Title: wetten.nl - Regeling - Standards Forensic Weapon and Ammunition Examination (006.1) - BWBR0039081

Source: https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0039081/

Content:
{"title": "wetten.nl - Regeling - Standards Forensic Weapon and Ammunition Examination (006.1) - BWBR0039081", "content": "Standards Forensic Weapon and Ammunition Examination (006.1)\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 conditional 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 at all times which Standards are valid at any given\n                                             moment.\n\nThe \u2018Forensic Weapon and Ammunition Examination\u2019 field of expertise (further: Weapon\n                                          and Ammunition) consists of the examination of portable weapons (further: \u2018weapons\u2019).\n                                          The term weapon covers both firearms (and the suitable cartridges) and portable devices2 that are capable of accelerating one or more projectiles (also referred as \u2018bullets\u2019)\n                                          or merely of producing a bang. Firearms utilise a chemical process through the ignition\n                                          of a propellant charge and are provided with a combustion chamber and a barrel. Portable\n                                          devices make use of a physical process, for example the pressure caused by the expansion\n                                          of gas or the energy released by a spring. A cartridge is ammunition in which the\n                                          (the) projectile(s), the propellant charge and the primer are combined in the cartridge\n                                          case.\n\nShooting incidents involving munitions other than the ordinary unit cartridge (for\n                                          example, propellant, primer and projectile separated) are not excluded.\n\nThe field of expertise relates to a technical examination of the weapon, the identification\n                                          of the firearms used during a shooting incident, and the technical reconstruction\n                                          of the shooting incident itself.\n\nThe Gunshot Residue Examination, the Explosions and Explosives Examination, the field\n                                          of expertise of Pathology and the field of expertise Assessment regarding the Weapons\n                                          and Ammunition Act fall outside the scope of this field of expertise.\n\nThe following disciplines are distinguished within the field of expertise:\n\n\u2013 Comparative bullet and cartridge case examination\n\n\u2013 Weapon-technical examination for the purpose of reconstruction\n\n\u2013 Forensic ballistics examination\n\nDifferent questions are relevant per discipline. An overview of the most frequent\n                                          questions has been provided in Annex A.\n\nGeneral: an expert in Forensic Weapon and Ammunition Examination identifies, typifies,\n                                          classifies and describes portable firearms and the ammunition intended for such weapons\n                                          according to the Weapons and Ammunition Act.\n\nComparative bullet and cartridge case examination\n\nDuring the comparative bullet and cartridge case examination, an examination is conducted\n                                          into microscopically small mechanical damage (weapon marks) on components of ammunition\n                                          (bullets and cartridge cases) and cartridges. These marks are created when shooting\n                                          or chambering ammunition in a firearm. The marks are characteristic of or particular\n                                          to the firearm used and are consequently, highly indicative.\n\nConnections can be established between each of the examined components of ammunition\n                                          and/or between those components of ammunition and a firearm by comparing the weapon\n                                          marks on bullets, cartridge cases and cartridges with each other. A special form of\n                                          comparative bullet and cartridge case examination is an examination of the found ammunition\n                                          components with a larger collection of stored bullets and cartridge cases from various\n                                          shooting incidents.\n\nDuring the comparative bullet and cartridge case examination, the expert identifies\n                                          relevant weapon marks and compares these with the aid of a comparison microscope equipped\n                                          for this purpose. The discovered similarities and differences are recorded and interpreted.\n                                          The latter leads to a statement as to whether the findings are in line with the hypothesis\n                                          that ammunition components had been discharged in the same firearm or that a given\n                                          individual firearm had been used or that it was not used.\n\nWeapon-technical examination for the purpose of reconstruction\n\nDuring a weapon-technical examination, a weapon is examined for mechanical operation,\n                                          defects and failures for the purpose of reconstructing the causes of a shooting incident.\n                                          The condition and construction of the weapon are considered while taking into account\n                                          the actions alleged to have been performed with it. These acts largely concern the\n                                          possibility of accidental firing during throwing, falling, hitting or struggles.\n\nThe weapon is tested for sound operation. The examination consists of a thorough (microscope)\n                                          inspection for damage, signs of wear and tear or missing components. The safety mechanisms\n                                          that should be present have to be checked, followed by shooting tests and/or experiments\n                                          that can recreate the acts that have been suggested as possible scenarios. The expert\n                                          is able to establish, by means of inspection, assembly or disassembly an analysis\n                                          of faults and failures, and an estimation as to whether there is any true basis for\n                                          the proposition that the examined weapon fired by accident.\n\nThe forensic ballistics examination\n\nThe forensic ballistics examination consists of all four phases of ballistics: internal,\n                                          muzzle (or transitional), external and terminal ballistics. The latter two are particularly\n                                          relevant in connection with the direction of the shot, determining the firing distance\n                                          and the effect of the bullets on targets that have been hit.\n\nExperiments are conducted during ballistics examinations with the aim of evaluating\n                                          the hypotheses proposed by the commissioning party concerning the shooting incident.\n                                          The questions that can be asked are highly diverse in nature.\n\nExternal ballistics:\n\n\u2013 The expert can determine the projectile velocity (for example with a Doppler radar\n                                                or a light barrier) and precision of a weapon-ammunition system.\n\n\u2013 The firing distance can be evaluated by reconstructing the available data from the\n                                                crime scene (for example, the spread of buckshot).\n\n\u2013 Reconstruction of projectile trajectories.\n\nTerminal ballistics:\n\n\u2013 The potential for fatal injury can best be evaluated by performing test shots on calibrated\n                                                tissue simulators.\n\nThe expert has to be capable and competent in the performance of all necessary experiments,\n                                          perform them or have them performed, and to process and interpret the data of a significant\n                                          number of measurements (statistically).\n\nLegal domain: criminal law.\n\nWithin the practice of the Forensic Weapon and Ammunition Examination field of expertise,\n                                          the expert will come into contact with other fields of expertise, which are not part\n                                          of his expertise.\n\nThe expert in Forensic Weapon and Ammunition Examination is aware of the possibilities\n                                          and restrictions of the fields of expertise mentioned below:\n\nCrime scene examination3\n\nThe expert in Forensic Weapon and Ammunition Examination can assist and advise the\n                                          police on site when searching, describing, recording, interpreting and securing marks\n                                          and carriers of marks of shooting incidents on and around the crime scene.\n\nIn doing so, the expert will focus on:\n\n\u2013 advising on the approach of the technical examination, in particular bullet trajectory\n                                                reconstructions on the basis of shot damage,\n\n\u2013 providing expert advice on safety with respect to the crime scene examination,\n\n\u2013 making weapons secure in unsafe situations (weapons from burnt out cars or under water),\n\n\u2013 proposing possible hypotheses or scenarios,\n\n\u2013 advising regarding potential forensic follow-up examinations.\n\nGunshot Residue Examination field of expertise\n\nThe Gunshot Residue Examination field of expertise concerns itself with:\n\n\u2013 Ballistics on clothing and/or post mortem examination\n\n\u2013 Gunshot residue examination\n\n\u2013 Examination of the hand and /or sleeve used for shooting\n\n\u2013 Examination of micro marks on weapons and ammunition\n\nPathology field of expertise\n\nThe Pathology field of expertise comprises the determination of the victim\u2019s cause\n                                          of death. It is also determined whether the identified shooting is the cause of the\n                                          death.\n\nExplosions and Explosives Examination field of expertise\n\nThe Explosions and Explosives field of expertise is primarily deals with the following\n                                          investigation:\n\n\u2013 Examination of intact factory produced and improvised explosive constructions\n\n\u2013 Identification of intact presumably explosive substances and possible raw materials\n                                                for explosives\n\n\u2013 Research of explosions\n\nUsually, Explosions and Explosives examinations concern incidents other than shooting\n                                          incidents.\n\nField of expertise of 006.2 Assessment regarding the Weapons and Ammunition Act\n\nThe field of expertise of Assessment regarding the Weapons and Ammunition Act focuses\n                                          on:\n\n\u2013 Investigation regarding the section of law regarding Weapons and Munitions under which\n                                                the firearm falls\n\n\u2013 Investigation regarding the grounds for exemption\n\n\u2013 All essential related extensive weapon-technical examination.\n\nThe register will state the name of the relevant expert as an expert in the field\n                                          of 006.1 Forensic Weapon and Ammunition Examination.\n\nThe general (repeat) registration requirements are given in the next paragraphs in\n                                       italics with a reference to Article 12 paragraph 2 in the Register of 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 be able to work at the level of someone who has minimally obtained a bachelor degree\n                                                            (natural sciences);\n\n\u2013 have a demonstrable level of education, training and experience \u2013 demonstrated in\n                                                            the curriculum vitae \u2013 in the following core activities:\n\n\u2022 comparative bullet and cartridge case examination;\n\n\u2022 weapon-technical examination;\n\n\u2022 forensic ballistics examination;\n\n\u2013 be familiar with the glossary (see Annex A) and the suggested literature (see Annex B) and must keep up to date with relevant professional state-of-the-art developments;\n\n\u2013 be minimally capable of answering questions concerning the possibilities and restrictions\n                                                            of, for example, crime scene investigations and the fields of expertise of: Gunshot\n                                                            Residue Examination, Pathology, Explosions and Explosives Examinations and Assessment\n                                                            regarding the Weapons and Ammunition Act.\n\nSpecific requirements:\n\n\u2013 have interpreted and reported at least 20 examinations per year in the preceding\n                                                            5 years in which each of the core activities comparative bullet and shell examination\n                                                            (a minimum of 90 reports), weapon-technical investigation (a minimum of 5 reports)\n                                                            and forensic ballistics examination (a minimum of 5 reports) are represented and that\n                                                            have been subjected to collegial review;\n\n\u2013 In 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\nBasic requirements:\n\n\u2013 be able to work at the level of someone who has minimally obtained a bachelor degree\n                                                            (natural sciences);should have a demonstrable level of education, training and experience\n                                                            \u2013 demonstrated in the curriculum vitae \u2013 in the following core activities:\n\n\u2022 comparative bullet and cartridge case examination;\n\n\u2022 weapon-technical examination;\n\n\u2022 forensic ballistics examination;\n\n\u2013 be familiar with the glossary (see Annex A) and the suggested literature (see Annex B) and must keep up to date with relevant professional state-of-the-art developments;\n\n\u2013 be minimally capable of answering questions concerning the possibilities and restrictions\n                                                            of, for example, crime scene investigations and the fields of expertise of: Gunshot\n                                                            Residue Examination, Pathology, Explosions and Explosives Examinations and Assessment\n                                                            regarding the Weapons and Ammunition Act.\n\nSpecific requirements:\n\n\u2013 have interpreted and reported at least 20 examinations per year in the preceding\n                                                            2 years in which each of the core activities comparative bullet and shell examination\n                                                            (a minimum of 36 reports), weapon-technical investigation (a minimum of 2 reports)\n                                                            and forensic ballistics examination (a minimum of 2 reports) are represented and that\n                                                            have been subjected to collegial review;\n\n\u2013 have spent an average of 40 hours a year over the past 2 years on forensically relevant\n                                                            professional development (e.g. publications, attending conferences, running or attending\n                                                            courses).\n\nBasic requirements:\n\n\u2013 be able to work at the level of someone who has minimally obtained a bachelor degree\n                                                            (natural sciences);\n\n\u2013 have a demonstrable level of education, training and experience \u2013 demonstrated in\n                                                            the curriculum vitae \u2013 in the following core activities:\n\n\u2022 comparative bullet and cartridge case examination;\n\n\u2022 weapon-technical examination;\n\n\u2022 forensic ballistics examination;\n\n\u2013 be familiar with the glossary (see Annex A) and the suggested literature (see Annex B) and must keep up to date with relevant professional state-of-the-art developments;\n\n\u2013 be minimally capable of answering questions concerning the possibilities and restrictions\n                                                            of, for example, crime scene investigations and the fields of expertise of: Gunshot\n                                                            Residue Examination, Pathology, Explosions and Explosives Examinations and Assessment\n                                                            regarding the Weapons and Ammunition Act.\n\nSpecific requirements:\n\n\u2013 have interpreted and reported at least 20 examinations per year in the preceding\n                                                            5 years in which each of the core activities comparative bullet and shell examination\n                                                            (a minimum of 90 reports), weapon-technical investigation (a minimum of 5 reports)\n                                                            and forensic ballistics examination (a minimum of 5 reports) are represented and that\n                                                            have been subjected to collegial review;\n\n\u2013 In 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\nBasic requirements:\n\n\u2013 be able to work at the level of someone who has minimally obtained a bachelor degree\n                                                            (natural sciences);\n\n\u2013 should have a demonstrable level of education, training and experience \u2013 demonstrated\n                                                            in the curriculum vitae \u2013 in the following core activities:\n\n\u2022 comparative bullet and cartridge case examination;\n\n\u2022 weapon-technical examination;\n\n\u2022 forensic ballistics examination;\n\n\u2013 be familiar with the glossary (see Annex A) and the suggested literature (see Annex B) and must keep up to date with relevant professional state-of-the-art developments;\n\n\u2013 be minimally capable of answering questions concerning the possibilities and restrictions\n                                                            of, for example, crime scene investigations and the fields of expertise of: Gunshot\n                                                            Residue Examination, Pathology, Explosions and Explosives Examinations and Assessment\n                                                            regarding the Weapons and Ammunition Act.\n\nSpecific requirements:\n\n\u2013 have interpreted and reported at least of 20 examinations per year in the preceding\n                                                            2 years in which each of the core activities comparative bullet and shell examination\n                                                            (a minimum of 36 reports), weapon-technical investigation (a minimum of 2 reports)\n                                                            and forensic ballistics examination (a minimum of 2 reports) are represented and that\n                                                            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 2 years on forensically relevant\n                                                            professional development (e.g. publications, attending conferences, running or attending\n                                                            courses).\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                                                Weapon and Ammunition Examination:\n\n\u2022 should be familiar with specific Dutch weapons and ammunition legislation and keep\n                                                      abreast of new 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\nAn applicant should:\n\n\u2013 have insight into, knowledge of and/or experience with:\n\n\u2022 Prosecutor and Defence Fallacies;\n\n\u2022 Pitfalls in comparative bullet and cartridge case examinations (false positive fallacy);\n\n\u2022 Bayesian method;\n\n\u2022 Consecutive Matching Striae (CMS) method;\n\n\u2022 (Confirmation) Bias;\n\n\u2022 Measurement uncertainty;\n\n\u2022 General principles of the manufacturing of portable firearms and cartridges;\n\n\u2022 General principles of quality assurance;\n\n\u2022 Ballistics.\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-qualified person about an\n                                                interpretation and conclusion (both orally and in writing) and should be able to support\n                                                these with statistics where relevant.\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\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 within the 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 Weapon and Ammunition Examination;\n\n\u2013 List of Case Information Forensic Weapon and Ammunition Examination;\n\n\u2013 3 case reports \u00b9 not older than 5 year selected by the applicant from the List of\n                                                            Case Information. These case reports should provide a clear and broad picture of the\n                                                            applicant\u2019s competencies;\n\n\u2013 if available;\n\n\u2022 proof of the forms of professional development referred to in the Overview Continued\n                                                            Professional Development Forensic Weapon and Ammunition Examination.\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\n\u00b9 Including the observation form and corresponding (digital) image material.\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 Weapon and Ammunition Examination;\n\n\u2013 List of Case Information Forensic Weapon and Ammunition Examination;\n\n\u2013 3 case reports \u00b9 not older than 2 years selected by the applicant from the List\n                                                            of Case Information. These case reports should provide a clear and broad picture of\n                                                            the applicant\u2019s competencies;\n\n\u2013 if available;\n\n\u2022 proof of the forms of professional development referred to in the Overview Continued\n                                                            Professional Development Forensic Weapon and Ammunition Examination.\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: 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\n\u00b9 Including the observation form and corresponding (digital) image material.\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 an updated 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 Weapon and Ammunition Examination;\n\n\u2013 List of Case Information Forensic Weapon and Ammunition Examination;\n\n\u2013 2 case reports \u00b9 not older than 5 years selected by the applicant from the List\n                                                            of Case Information. These case reports should provide a clear and a broad picture\n                                                            of the applicant\u2019s competencies;\n\n\u2013 if available;\n\n\u2022 proof of the forms of professional development referred to in the Overview Continued\n                                                            Professional Development Forensic Weapon and Ammunition Examination.\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\n\u00b9 Including the observation form and corresponding (digital) image material.\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 an up-to-date 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 Weapon and Ammunition Examination;\n\n\u2013 List of Case Information Forensic Weapon and Ammunition Examination;\n\n\u2013 2 case reports \u00b9 not older than 2 years selected by the applicant from the List\n                                                            of Case Information. These case reports should provide a clear and broad picture of\n                                                            the applicant\u2019s competencies;\n\n\u2013 if available:\n\n\u2022 proof of the forms of professional development referred to in the Overview Continued\n                                                            Professional Development Forensic Weapon and Ammunition Examination.\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\n\u00b9 Including the observation form and corresponding (digital) image material.\n\n\u2013 Have the ammunition components (bullets/cartridge cases) been fired from the firearm(s)\n                                          presented?\n\n\u2013 Do the fired ammunition components come from one or from multiple firearm(s)?\n\n\u2013 What is the type and brand of the firearm(s) used?\n\n\u2013 Can a relationship with another shooting incident in the Netherlands be demonstrated?\n\n\u2013 Can a relationship between the firearm, or the bullets or the cartridge cases, etc.\n                                          and a shooting incident in a certain country/countries be demonstrated?\n\nThis list is not exhaustive. Other questions are also possible.\n\n\u2013 Regarding the projectile in the body of the victim (which caliber and type) given\n                                          the provided x-rays and/or CT scans?\n\n\u2013 What is the calibre and brand of the unknown bullet?\n\n\u2013 Do one or more metal fragments originate from a single bullet and, if so, what type\n                                          of bullet is it?\n\nThis list is not exhaustive. Other questions are also possible.\n\n\u2013 Does the firearm function properly / as intended?\n\n\u2013 Can the alleged failures that have occurred be explained?\n\n\u2013 Can the weapon discharge by falling, throwing, bumping or hitting?\n\n\u2013 Can the home-made weapon be used to fire cartridges?\n\n\u2013 What caused the weapon to blow/tear the barrel?\n\nThe first three questions have to be considered in relation to the possible accidental\n                                    discharge of a shot or the possible misfire.\n\nThis list is not exhaustive. Other questions are also possible.\n\n\u2013 What is the firing distance considering the impact of the shotgun pellets?\n\n\u2013 Can a shot with the firearm/weapon cause a lethal injury? (possibly after being pierced\n                                          by or ricochet from another object)\n\n\u2013 What wounds could be inflicted if this ammunition is fired?\n\n\u2013 Which assumptions can be drawn from the original ballistics trajectory on the basis\n                                          of the damage(s) of a shot?\n\nThis list is not exhaustive. Other questions are also possible.\n\nOnly available in Dutch:\n\nJ.A.J.M. Waaijer & Zanten, M. van (2011). Meertalig verklarend woordenboek wapens\n                                 en munitie. Den Haag: Sdu Uitgevers.\n\nA candidate should be aware of recent developments within the relevant field of expertise.\n                                 The list of literature contained below is an non exhaustive list of minimum proposed\n                                 literature.\n\nSuggested literature:\n\nComparative examination, technical weapon research and ballistics\n\n\u2013 Biasotti, A.A. (1959). A Statistical Study of the Individual Characteristics of Fired\n                                       Bullets, Journal of Forensic Sciences, 4 (1), 34-50.\n\n\u2013 Biasotti, A.A. & Murdock, J. (1984). Criteria for Identification or State of the Art\n                                       of Firearm and Toolmark Identification, AFTE Journal, 16 (4),16-24.\n\n\u2013 Bonfanti, M. & De Kinder, J. (1999). The influence of manufacturing processes on the\n                                       identification of bullets and cartridge cases \u2013 a review of the literature, Science & Justice, 39 (1), 3-10.\n\n\u2013 Burrard, G. (1990). The Identification of Firearms and Forensic Ballistics. Prescott, Arizona, USA: Wolfe Publishing Company.\n\n\u2013 Faigman, D.L., Kaye D.H., Saks M.J. and Sanders J. (2010). Modern Scientific Evidence:\n                                       The Law and Science of Expert Testimony. Firearms and Toolmarks Identification. USA:\n                                       West Publishing.\n\n\u2013 Gunther, J.D. and Gunther, C.O. (1935). The Identification of Firearms. New York: John Wiley & Sons.\n\n\u2013 Hatcher, J.S. (1935). Textbook of Firearms Investigation, Identification and Evidence.\n                                       Plantersville, USA: Small-Arms Technical Publishing Co.\n\n\u2013 Heard, B.J. (1997). Handbook of Firearms and Ballistics \u2013 Examining and Interpreting\n                                       Forensic Evidence. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons.\n\n\u2013 Miller, J. & McLean, M. (1998). Criteria For Identification of Toolmarks, AFTE Journal, 30 (1), 15-61.\n\n\u2013 Miller, J. (2000). Criteria for Identification of Toolmarks, Part II, Single Land\n                                       Impression comparisons, AFTE Journal, 32 (2), 116-131.\n\n\u2013 Nichols, R.G. (1997). Firearm and Toolmark Identification Criteria: a review of the\n                                       Literature, Journal of Forensic Sciences, 42 (3), 466-474.\n\n\u2013 Nichols, R.G. (2003). Firearm and Toolmark Identification Criteria: a review of the\n                                       Literature, Journal of Forensic Sciences, 48 (2), 318-327.\n\n\u2013 Moran, B. (2002). A Report on the AFTE Theory of Identification of Toolmarks and Range\n                                       of Conclusions for Tool Mark Identification and Resulting Approaches to Casework,\n                                       AFTE Journal, 34 (2), 227-235.\n\n\u2013 Nichols, R.G. (2003). Consecutive Matching Striations (CMS): Its definition, Study\n                                       and Application in the Discipline of Firearms and Tool Mark Identification, AFTE Journal, 35 (3), 298 -306.\n\n\u2013 Sellier, K. (1982). Schusswaffen und Schusswirkungen: Ballistik, Medizin, Kriminalistik.\n                                       L\u00fcbeck: Schmidt-R\u00f6mhild.\n\nForensic statistics (including Bayes)\n\n\u2013 Robertson, B. & Vignaux, G.A. (1995). Interpreting evidence - evaluating forensic\n                                       science in the courtroom. Chichester, John Wiley & Sons.\n\n\u2013 Lucy, D. (2005). Introduction to Statistics for Forensic Scientists. Chichester: John\n                                       Wiley & Sons.\n\n\u2013 Broeders, A.P.A. (2003). Op zoek naar de bron \u2013 over de grondslagen van de criminalistiek\n                                       en de waardering van het forensisch bewijs. Deventer: Kluwer.\n\n\u2013 Sjerps, M.J.& Coster van Voorhout, J.A. (2005). Het onzekere bewijs. Gebruik van statistiek\n                                       en kansrekening in het strafrecht, Deventer: Kluwer.\n\n\u2013 Berger, C.E.H. (2010). Criminalistiek is terugredeneren. Nederlands Juristenblad, 646 (13), 784-789.\n\nBias / influence:\n\n\u2013 Risinger, D.M., Saks, M.J., Thompson, W.C. & Rosenthal, R. (2002). The Daubert/Kumho\n                                       implications of observer effects in forensic science: hidden problems of expectation\n                                       and suggestion. California Law Review, 90 (1), 1-56.\n\n\u2013 Saks, M.J., Risinger, D.M., Rosenthal, R., & Thompson, W.C. (2003), Context effects\n                                       in forensic science. Science & Justice, 43(2), 77-90.\n\n\u2013 Dror, I. E., Charlton, D., & Peron A. (2006). Contextual information renders experts\n                                       vulnerable to making erroneous identifications. Forensic Science International, 156 (1), 74-78.\n\n\u2013 Interpol-Review 2010-2013: \u2018Examination of Firearms\u2019 (17th Interpol International\n                                       Forensic Science Managers Symposium (Lyon, 8- 10 October 2013).\n\n\u2013 HOME/2010/ISEC/MO/4000001759: Strengthening the Evaluation of Forensic Results across\n                                       Europe (STEOFRAE), 8 March 2015.\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 Board and possibly under\n                                                certain conditions which must be met within that period. In principle the period to\n                                                be specified by 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\n2.0\n\n12.12.2016\n\nGeneric adjustments:\n\n\u2013 addition: generic introduction for all fields of expertise in Part I\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 hours CPD\n\n\u2013 Continued Professional Development (CPD) mandatory for all types of applicants\n\n\u2013 integration of several NRGD policy frameworks in Standards\n\n1.0\n\n1.5.2011\n\nFirst edition"}