available:\n\n\u00b0 proof of the forms of professional development referred to in the Overview Continued\n                                                            Professional Development Forensic Toxicology.\n\nAssessment method:\n\nphase a. administrative, by the NRGD Bureau;\n\nphase b. substantive, by an Advisory Committee for Assessment (ACA) made up of at\n                                                            least three people on the basis of the available written material, including possible\n                                                            supplementary written information. In principle this ACA consists of a lawyer and\n                                                            two professional assessors;\n\nphase c. substantive, by the ACA specified at phase b by means of an oral assessment.\n                                                            This oral assessment will be waived if the applicant\u2019s expertise has already been\n                                                            clearly established in phase b;\n\nphase d. decision by the Board: registration, conditional registration or no registration.\n\nExplanation:\n\nIf the ACA has to assess an application after an earlier rejection, a new ACA will\n                                                               be formed if possible. This ACA will not be allowed to inspect the advice given by\n                                                               the previous ACA.\n\nDocuments to be submitted:\n\n\u2013 NRGD application form;\n\n\u2013 Statement accompanying the application for registration with the NRGD;\n\n\u2013 Certificate of Good Conduct;\n\n\u2013 a clearly legible copy of a valid passport or identity card;\n\n\u2013 a curriculum vitae (CV), preferably in English;\n\n\u2013 copies of documents relating to the highest level of professional qualification;\n\n\u2013 Overview Continued Professional Development Forensic Toxicology;\n\n\u2013 certificates of education and experience (including the ERT-registration);\n\n\u2013 List of Case Information Forensic Toxicology;\n\n\u2013 3 case reports selected by the applicant from the List of Case Information Forensic\n                                                            Toxicology. These case reports should provide a clear and broad picture of the applicant\u2019s\n                                                            competencies. If possible the case reports should also contain the testimony delivered\n                                                            in court;\n\n\u2013 if available:\n\nproof of the forms of professional development referred to in the Overview Continued\n                                                            Professional Development Forensic Toxicology.\n\nAssessment method:\n\nphase a. administrative, by the NRGD Bureau;\n\nphase b. substantive, by an Advisory Committee for Assessment (ACA) made up of at\n                                                            least three people on the basis of the available written material, including possible\n                                                            supplementary written information. In principle this ACA consists of a lawyer and\n                                                            two professional assessors;\n\nphase c. substantive, by the ACA specified at phase b to which one professional assessor\n                                                            is added, drawn from the same field of expertise as the applicant, on the basis of\n                                                            the available written material. This will not be necessary if the ACA unanimously\n                                                            gives a positive recommendation to the Board in phase b;\n\nphase d. substantive, by the ACA specified at phase c by means of an oral assessment.\n                                                            This oral assessment will be waived if the applicant\u2019s expertise has been clearly\n                                                            established in phase c;\n\nphase e. decision by the Board: conditional registration or no\n\nregistration.\n\nExplanation:\n\nIf the ACA has to assess an application after an earlier rejection, a new ACA will\n                                                               be formed if possible. This ACA will not be allowed to inspect the advice given by\n                                                               the previous ACA.\n\nDocuments to be submitted:\n\n\u2013 NRGD application form;\n\n\u2013 Certificate of Good Conduct;\n\n\u2013 an updated curriculum vitae (CV), preferably in English;\n\n\u2013 copies of documents relating to the highest level of professional qualification\n                                                            (if changed);\n\n\u2013 Overview Continued Professional Development Forensic Toxicology;\n\n\u2013 certificates of education and experience (including the ERT-registration);\n\n\u2013 List of Case Information;\n\n\u2013 2 case reports selected by the applicant from the List of Case Information Forensic\n                                                            Toxicology. These case reports should provide a clear and broad picture of the applicant\u2019s\n                                                            competencies. If possible the case reports should also contain the testimony delivered\n                                                            in court;\n\n\u2013 if available:\n\nproof of the forms of professional development referred to in the Overview Continued\n                                                            Professional Development Forensic Toxicology.\n\nAssessment method:\n\nphase a. administrative, by the NRGD Bureau;\n\nphase b. substantive, by an Advisory Committee for Assessment (ACA) made up of at\n                                                            least two people on the basis of the available written material. This ACA will in\n                                                            principle consist of a lawyer and a professional assessor;\n\nphase c. substantive, by the ACA specified at phase b to which one professional assessor\n                                                            is added, drawn from the same field of expertise as the applicant, on the basis of\n                                                            the available written material. This will not be necessary if the ACA unanimously\n                                                            gives a positive recommendation to the Board in phase b;\n\nphase d. substantive, by the ACA specified at phase c by means of an oral assessment.\n                                                            This oral assessment will be waived if the applicant\u2019s expertise has been clearly\n                                                            established in phase c;\n\nphase e. decision by the Board: registration, conditional registration or no registration.\n\nExplanation:\n\nA new ACA will be formed if possible. This ACA will not be allowed to inspect the\n                                                               advice given by the previous ACA.\n\nDocuments to be submitted:\n\n\u2013 NRGD application form;\n\n\u2013 Certificate of Good Conduct;\n\n\u2013 an updated curriculum vitae (CV), preferably in English;\n\n\u2013 copies of documents relating to the highest level of professional qualification\n                                                            (if changed);\n\n\u2013 Overview Continued Professional Development Forensic Toxicology;\n\n\u2013 certificates of education and experience (including the ERT-registration);\n\n\u2013 List of Case Information Forensic Toxicology;\n\n\u2013 2 case reports selected by the applicant from the List of Case Information Forensic\n                                                            Toxicology. These case reports should provide a clear and broad picture of the applicant\u2019s\n                                                            competencies. If possible the case reports should also contain the testimony delivered\n                                                            in court;\n\n\u2013 if available:\n\n\u2013 proof of the forms of professional development referred to in the Overview Continued\n                                                            Professional Development Forensic Toxicology.\n\nAssessment method:\n\nphase a. administrative, by the NRGD Bureau;\n\nphase b. substantive, by an Advisory Committee for Assessment (ACA) made up of at\n                                                            least three people on the basis of the available written material. In principle this\n                                                            ACA consists of a lawyer and two professional assessors;\n\nphase c. substantive, by the ACA specified at phase b by means of an oral assessment.\n                                                            This oral assessment will be waived if the applicant\u2019s expertise has already been\n                                                            clearly established;\n\nphase d. decision by the Board: registration, conditional registration or no registration.\n\nExplanation:\n\nA new ACA will be formed if possible. This ACA will be allowed to inspect the advice\n                                                               given by the previous ACA.\n\nThis document contains keywords of concepts of which an expert in the field of Forensic\n                                 Toxicology should minimally have a basic knowledge.\n\n\u2013 Anatomy, physiology, biochemistry\n\n\u2013 Pathophysiology and biochemical pathology\n\n\u2013 Clinical chemistry\n\n\u2013 Basics of pathological anatomy\n\n\u2013 Pharmaco/toxicodynamics\n\n\u2013 Pharmaco/toxicokinetics, including the effect of dosage forms (biopharmacy)\n\n\u2013 Pharmaco/toxicogenetics\n\n\u2013 Chemical structures: structure-activity relationships, working mechanisms, metabolism\n                                          of xenobiotics\n\n\u2013 General toxicology: acute versus chronic toxicity; carcinogenicity, mutagenicity,\n                                          teratogenicity\n\n\u2013 Clinical toxicology: symptoms and therapy in the event of overdose organ toxicity,\n                                          side effects, interactions, addiction and habituation, effects of drugs on behaviour,\n                                          clinical chemistry (influence of poisoning on clinical-chemical parameters)\n\n\u2013 Pathophysiology and biochemical pathology\n\n\u2013 Epidemiology of acute poisoning\n\n\u2013 Risk assessment of possible poisonous substances\n\n\u2013 Sampling, choice of material to be examined and analysed (in this context the interpretation\n                                          of autopsy and necropsy/legal post-mortem results are important)\n\n\u2013 Post-mortem processes in bodily material (causes and effects)\n\n\u2013 Method development and method specifications (quality, quantity): pre-treatment, separation\n                                          and detection\n\n\u2013 Method validation: quality requirements\n\n\u2013 Quality control\n\n\u2013 Stability: storing, preserving\n\n\u2013 Certification and accreditation\n\n\u2013 External Quality Assurance\n\nAdvisory Committee for Assessment\n\nA committee appointed by the Board which advises the Board on the (repeat) applicant\u2019s\n                                                (degree of) suitability for (repeat) registration.\n\nApplicant\n\nNatural person submitting an application to the NRGD in order to be (re-) registered\n                                                in the register.\n\nAssessor\n\nA member of an Advisory Committee for Assessment.\n\nBoard\n\nThe Board of Court Experts is the body as referred to in Section 51k(2) of the Code\n                                                of Criminal Procedure and is charged with managing the register.\n\nBrdis\n\nRegister of Court Experts in Criminal Cases Decree (Besluit register deskundige in strafzaken).\n\nBureau\n\nThe NRGD Bureau that supports the Board.\n\nCollegial review\n\nThe assessment of another person\u2019s work for the purpose of continuous quality control\n                                                of a person\u2019s expertise. There is thereby not a hierarchical but a horizontal relationship\n                                                between colleagues specialised in the same subject area. The reviewer does not sign\n                                                the report.\n\nConditional registration\n\nThe registration of an expert for a period specified by the\n\nBoard and possibly under certain conditions which must be\n\nmet within that period. In principle the period to be specified\n\nby the Board is two years.\n\nContinuous professional development\n\nAll (training) activities that contribute to the ongoing development of knowledge\n                                                and skills, which is desirable and necessary in order to be able to continue performing\n                                                the role of court expert in a professional manner.\n\nIndependent reporter\n\nA reporter who has independently prepared and signed the required number of case reports\n\nInitial applicant\n\nAn applicant who makes an application to be entered in the register and does not or\n                                                not yet have an NRGD registration at the time when the application is made.\n\nIntervision\n\nIntervision is a structured (interdisciplinary) meeting between people who are working\n                                                or training in the same professional area. The subject of discussion is in any case\n                                                the forensic work carried out and the associated problems. The aim is to enhance the\n                                                expertise of those involved and improve quality of work. Unlike supervision, there\n                                                is no hierarchical relationship between the participants.\n\nNRGD\n\nThe Netherlands Register of Court Experts of which the Board and the Bureau form part.\n\nRegister\n\nThe national public register as referred to in Section 51 k(1) of the Code of Criminal\n                                                Procedure, which lists the court experts which the Board deems suitable.\n\nRegistered expert\n\nAn expert who is entered in the register.\n\nRegistration\n\nEntry in the register.\n\nRepeat applicant\n\nAn expert who at the time of submitting a repeat application already has a NRGD registration,\n                                                possibly for a conditional registration.\n\nReporter\n\nAn individual who issues a report for the administration of justice and/or gives testimony\n                                                in court.\n\nReporter training\n\nA coherent and structured arrangement of organised training activities in which the\n                                                necessary knowledge and experience are acquired to report as a court expert in criminal\n                                                law proceedings and that is completed by an exam.\n\nReporter with no own work\n\nA reporter who has not independently completed and signed the number of case reports\n                                                required for registration.\n\nSupervision\n\nThe assessment of another person\u2019s work, the joint consideration of the work and the\n                                                supervision of a supervisee as part of a training or additional training process.\n                                                Supervisor and supervisee are thereby in a hierarchical relationship. The supervisor\n                                                will observe the subject of the investigation (the investigated person) in such a\n                                                way that they can check the supervisee\u2019s investigation, and can endorse and take responsibility\n                                                for the conclusions thereof. The supervisor will sign the report in all cases.\n\nUser\n\nSomeone who uses the register in order to find and potentially engage a registered\n                                                expert.\n\nVersion\n\nDate\n\nRevisions made\n\n3.0\n\n12.12.2016\n\nGeneric adjustments:\n\n\u2013 addition: Part I Generic Introduction\n\n\u2013 adjusted description of types of applicants: independent/work of his own\n\n\u2013 differentiation per types of applicants to provide an immediate overview of respective\n                                                requirements (Part III) and assessment procedure (Part IV)\n\n\u2013 number of case reports adjusted because of extending the registration period;\n\n\u2013 Continued Professional Development (CPD) mandatory for all types of applicants\n\n\u2013 possibility to submit profiles that were interpreted and reported on under supervision\n\n\u2013 possibility to submit profiles that were interpreted and reported on under the supervision\n                                                of the applicant\n\n\u2013 integration of several NRGD policy frameworks in Standards\n\n\u2013 selection of case reports by applicants themselves.\n\n2.0\n\n01.03.2015\n\nGeneric adjustments:\n\n\u2013 Continued professional development;\n\n\u2013 Collegial review.\n\n1.0\n\n01.03.2011\n\nFirst edition"}