Nick,
I know what you mean about the forms sitting on a desk since the F3 -) We're going to put one person from the office through it first, so we can learn any lessons from his process. He's filled in the forms, but I think we're still waiting for a go-ahead from higher up.
I think that educating the courts will have more effect than educating the corporates atm - once they start asking for it, the rest should fall into place (that's the theory anyway). I understand that the CRFP are actively out there doing seminars for judges and other court folk. I suppose that they've already got credibility because they've been accrediting SOCOs and fingerprinters etc for years now.
I'm enthusiastic about it because I've seen some very sloppy work done by people who are on a couple of other registers that, when you look into them, only require an annual cheque. It all depends on how credible it is within the industry, I suppose - I know that there were almost universal 'sharp intakes of breath' when the initial panel was announced, but you're never going to please everybody -)
We should probably move this to a dedicated CRFP post! Putting one person through is a good idea I will look at that.
This is a very difficult area, especially for a private examiner like me as it is almost impossible to definitively prove a qualification and ability in this area. I wrote an article on this subject which you can find here- http//www.forensicfocus.com/need-for-industry-control
I have great respect for those I work with in LE but I sometimes see sloppy work on both sides. I find that just because an examiner has a police number, they are automatically considered to be an expert, which I'm sure we would both agree is not always the case.
All of my criminal work comes from recommendations from solicitors and Barristers that have used me in the past. I also have references from several Hi Tech Crime Units that, although on the 'other side' have been impressed. Really that is all that I can go on apart from demonstrating training courses etc. CRFP will help but only if it catches on.
The vast majority of my work is corporate but even in that field it is word of mouth that keeps me busy.
I'm making the assumption you are LE Ben? Were you at F3? If you are planning to be at any of the events we could hook up for a beer and debate!
Cheers
Nick
The good thing about CRFP is that's entirely based on casework (although they also want to see copies of any qualifications you regularly cite). You also need to produce references from customers you've worked for (I think it should be a customer of one of the cases you submit to the CRFP, not sure though), so this should help the people who may be very good at their jobs, but don't have a formal qualification in it (i.e. most of the practitioners I've ever met!)
I agree about there being sloppy work on both sides, but I think it's more difficult for the prosecution to 'wing it' as the burden of proof is on them and their reports are always disclosable to the defence (the inverse isn't true…yet). But yeah, both sides need regulating equally. I'd disagree with 'just because an examiner has a police number, they are automatically considered to be an expert' though - I think that a lot of the time the police officer is seen as being a trained amateur, while the defence guy is automatically dubbed an 'expert' no matter what their qualifications. I don't to get into a 'them and us' thing though - I've met very good people from both sides.
Yes, I'm LE and I was at the F3 (it was a great couple of days, wasn't it?) I'd be up for a beer if I go to any of the other events this year - I'll give you a shout if I'm attending.
That's a very good article by the way - it's definitely a very serious issue. We try to be as acommodating as we can be with defence folk, but if we don't know them and don't know their backgrounds, their premises' security arrangements and so on, they don't leave the unit with anything in their hands. It's also worth bearing in mind that a lot of the time LE don't have a choice about letting an unqualified numpty have access to a case - if he's been hired by the defence solicitors, then he has a right to see it. What needs changing is the credentials that are accepted by the legal side before they hire someone.
Yes, lots of points well put Ben. I also make it my business to get to know the guys in the Hi Tech Crime Units that I may be working with. Especially with my local force where I'm known very well, we have regularly argued out issues long before they ever get to Court and I believe that can be very powerful.
During a recent case, the Judge sent the HTCU officer and myself away to work together one night at a Hi Tech Crime Unit to finalise and agree or disagree on a particular point of evidence. It was a slightly bizarre night but the case was concluded correctly and amicably.
And yes F3 was excellent this year, were you there for the last seminar with Keith from Accessdata, superb, he is a great trainer. I had him for my FTK intermediate course last year, great chap.
Don't know what the next F3 course is but let me know if you are going.
Wow we are well off topic now
Just to keep things off topic - we're also going down the CRFP route, or at least we would be if I got my finger out and completed the paperwork -) Anyone here a CRFP examiner, out of interest?
Sorry I didn't see your coffee invite in time Nick, I'll give you a buzz the next time I'm passing.
Justin.
No problem Justin, give me a buzz any time you are down this way
Nick