Title: wetten.nl - Regeling - Standards Handwriting Examination (002.0) - BWBR0039080

Source: https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0039080/

Content:
{"title": "wetten.nl - Regeling - Standards Handwriting Examination (002.0) - BWBR0039080", "content": "Standards Handwriting Examination (002.0)\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 which Standards are valid at any given moment at\n                                             all times.\n\nPreliminary remark:\n\nIn this context, handwriting also refers to signatures.\n\nThe core function of Handwriting Examination is to determine whether samples of handwriting\n                                          originate from one and the same writer.\n\nIn addition, a handwriting examiner may express opinions on the motor state of the\n                                          writer. These statements will refer only to the way the shape of the handwriting sample\n                                          is produced by the writer\u2019s movement. For instance, the motor state of the writer\n                                          may be \u2018tremor\u2019 (for example due to Parkinsonism, substance abuse, emotion). The effects\n                                          of the tremor may be visible in the handwritten trace. In such a case, it would be\n                                          justifiable to mention the presence of \u2018tremor\u2019, but not its cause.\n\nIn addition to formulating conclusions regarding the origin of the handwriting, a\n                                          handwriting examiner may also formulate a conclusion on the process of production\n                                          (for example whether a signature is the product of a copying process). Although irregularities\n                                          in the writing trace and pen pressure transitions may clearly indicate \u2212 i.e. constitute\n                                          visible evidence of \u2212 for instance, interruptions in the writing process, it falls\n                                          outside the scope of the handwriting examiner to make statements about the writer\u2019s\n                                          mental or physical state or personality traits.\n\nField of law: criminal law.\n\nA handwriting examination is carried out by assessing geometric2 and structural,3 visual features of the text, as well as detailed and measurable characteristics of\n                                          the writing trace which are the result of the deposition process of the writing instrument,\n                                          the force applied by the writing instrument (pen pressure) and the temporal order\n                                          of the writing movements.4The features associated with the questioned sample are then compared with the features\n                                          of the known writing. In general, the degree of similarity or dissimilarity of features\n                                          may be seen as a measure of evidence for the hypothesis of common origin.\n\nDescribed below are those tasks in which a handwriting examiner does not engage and\n                                          which are excluded from the field of Handwriting Examination.\n\nA handwriting examiner will make no further inferences or answer any questions as\n                                          to the writer of a sample that is being analyzed other than those mentioned above.\n\nA handwriting examiner will only express opinions based on handwriting samples written\n                                          in a script type which falls within his expertise. For most European handwriting examiners,\n                                          this will be Latin script (as opposed to for example Cyrillic or Arabic script). An\n                                          exception may be made for signatures. Signatures can be legible (text-based) or illegible\n                                          (stylized). Signatures in a script unfamiliar to the examiner can to some extent be\n                                          processed like illegible signatures. The opinions of a handwriting examiner always\n                                          have to be corroborated by reference to observable features in the writing trace.\n\nA handwriting examiner must have sufficient knowledge to be able to decide whether\n                                          the services of a document examiner are required.\n\nThe following activities emphatically do not belong to the field of expertise of handwriting examiners:\n\n\u2013 formulating conclusions on any personality traits of the writer on the basis of his\n                                                handwriting;\n\n\u2013 formulating conclusions on the general or incidental mental or physical state of the\n                                                writer on the basis of his handwriting;\n\n\u2013 formulating conclusions on the basis of the linguistic features of a handwritten text.\n                                                However, a handwriting examiner may describe spelling features and punctuation typicalities;\n\n\u2013 formulating conclusions on samples collected from PCs. These require a specific expertise\n                                                with a demonstrable experience.\n\nThe register will record the name of the relevant expert as an expert in the field\n                                          of Handwriting 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 work at the level of someone who has completed a Bachelor\u2019s degree at a university\n                                                            of applied science;\n\n\u2013 have recent experience in examining cases at the time of submitting his application\n                                                            for registration;\n\n\u2013 have adequate knowledge of standard works in the field, and keep abreast of academic\n                                                            literature including the most recent developments (see suggested literature in Annex A);\n\n\u2013 have adequate knowledge of the motor control of handwriting and the motor skills\n                                                            that lead to the writing trace on paper;\n\n\u2013 have adequate knowledge of document examination;\n\n\u2013 have adequate knowledge of image processing techniques;\n\n\u2013 be informed about methods of digital handwriting comparison and keeps abreast of\n                                                            the developments in this field;\n\n\u2013 have adequate knowledge of the concepts of criminalistics, such as descriptive and\n                                                            inferential statistics (see suggested literature in annex A).\n\nSpecific requirements:\n\n\u2013 have drawn up at least 50 reports not older than 5 years which have been subjected\n                                                            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 32 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\n\u2013 have participated at least twice in proficiency tests in the past 5 years and can\n                                                            submit the results of these tests.\n\nBasic requirements:\n\n\u2013 work at the level of someone who has completed a Bachelor\u2019s degree at a university\n                                                            of applied science;\n\n\u2013 have recent experience in examining cases at the time of submitting his application\n                                                            for registration;\n\n\u2013 have adequate knowledge of standard works in the field, and keep abreast of academic\n                                                            literature including the most recent developments (see suggested literature in Annex A);\n\n\u2013 have adequate knowledge of the motor control of handwriting and the motor skills\n                                                            that lead to the writing trace on paper;\n\n\u2013 have adequate knowledge of document examination;\n\n\u2013 have adequate knowledge of image processing techniques;\n\n\u2013 be informed about methods of digital handwriting comparison and keeps abreast of\n                                                            the developments in this field;\n\n\u2013 have adequate knowledge of the concepts of criminalistics, such as descriptive and\n                                                            inferential statistics (see suggested literature in Annex A).\n\nSpecific requirements:\n\n\u2013 have drawn up at least 20 reports not older than 2 years which have been subjected\n                                                            to collegial review and/or under supervision and of which at least one report has\n                                                            been drawn up under supervision;\n\n\u2013 having spent an average of 32 hours a year over the past 2 years on forensically\n                                                            relevant professional development (e.g. publications, attending conferences, running\n                                                            or attending courses);\n\n\u2013 have participated at least once in proficiency tests in the past 2 years and can\n                                                            submit the results of these tests.\n\nBasic requirements:\n\n\u2013 work at the level of someone who has completed a Bachelor\u2019s degree at a university\n                                                            of applied science;\n\n\u2013 have recent experience in examining cases at the time of submitting his application\n                                                            for registration;\n\n\u2013 have adequate knowledge of standard works in the field, and keep abreast of academic\n                                                            literature including the most recent developments (see suggested literature in Annex A);\n\n\u2013 have adequate knowledge of the motor control of handwriting and the motor skills\n                                                            that lead to the writing trace on paper;\n\n\u2013 have adequate knowledge of document examination;\n\n\u2013 have adequate knowledge of image processing techniques;\n\n\u2013 be informed about methods of digital handwriting comparison and keeps abreast of\n                                                            the developments in this field;\n\n\u2013 have adequate knowledge of the concepts of criminalistics, such as descriptive and\n                                                            inferential statistics (see suggested literature in Annex A).\n\nSpecific requirements:\n\n\u2013 have drawn up at least 50 reports not older than 5 years which have been subjected\n                                                            to collegial review;\n\n\u2013 an average of 32 hours a year over the past 5 years on forensically relevant professional\n                                                            development (e.g. publications, attending conferences, running or attending courses);\n\n\u2013 have participated at least twice in proficiency tests in the past 5 years and can\n                                                            submit the results of these tests.\n\nBasic requirements:\n\n\u2013 work at the level of someone who has completed a Bachelor\u2019s degree at a university\n                                                            of applied science;\n\n\u2013 have recent experience in examining cases at the time of submitting his application\n                                                            for registration;\n\n\u2013 have adequate knowledge of standard works in the field, and keep abreast of academic\n                                                            literature including the most recent developments (see suggested literature in Annex A);\n\n\u2013 have adequate knowledge of the motor control of handwriting and the motor skills\n                                                            that lead to the writing trace on paper;\n\n\u2013 have adequate knowledge of document examination;\n\n\u2013 have adequate knowledge of image processing techniques;\n\n\u2013 be informed about methods of digital handwriting comparison and keeps abreast of\n                                                            the developments in this field;\n\n\u2013 have adequate knowledge of the concepts of criminalistics, such as descriptive and\n                                                            inferential statistics (see suggested literature in annex A).\n\nSpecific requirements:\n\n\u2013 have drawn up at least 10 reports per year during the registration period which\n                                                            have been subjected to collegial review;\n\n\u2013 an average of 32 hours per year during the registration period on professional development\n                                                            (e.g. publications, attending conferences, running or attending courses);\n\n\u2013 have participated at least once in proficiency tests in the past 2 years and can\n                                                            submit the results of these tests.\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(...) 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\nWhere necessary, a handwriting examiner uses relevant examination instruments such\n                                          as a stereomicroscope or ESDA5.\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\nApart from the required administrative data (name of commissioning party, date of\n                                          commission, date of report, reference commissioning party, own reference, number and\n                                          type of appendices etc.) a forensic handwriting examination report contains the following\n                                          sections:\n\n\u2013 description of the materials received, with information on the date and manner of\n                                                submission, whether originals were received or copies. Any other conditions of the\n                                                materials that might be relevant for the examination are mentioned as well (for example\n                                                any non-reported damage to the documents or whether any of the documents appear to\n                                                have been treated with chemicals for fingerprint examination);\n\n\u2013 specification of questioned and reference material;\n\n\u2013 any relevant background information which could influence the interpretation of the\n                                                examination results;\n\n\u2013 question(s) asked by the commissioning party and, if necessary, all that has been\n                                                discussed between the commissioning party and the examiner in conformity with Article 12(2)(c);\n\n\u2013 the hypotheses applied by the handwriting examiner;\n\n\u2013 the examination method(s) used;\n\n\u2013 evaluation of the questioned material;\n\n\u2013 evaluation of the reference material;\n\n\u2013 results of the examination;\n\n\u2013 interpretation of examination results;\n\n\u2013 conclusions (with scale used and the explanation thereof).\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 certificates of education and experience;\n\n\u2013 Overview Continued Professional Development Handwriting Examination;\n\n\u2013 certificates for (proficiency) tests;\n\n\u2013 List of Case Information Handwriting Examination;\n\n\u2013 3 case reports, including copies of the samples investigated, not older than 5 years\n                                                            selected by the applicant from the List of Case Information. These case reports should\n                                                            provide a clear and broad picture of the applicant\u2019s competencies;\n\n\u2013 at the request of the Advisory Committee for Assessment (ACA):\n\n\u00b0 the results of participation in two proficiency tests;\n\n\u2013 if available:\n\n\u00b0 proof of the forms of professional development referred to in the Overview Continued\n                                                            Professional Development Handwriting Examination.\n\nAssessment method:\n\nphase a. administrative, by the NRGD Bureau;\n\nphase b. substantive, by the ACA made up of at least three people on the basis of\n                                                            the available written material, including possible supplementary written information.\n                                                            In principle this 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 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 certificates of education and experience;\n\n\u2013 Overview Continued Professional Development Handwriting Examination;\n\n\u2013 certificates for (proficiency) tests;\n\n\u2013 List of Case Information Handwriting Examination;\n\n\u2013 3 case reports, including copies of the samples investigated, not older than 2 years\n                                                            selected by the applicant from the List of Case Information. These case reports should\n                                                            provide a clear and broad picture of the applicant\u2019s competencies;\n\n\u2013 at the request of the Advisory Committee:\n\n\u00b0 the results of participation in one proficiency test;\n\n\u2013 if available:\n\n\u00b0 proof of the forms of professional development referred to in the Overview Continued\n                                                            Professional Development Handwriting 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 for a conditional registration or no\n                                                            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 an up-to-date curriculum vitae (CV), preferably in English;\n\n\u2013 certificates of education and experience;\n\n\u2013 Overview Continued Professional Development Handwriting Examination;\n\n\u2013 certificates for (proficiency) tests;\n\n\u2013 List of Case Information Handwriting Examination;\n\n\u2013 2 case reports, including copies of the samples investigated, not older than 5 years\n                                                            selected by the applicant from the List of Case Information. These case reports should\n                                                            provide a clear and broad picture of the applicant\u2019s competencies;\n\n\u2013 at the request of the Advisory Committee:\n\n\u00b0 the results of participation in two proficiency tests;\n\n\u2013 if available:\n\n\u00b0 proof of the forms of professional development referred to in the Overview Continued\n                                                            Professional Development Handwriting 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\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 certificates of education and experience;\n\n\u2013 Overview Continued Professional Development Handwriting Examination;\n\n\u2013 certificates for (proficiency) tests;\n\n\u2013 List of Case Information Handwriting Examination;\n\n\u2013 2 case reports, including copies of the samples investigated, not older than 2 years\n                                                            selected by the applicant from the List of Case Information. These case reports should\n                                                            provide a clear and broad picture of the applicant\u2019s competencies;\n\n\u2013 at the request of the Advisory Committee:\n\n\u00b0 the results of participation in one proficiency test;\n\n\u2013 if available:\n\n\u00b0 proof of the forms of professional development referred to in the Overview Continued\n                                                            Professional Development Handwriting 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\u25cb Budowle et al. (2009). A Perspective on Errors, Bias, and Interpretation in the Forensic\n                                       Sciences and Direction for Continuing Advancement. Journal of Forensic Science, July 2009, Vol. 54, No. 4, pp. 798-809.\n\n\u25cb Ellen, D. (1998). The Scientific Examination of Questioned Documents. Ellis Horwood Ltd., Chichester.\n\n\u25cb Found, B. & Rogers, D. (1998). A consideration of the theoretical basis of forensic\n                                       handwriting examination: The application of \u201cComplexity Theory\u201d to understand the\n                                       basis of handwriting identification, in: International Journal of Forensic Document Examiners, 4(2), pp.109-118.\n\n\u25cb Found, B. & Rogers, D. (Eds.) (1999). \u2018Documentation of forensic handwriting comparison\n                                       and identification method: A modular approach\u2019, Journal of Forensic Document Examination, 12, pp.1-68.\n\n\u25cb Sita J, Found B, Rogers D.K. (2002). Forensic Handwriting Examiners\u2019 Expertise for\n                                       Signature Comparison. Journal of Forensic Science, Sept 2002, Vol. 47, N0 5, pp 1117-1124.\n\n\u25cb Gross, S.R. (2001). Detection of deception: The case of handwriting expertise. Virginia Law Review, 87, 1847-1855.\n\n\u25cb Gailbraith III, O et al. (1995). The Principle of the \u201cDrunkard\u2019s Search\u201d As A Proxy\n                                       For Scientific Analysis: The Misuse of Handwriting Test Data In A Law Journal Article.\n                                       International Journal of Forensic Document Examiners, Vol. 1, No 1, pp 7-17.\n\n\u25cb Hardy, H.J.J. & Fagel, W.P.F. (1995). Methodological Aspects of Handwriting Identification,\n                                       in: Journal of Forensic Document Examination (8), pp.33-69;\n\n\u25cb Huber, R.A. & Headrick, A.M. (1999). Handwriting Identification: Facts and Fundamentals. CRC Press, Boca Raton/ New York.\n\n\u25cb Kam M. et al. (2001). Signature Authentication by Forensic Document Examiners. Journal of Forensic Science. 46 (4) pp 884-888.\n\n\u25cb Kam M. & Lin E (2003). Writer Identification Using Hand-Printed and Non-Hand-Printed\n                                       Questioned Documents. Journal of Forensic Science 48 (6) pp 1391-5.\n\n\u25cb Michel, L. (1982). Gerichtliche Schriftvergleichung. W. de Gruyter, Berlin.\n\n\u25cb Mnookin, J.L. (2001). Scripting expertise: The history of handwriting identification\n                                       evidence and the judicial construction of reliability. Virginia Law Review, 87, 1723-1845.\n\n\u25cb Morris, R. (2000). Forensic Handwriting Identification, Fundamental Concepts and Principles. Academic Press, London/ San Diego.\n\n\u25cb Risinger, D.M. (2002). Handwriting identification. In: D.L. Faigman, D.H. Kaye, M.J.\n                                       Saks & J. Sanders (eds). Modern scientific evidence: The law and science of expert testimony. St. Paul, MI: West.\n\n\u25cb Risinger, D.M. & Saks, M.J. (1996). Science and nonscience in the courts: Daubert\n                                       (Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 113 S. Ct. 2786 (1993)) meets handwriting\n                                       identification expertise. Iowa Law Review, 82, 21-74.\n\n\u25cb Saks, M.J. & Vanderhaar, H. (2005). On the \u201cgeneral acceptance\u201d of handwriting identification\n                                       principles. Journal of Forensic Science, 50, 119-126.\n\n\u25cb Schomaker, L.R.B. (2008). \u2018Writer identification and verification\u2019, in: N. Ratha &\n                                       V. Govindaraju (Eds.), Advances in Biometrics: Sensors, Systems and Algorithms, Springer-Verlag,\n                                       pp. 247-264.\n\n\u25cb Seaman Kelly, J. & Lindblom, B.S. (2006). Scientific Examination of Questioned Documents. CRC Press, Boca Raton;\n\n\u25cb Taroni et al (2010). Data analysis in Forensic Science: A Bayesian Decision Perspective.\n                                       Wiley and Sons, Ltd., Chichester.\n\n\u25cb Srihari, S.N., Cha, S-H., Arora, H. & Lee, S. (2002). Individuality of handwriting.\n                                       Journal of Forensic Science (47), pp.856-872.\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\n3.0\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 reduced to 40 hours per year for repeat applicants (instead\n                                                of 50)\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\n2.1\n\n1.3.2014\n\nGeneric adjustments:\n\n\u2013 Document containing both Demarcation and Requirements and assessment procedure combined\n\n\u2013 CPD mandatory for repeat applicant\n\n\u2013 type of applicants and in accordance with that a generic adjustment in assessment\n                                                procedure regarding repeat applicants B(iv)\n\n1.0\n\n1.3.2010\n\nFirst edition"}