Opening EAFS2012

Toespraak | 20-08-2012

Ladies and gentlemen,

Towards Forensic Science 2.0. A revealing title. Forensic science has changed a lot in recent years, and now we stand on the brink of even greater changes. Forensic investigation and the evidence it produces will play an increasingly important role in criminal justice. These are fascinating developments.

I am honoured to have the opportunity to open the European Academy of Forensic Science Conference, especially since this important event is held only once every three years. I am delighted that the Netherlands Forensic Institute is hosting the conference this year. It is a great privilege to be able to welcome participants from all over the world to The Hague, the Legal Capital of the World. With us today are representatives of renowned international forensics institutes, the European Commission, the Public Prosecution Service, the police, the judiciary, government and the private sector. A warm welcome to you all!

Ladies and gentlemen,

High-quality forensics help establish the facts and grease the wheels of the criminal justice system in a state governed by the rule of law.

Forensic science is a rapidly developing field. With a constant stream of new technologies and scientific developments, there are more and more applications for forensics in criminal investigation. We can now find trace evidence that would have been invisible, even to experts, a few years ago. Thanks to new investigation methods, this kind of evidence has great value.

For example, we can now determine physical traits like eye and hair colour from DNA evidence. And soon there will be even more technical possibilities. The importance of forensic investigation will grow as we find ways to extract relevant information from smaller and smaller traces. In addition, new methods and techniques produce results faster than ever before. The importance of technology-guided policing in the investigation process is growing.

It is crucial that expert analysis is carried out properly and the end user interprets the findings correctly. For example, a judge who reads a DNA report must be able to understand how likely it is that the DNA evidence actually came from the defendant. After all, the judge will be basing very important decisions on that report. He has the power to send the defendant to prison. The quality of forensic investigation and the expertise of the people involved are of the greatest importance.

I would like to draw your attention to two issues: forensic scientists in the future and forensic awareness in the criminal justice system. I believe that forensic scientists play a crucial role in the criminal justice process. On the basis of their specialist knowledge, they report to the police, public prosecutors and the courts. They are responsible for writing clear reports that enable the reader to draw the right conclusions. What they write must be unambiguous, but they should not do the work of the judge. So their reports should include any assumptions they have made and uncertainties they have. Judges must be able to understand the forensic report and ask the forensic expert the right questions about its content.

When forensic scientists and judges do their jobs well, judicial error is less likely to occur. That is why forensic awareness – another topic that this conference will address – is so important for all those involved. From the crime scene to the courthouse, it is important for everyone to be fully aware of the possibilities and limitations of forensics.

As I mentioned a moment ago, the world of forensics is experiencing major changes, brought about by new technologies and other factors. End users in the criminal justice system are more aware of the added value of forensic analysis, but they are also increasingly critical. As a consequence, the bar is being raised. End users are more vocal about what they want. And rightly so. Forensic institutes need to respond to that.

As Mr Tjin-a-Tsoi, CEO of the NFI, has said, forensics is maturing. It is developing from a somewhat traditional field of science into a modern, high-tech industry of internationally operating professional service providers.

This means that forensic institutes and their staff have to meet stricter requirements. Knowledge and expertise must be kept up to standard at all times. As I said: experts must write clear reports and be able to explain the science. Forensic institutes need to constantly improve and keep pace with advances in the field. Only by investing in knowledge and innovation will they be able to respond to developments in society and technology, and to continue providing high-quality services and products.

I am delighted that the quality of forensic investigation is drawing so much attention in the EU and beyond. Crime doesn’t stop at national borders, so international police and judicial cooperation is vital. And we need to use forensic evidence from other countries. Your presence here today is living proof of the need for cross-border cooperation.

But international cooperation will only be effective if forensic information can be shared accurately, quickly and efficiently. This information must meet strict quality requirements, precisely because national borders are not a barrier to crime, and law enforcement authorities regularly share information and intelligence about crime and criminal activity. Strict requirements should apply to sensitive personal data, like DNA profiles and fingerprints. Shortfalls in quality can undermine mutual trust and, by extension, weaken European and international cooperation.

The European Union is taking vigorous action on this point. The political will is there to improve the exchange of forensic information. The Prüm Convention of 2005 is an inspiring example.

The EU is developing a common accreditation standard for the analysis of scientific evidence. The 2009 Council Framework Decision on Accreditation of Forensic Service Providers will require member states to ensure that laboratories producing DNA profiles and fingerprinting data are accredited. Then the results of forensic analysis carried out in one country can be used in criminal proceedings in another.

In December 2011 the Council of the European Union adopted Conclusions aimed at raising the level of forensic science and developing a European Forensic Science Area by 2020. In May 2012 the European Committee for Standardisation (CEN) adopted a Polish proposal to create a common set of forensic standards specifically for Europe. The development of these standards will begin soon.

In my view, the accreditation of institutions using common standards goes hand in hand with the certification of the individuals who do the work. In the Netherlands this is done by the Netherlands Register of Court Experts. The register contains a list of experts who meet quality requirements for reliability and competence. Wherever possible, explicit requirements have been defined for specific areas of expertise. This is necessary to be able to assess the admissibility of expert evidence in criminal proceedings. This is also a big step towards implementing a mandatory quality standard based on certification of forensic experts. The ENFSI plays an important role here as the representative of the European forensic science community.

In June 2013 the European Commission will present an action plan for implementing the Council Conclusions of December 2011. The Netherlands considers this very important. We will work with other interested countries to decide how best to implement this plan and take significant steps forward.

Ladies and gentlemen, this conference will offer you plenty of opportunities to share your ideas with each other. I am eager to hear your views on these developments and the results of the workshops and discussions.

I would like to thank the NFI for all its hard work in organising this impressive conference, which has brought together so much knowledge, experience and expertise.

I wish you a productive week and a pleasant stay in The Hague. And now it is my great pleasure to open this conference!