Forensics
If a laboratory does poor work, what actually happens?
In one system, a statutory regulator publishes a code that Parliament must approve — and breaching it is not an offence. The sanction is evidential: the code is admissible, and a court may take a failure into account when deciding a question.
In short
Quality assurance in forensic science is the set of arrangements that let a result be relied on: validated methods, competent examiners, documented procedures, and someone outside the laboratory checking that all of it is real. The interesting question is not whether such arrangements exist but who enforces them, and what happens when they are not met.
Why it exists
AnalysisA forensic result reaches a court stripped of the conditions that produced it. The court sees a conclusion; it does not see whether the method was validated, whether the examiner was competent at that method, or whether the laboratory was following its own procedures that week. Regulation exists because those conditions are invisible at the point where they matter most.
How it works
England and Wales put the arrangement on a statutory footing in 2021. Section 1 of the Forensic Science Regulator Act 2021 provides, in a single sentence, that there is to be a Forensic Science Regulator; the section came into force on 25 July 2022.
Section 2 requires the Regulator to prepare and publish a code of practice about the carrying on of forensic science activities in England and Wales. The code must specify the activities it applies to, need not make provision about every forensic science activity, and may make different provision for different purposes or descriptions of person.
The code is not the Regulator’s alone. Section 3 requires consultation, including of persons representative of those carrying on the activities, and then provides that the Regulator may not publish the code or any alteration unless a draft has been sent to the Secretary of State, the Secretary of State has approved it and laid it before Parliament, and the draft has been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
AnalysisThat design is coherent with the problem. Punishing a laboratory does nothing for the case its work is in; devaluing the evidence addresses the case directly, and does so through the body that has to decide it. It also means compliance is asserted and tested in the proceedings themselves rather than in a separate regulatory forum.
The Act does provide investigative powers. Section 5 applies where the Regulator has reason to believe a person may be carrying on a forensic science activity to which the code applies in a way that creates a substantial risk of adversely affecting any investigation, or of impeding or prejudicing the course of justice; the Regulator may then investigate and require documents and other information by written notice. Sections 6 and 7 provide for compliance notices and for completion certificates once the specified steps are taken or are found not to be needed.
The scheme is deliberately provider-blind. The Regulator’s own statement of priorities is that appropriate quality standards should be in place for all forensic science disciplines and should apply equally whether services are delivered by small or large organisations, private companies, public laboratories, police forces or individuals — and that compliance should run from crime scene to court and in all sectors.
Not every arrangement is statutory. The European Network of Forensic Science Institutes describes itself as a network of forensic institutes engaged in quality-assurance and best-practice work — a body of practitioners rather than a regulator, and one whose output binds through adoption rather than through law.
Common misconceptions
Widely held beliefs that do not match how the system actually operates.
Common belief: Breaking the forensic code of practice is a criminal offence.
In practice: Section 4 provides that a failure to act in accordance with the code does not of itself make a person liable to civil or criminal proceedings. What it does is make the code admissible and allow a court to take a failure into account.
Common belief: A regulator writes the rules for the industry it regulates.
In practice: In this scheme the Regulator prepares the code, but it cannot come into force until the Secretary of State has laid a draft before Parliament and each House has approved it by resolution.
Common belief: Quality regulation applies to laboratories.
In practice: The Regulator’s stated priority is that standards apply equally to private companies, public laboratories, police forces or individuals, and from crime scene to court. The unit being regulated is the activity, not the building.
Common belief: Accreditation and regulation are the same thing.
In practice: Accreditation is recognition that a provider meets defined standards of competence and method validation. Regulation here is a statutory scheme with a code, investigative powers and an evidential consequence. A system can have one without the other.
How this varies between jurisdictions
A required section on every guide. Arrangements differ between countries, and we say how.
What differs between systems is the source of the obligation and the consequence of breach.
- A statutory regulator with a code Parliament must approve, and an evidential rather than penal sanction — England and Wales, Forensic Science Regulator Act 2021.
- Investigative powers triggered by substantial risk to an investigation or to the course of justice, with compliance notices and completion certificates — the same Act, ss. 5 to 7.
- A practitioner network producing best-practice work that binds through adoption rather than law — the European Network of Forensic Science Institutes.
Rights and accountability
AnalysisAn evidential sanction is, in one respect, stronger than a penal one for the person whose case it is. A prosecution of a provider would not help a defendant whose conviction rests on that provider’s work; a rule allowing the court to take the failure into account when determining a question in the proceedings does.
It also makes compliance disclosable. Where the code is admissible and accreditation must appear in the expert’s report, the defence has a documented standard to measure the work against rather than only the conclusion to disagree with.
What we could not establish
- One statutory regulator is described from primary text. Whether the arrangement improves quality is an empirical question this platform has not researched and does not answer.
- Accreditation standards themselves — what a laboratory must demonstrate to be accredited — were not researched and are not described.
Where to go next
Related: what forensic accreditation requires, what forensic laboratories do, expert evidence in court, and why justice systems need oversight. The same problem — a buyer or a court that cannot verify a claim itself — is solved the same way for police equipment: see equipment standards and testing.
Related topics
- Is there a national forensic laboratory?
In some systems yes, in others emphatically not — and one of those others regulates a market instead of running an institute. Where forensic capability sits is a constitutional-shaped choice, and it determines who the examiner answers to.
- Whose expert is the expert?
Two systems answer that differently and both are answering the same worry — that an expert paid by one side will start arguing for it. Germany removes the party from the choice: the judge selects the expert. England and Wales keeps the party and subordinates the loyalty.
- How reliable is forensic evidence?
That question has no single answer, and the reason is the finding. Published scientific-foundation work shows the same technique can be highly reproducible on one kind of sample and produce a wide range of results between laboratories on another.
Sources
Forensic Science Regulator Act 2021 (2021 c. 14), sections 1 to 7
The National Archives (legislation.gov.uk) · Legislation · 2021 · link verified 2026-08-26
The official revised text, each section read directly at its own page. Supports s. 1: "There is to be a Forensic Science Regulator" (in force 25 July 2022, S.I. 2022/856). Supports s. 2: the Regulator must prepare and publish a code of practice about the carrying on of forensic science activities in England and Wales; the code must specify the activities it applies to, need not make provision about every forensic science activity, and may make different provision for different purposes or descriptions of person; the Regulator must keep it under review. Supports s. 3: before publishing the code or alterations the Regulator must consult, including persons representative of those carrying on the activities, and may not publish unless a draft has been sent to the Secretary of State, the Secretary of State has approved it and laid it before Parliament, and the draft has been approved by a resolution of EACH HOUSE of Parliament. Supports s. 4, headed "Status of the code": "A failure by a person to act in accordance with the code does not of itself make that person liable to civil or criminal proceedings"; "The code is admissible in evidence in criminal and civil proceedings in England and Wales"; and "A court may in particular take into account a failure by a person to act in accordance with the code in determining a question in any such proceedings." Supports s. 5: the Regulator may investigate where it has reason to believe a person may be carrying on a forensic science activity to which the code applies in a way that creates a substantial risk of adversely affecting any investigation or impeding or prejudicing the course of justice, and may require documents and other information by written notice. Supports s. 7: completion certificates following a compliance notice under s. 6, with a 14-day period to respond to an application. This is the law of ENGLAND AND WALES — the provisions are extent-marked "E+W". It supports nothing about Scotland or Northern Ireland, which have separate arrangements, and nothing about any other country. It establishes no scientific claim about any forensic method.
Forensic Science Regulator — About us
Forensic Science Regulator (GOV.UK) · Government publication · link verified 2026-08-26
The Regulator's own account of itself, read directly. Supports: that the Regulator "ensures that the provision of forensic science services across the criminal justice system is subject to an appropriate regime of scientific quality standards"; that the Forensic Science Regulator Act 2021 provided powers to investigate and take enforcement action where there are substantial risks to criminal investigations or proceedings; that its responsibilities involve identifying the requirement for new or improved quality standards, leading on their development, and providing advice and guidance so providers can demonstrate compliance; and that its priorities include appropriate quality standards for all forensic science disciplines "which apply equally whether the services are delivered by small or large organisations, private companies, public laboratories, police forces or individuals" and compliance "from crime scene to court and in all sectors". Cited for the STRUCTURE of forensic provision in England and Wales — mixed rather than unified — and attributed as the Regulator's own statement. It supports no claim about compliance levels, quality, or any other country.
The National Archives (legislation.gov.uk) · Legislation · 2025 · link verified 2026-08-26
The official text of the current Rules, read directly. NOTE ON CURRENCY: the Criminal Procedure Rules 2020 (S.I. 2020/759) were REVOKED with effect from 6 October 2025 by these Rules; the 2020 text was fetched first and legislation.gov.uk records it as revoked, so the 2025 Rules are cited instead. Supports r. 19.1: the Part applies where a party wants to introduce expert opinion evidence, and an "expert" means a person required to give or prepare expert evidence for the purpose of criminal proceedings, including evidence required to determine fitness to plead or for the purpose of sentencing. Supports r. 19.2: "An expert must help the court to achieve the overriding objective" by giving opinion which is "objective and unbiased" and "within the expert's area or areas of expertise", and by actively assisting the court in its case-management duty; r. 19.2(2): "This duty overrides any obligation to the person from whom the expert receives instructions or by whom the expert is paid"; r. 19.2(3): obligations to define the expert's area of expertise in the report and when giving evidence, to draw the court's attention to any question whose answer would be outside that area, and to inform all parties and the court if the expert's opinion changes. Supports r. 19.4, the required content of an expert's report, including: qualifications, relevant experience and accreditation (a); the literature or other information relied on (b); the substance of all material facts given to the expert (c); where there is a range of opinion, a summary of that range and reasons for the expert's own opinion (f); any qualification the expert must attach to an opinion (g); "such information as the court may need to decide whether the expert's opinion is sufficiently reliable to be admissible as evidence" (h); a summary of conclusions (i); a statement that the expert understands and has complied with the duty to the court (j); and the same declaration of truth as a witness statement (k). Rules in force 6 October 2025. ENGLAND AND WALES only, extent-marked "E+W". It supports nothing about Scotland or Northern Ireland, nothing about civil proceedings, and no claim about how any court weighs expert evidence in practice.
European Network of Forensic Science Institutes
ENFSI · Institutional (self-description) · link verified 2026-07-23
Institutional self-description. Supports the existence of a European network of forensic institutes engaged in quality assurance and best-practice work. Attributed in the text as the organisation's own account of itself.