ENFSI, the European Network of Forensic Science’s AFORE project on “Accreditation of Forensic Laboratories in Europe”’s aim is to support forensic science laboratories across the EU Member States to move towards accreditation or expand the scope of their accreditation.

As part of the AFORE project is Work Package 2 entitled “Accreditation Model for Crime Scene Investigation”. Work Package2 aims at creating a European model for accreditation of crime scene investigation processes to meet the requirements of ISO/IEC 17020, and at promoting awareness of crime scene investigation processes towards EA.

On the 22nd March 2021, EA organised jointly with ENFSI the “Seminar on Crime Scene Investigation Processes”, on Accreditation of Forensic Laboratories in Europe.

For 3h30, 6 speakers from ENFSI shared their experience with almost 300 participants regarding crime scene investigation:

  • Katri Matveinen, NBIFL (National Bureau of Investigation Forensic Laboratory), Finland;
  • Monika Hilgert, BKA (Federal Criminal Police Office, Forensic Science Institute), Germany;
  • Josita Limborgh, NFI (Netherlands Forensic Institute), The Netherlands;
  • Fernando Viegas, LPC (Forensic Science Laboratory), Portugal;
  • Tore Walstad, NCIS (National Criminal Investigation Service), Norway;
  • Erika Skoogh, NFC (National Forensic Center), Sweden.

Jenni Harjuoja, from the Finnish Accreditation Service (FINAS) moderated the whole event and the questions and introductory speech was made by Orbay Evrensevdi, from the Turkish Accreditation Agency (TURKAK), who is also the Chair of the EA Inspection Committee.

The seminar objectives was to provide a better understanding of the whole forensic process, including crime scene investigation (CSI) and laboratory activities (e.g. logistics, search for traces, different types of traces), the different roles of personnel conducting CSI (e.g. crime scene manager, scene of crime examiner, forensic scientist), principles and importance of CSI (such as documentation of the scene, identification of the crime, etc.), a concrete 2012 rape and murder case, and the benefits of accreditation of CSI.

Jenni Harjuoja, you were at the origin of the EA/ENFSI workshop: What were the objectives of the workshop and would you say they have been reached?

The goal of this seminar was to promote awareness of this project WP2 and also tell people involved in accreditation what is CSI and what kind of work they are doing. After that we are more aware of the whole and it’s easier to understand and manage forthcoming assessments (accreditation processes). At the moment, CSI activity is not widely accredited in Europe. So in this respect I would say that the seminar reached the preliminary objectives.

On the other hand objective of this WP2 is to understand what the current status of accreditation of CSI activities is and what the relevant need for developing accreditation in CSI are. For this purpose WP2 has made a survey last year. However, results from this survey are not yet ready and therefore not presented in the seminar.

Accreditation is an important tool to minimize systematic errors and provide a greater reliability and trust, maintain and ensure confidence and competence. It will help secure chain of evidence throughout the forensic process, regardless of which part of the chain the evidence is in, and improve condition for results on the entire forensic process to work according to the same quality requirements. It also provides a greater reliability sharing or using forensic results within investigation or between countries.

Katri Matveinen (Project Manager at NBIFL, Finland), the AFORE project illustrates the good cooperation between ENFSI and EA, reflecting also the growing confidence puts in accreditation in the field of CSI. What does it mean concretely in the activities of CSI people?

I think activities have a connection to a quality management system of CSI based on the requirements set by the international standards ISO/IEC 17020 (Conformity assessment — Requirements for the operation of various types of bodies performing inspection) and ISO/IEC 17025 (General requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories).

Concrete activities include e.g.:

  • competence of staff is controlled;
  • clearly defined responsibilities of staff, and working practices);
  • equipment and test methods are validated and appropriate quality assurance procedures are in place;
  • consumables are tested fit for purpose in a systematic way;
  • risk of contamination has been taken into consideration during the entire process;
  • monitoring of quality of CSI at the scene;
  • using of collaborative exercises or proficiency tests;
  • identification and analysis of non-conformities as well as carrying out corrective/preventive actions;
  • traceable chain of custody of samples, documentation of crime scene investigation, and records.

Finally Jenni, how do you see accreditation developments in the CSI field? Is there anything that EA should be doing to support closer cooperation in your view ?

There are requirements for accreditation at EU level (Council Framework Decision 2009/905/JHA). Therefore some forensic services (sensitive personal data as DNA-profiles and dactyloscopic data (for example fingerprints) are already under accreditation (testing). It would be good to have also the sampling of these samples under accreditation and have more trust in the result of DNA and fingerprints. That is why we should develop accreditation of CSI activity. Actually there are no requirements for accreditation of CSI activities, it means it will all be based on voluntariness. Raising awareness on the importance of accreditation, developing training and education on how accreditation could support CSI processes would help in this regard. When the activity increase in accreditation we will also need to harmonize practices at EA level.