±Forensic Focus Partners

Become an advertising partner

±Your Account


Username
Password

Forgotten password/username?

Site Members:

New Today: 2 Overall: 36087
New Yesterday: 2 Visitors: 100

±Follow Forensic Focus

Forensic Focus Facebook PageForensic Focus on TwitterForensic Focus LinkedIn GroupForensic Focus YouTube Channel

RSS feeds: News Forums Articles

±Latest Articles

±Latest Videos

±Latest Jobs

Expert Status

Discussion of computer forensics employment and career issues.
Reply to topicReply to topic Printer Friendly Page
Forum FAQSearchView unanswered posts
Page Previous  1, 2 
  

trewmte
Senior Member
 

Re: Expert Status

Post Posted: Feb 06, 19 10:28

- jaclaz
This one here:
assets.publishing.serv...r_2014.pdf

Where there is BTW an actual "definition" of expert (witness):

Expert (Witness)
An appropriately qualified and/or experienced person familiar with the testing,
evaluation and interpretation of test or examination results, and recognised by the
court to provide live testimony to the court in the form of admissible hearsay evidence.


among the madness, but "latest" should be:
www.gov.uk/government/...ns-issue-6

The initial part (last sentence) is interesting:

Expert Evidence
Expert evidence is admissible “to furnish the court with scientific information
which is likely to be outside the experience and the knowledge of a judge or
jury”.

In presenting expert evidence the witness’s “duty is to furnish the Judge or jury
with the necessary scientific criteria for testing the accuracy of their conclusions
so as to enable the Judge or jury to form their own independent judgment by the
application of these criteria to the facts proved in evidence”.

This places the expert witness in a privileged position. The nature of the role
requires that the witness comply with certain obligations. Further obligations
have been imposed for the benefit of the Criminal Justice System.

Basic Condition
The above makes clear that expert testimony is only admissible when it is
required.

It is also clear that expert evidence can only be given by a person who is an
expert in the relevant field.


Shocked
But I guess the pearl is here:
www.gov.uk/government/...x_v1.0.pdf

Point 14.2.7 page 19 of 34

A suitable form of words may be as follows.
“My report is based on the results of analytical work undertaken (a) using documented and validated methods within the scope of the organisation’s UKAS ISO 17025 accreditation [lab reference] and (b) by staff determined to be competent for such work under the organisation’s quality systems which are accredited to ISO 17025. This accreditation does/does not cover the assessment and interpretation of evidence.”




jaclaz



ISO17025 does not demand the Judge/Court only hear expert evidence from an person from an organisation with this accreditation. There are many giving evidence who are NOT ISO17025 accredited.
_________________
Institute for Digital Forensics (IDF) - www.linkedin.com/groups/2436720
Mobile Telephone Examination Board (MTEB) - www.linkedin.com/groups/141739
Universal Network Investigations - www.linkedin.com/groups/13536130
Mobile Telephone Evidence & Forensics trewmte.blogspot.com 
 
  

minime2k9
Senior Member
 

Re: Expert Status

Post Posted: Feb 06, 19 10:54

- trewmte

ISO17025 does not demand the Judge/Court only hear expert evidence from an person from an organisation with this accreditation. There are many giving evidence who are NOT ISO17025 accredited.


Except now under CrimPR rules you have to declare that your work does not meet the necessary standard as specified by the regulator. Under the section of information that may undermine the evidence.  
 
  

trewmte
Senior Member
 

Re: Expert Status

Post Posted: Feb 06, 19 11:15

- minime2k9
- trewmte

ISO17025 does not demand the Judge/Court only hear expert evidence from an person from an organisation with this accreditation. There are many giving evidence who are NOT ISO17025 accredited.


Except now under CrimPR rules you have to declare that your work does not meet the necessary standard as specified by the regulator. Under the section of information that may undermine the evidence.


Correct, but does not exclude evidence or more importantly as this topic states expert status. ISO17025 does not confer expert status. A good analogy is Professor XXXXXXX, a doctor of pathology. Professor may not operator the equipment that obtained the evidence, but that does not exclude the Professor from giving expert evidence.
_________________
Institute for Digital Forensics (IDF) - www.linkedin.com/groups/2436720
Mobile Telephone Examination Board (MTEB) - www.linkedin.com/groups/141739
Universal Network Investigations - www.linkedin.com/groups/13536130
Mobile Telephone Evidence & Forensics trewmte.blogspot.com 
 
  

Rich2005
Senior Member
 

Re: Expert Status

Post Posted: Feb 06, 19 18:46

- see3archie
I work for a Law Enforcement Agency that has recently undergone an extensive job evaluation process. In this, the role of Forensic Computer Analyst has been designated as presenting in court but 'not as an expert witness'. There seems to be varying opinions as to whether this is true, and indeed what actually constitutes an 'expert witness'. As my education and training has always lead me to believe that the role of a digital forensic examiner is ultimately to act as an expert witness, I would be very interested to gather any thoughts on whether this is in fact the case.


I once had a job interview many many years ago where the interviewer asked if I was a "qualified" expert witness. I stated that such a thing essentially doesn't exist (whilst having been previously listed such things as the Sweet&Maxwell expert witness directory) and it's ultimately the perogative of the judge.

I've also had cases where I've been called as the prosecution "expert" and the defendant has subsequently sacked their own "expert" mid-trial and been allowed to operate as their own expert (with access to their material as a result - in supervised conditions due to the content) by virtue of having some computer knowledge.

I've regularly had the situation where I've produced evidence deliberately written with zero opinion in it (and without the standard expert declarations - albeit generally in the same format I would do for that if I had to) but upon arriving at court will suddenly be presented as the prosecution expert and having to operate as such.

I imagine most of us (with any sense) will try to avoid giving opinion at all cost since generally speaking presentation of the facts is more than sufficient in almost all instances of digital forensics.

As usual I find the forensic regulator's contributions totally unhelpful and if anything counter-productive / muddy the waters.

Frankly I think they should set up a completely separate body to fund research/validation of forensic tools (and scrap the idea ISO17025 is appropriate for digital forensics) rather than trying to create the illusion of reliability from limited testing/validation/documentation of process.  
 
  

see3archie
Newbie
 

Re: Expert Status

Post Posted: Feb 14, 19 19:57

Thank you all for your very insightful contributions, and recommended reading. It is always useful to gather a broad spectrum of ideas - there seems to be no single or simple answer!!  
 

Page 2 of 2
Page Previous  1, 2