Draft Framework document Psychology and Law consultation
Publicatie | 19-01-2017
1. General Introduction to Standards
1. Background to and aim of the Standards
Reporting forensic experts play a crucial role in the administration of justice. The NRGD
aims to ensure justified confidence in forensic expertise for stakeholders. This
confidence must be based on the demonstrable independently safeguarded quality of
forensic investigators and their reports on the basis of (inter)national forensic-specific
standards.
The NRGD is managed by the Board of Court Experts (further: the Board). The Board’s core task is to rule on the applications for registration or repeat registration in the register of the NRGD (register). To that end the Board first defines the field of expertise. This is important in order to inform applicants, assessors and users of the register (e.g. judge, public prosecutor and attorney) about the activities an expert in the field of expertise in question engages in and about the activities that fall outside the field of expertise. The demarcation of the field of expertise is set out in Part II of these Standards.
The Board also determines the criteria on the basis of which an assessment is made for each field of expertise as to whether an application complies with the quality requirements. The generic requirements are set out in the Register of Court Experts in Criminal Cases Decree (Besluit register deskundige in strafzaken). These requirements are elaborated further for each field of expertise. This elaboration is set out in Part III of these Standards.
Furthermore the Board determines the assessment procedure. This procedure is described in Part IV of these Standards.
The NRGD has a system of periodic repeat registration. Court experts must demonstrate every five years that they still meet the requirements in force at that time. The Standards are dynamic and are being developed further in order to enhance the quality of the experts. These Standards set out the current state of the (sub-)field of expertise.
2. Types of applicants
The NRGD distinguishes two types of applicants: the initial applicant and the repeat applicant. The initial applicant is a reporter who at the time of submission of the application is not yet registered for the field of expertise to which the application relates. The repeat applicant is an expert who is already registered for the field of expertise to which the application relates. These two types of applicants are subdivided as follows:
Initial applicant
independent reporter: a reporter who has independently written and signed the required number of case reports;
reporter without work of his own: a reporter who has not independently written and signed the number of case reports required for registration. If the assessment is favourable, the reporter without work of his own will only qualify for temporary registration.
Repeat applicant
Repeat applicant after full registration;
Repeat applicant after temporary registration.
The distinction amongst the initial applicants between the independent reporter and the reporter without work of his own has been found to be necessary, because it is becoming increasingly difficult for unregistered experts to gain experience independently as more experts are added to the register. A good example of a reporter without work of his own is the newly-trained expert. This expert has completed the forensic training, but has not yet been able to independently write the number of reports required for the assessment because these are written under the supervision of a tutor during the training. Another example of a reporter without work of his own is the reporter whose earlier application was rejected and who has been working (partly) under supervision following this rejection.
The Board adopts the following principle. Every applicant must draw up a List of Case Information. This list must include a specific number of cases in a period specified by the Board immediately preceding the application. If the List of Case Information includes one or more cases which have been prepared under supervision, the applicant will be qualified as a ‘reporter without work of his own’.
The distinction between the various types of repeat applicants is important in the context of the assessment procedure: the documents a repeat applicant must submit, the composition of the Advisory Committee on Assessment and the extent of the assessment differ.
3. Justification of Standards
These Standards have been established by the Board in accordance with the Register of Court Expert in Criminal Cases Decree (Besluit register deskundige in strafzaken) and the Expert in Criminal Cases Act (Wet deskundige in strafzaken). Representatives from the various domains were consulted; users (judges, public prosecutors and lawyers) and subject matter experts in the field (professional organisations, representative associations, experts both at home and abroad). The draft of the Standards has also been published on the NRGD website for public consultation.
4. Validity of Standards
The Standards are valid from the date shown on the cover. The validity runs until the moment of publication of a new version. In principle it will be checked annually to make sure it is up-to-date. This check can lead to a new version. The aim is to publish a new version no more than once a year.
5. Version management and formal revision history
All changes made to the Standards lead to a new version. Newer versions of (parts of) the Standards are designated with a higher version number.
5.1 Version management
In the case of editorial changes, the old version number is increased by 0.1. Editorial changes have no substantive impact. In the case of substantive changes the version number is increased by 1.
5.2 Formal revision history
The revision history starts with version 1.0 as the first formally approved version. Substantive changes made are briefly described in the revision history (Annex B). This makes it possible to trace at all times which Standards are valid at any given moment.
Part II. Demarcation of Legal Psychology
Legal Psychology experts draw on the empirical knowledge base about fundamental psychological functions (e.g., perception, memory, and decision making) and social dynamics (e.g., conformism) to address forensic questions concerning the validity of eyewitness’, victims’, and suspects’ statements. Their expertise involves how internal (intoxication) and situational factors (e.g., interrogation techniques) may affect the validity of such statements.
Evaluations by Legal Psychology experts can pertain to pre-(e.g., witness intoxication) and post the effect of imprisonment and time lapse on statements during appeal)-trial issues in this domain.
Experts within the field of Legal Psychology mainly conduct evaluations that fall within the following three subfields:
The validity of statements Within this subfield, experts on Legal Psychology conduct evaluations on the validity of statements made by alleged victims, suspects, and witnesses (including those made by children and persons especially vulnerable to suggestion or pressure), for instance allegations of criminal acts, confessions or recanted statements, and descriptions of witnessed events. Experts within this subfield take into account how alleged victims, suspects, and witnesses have been interviewed/interrogated (including specialized interview methods for children and persons vulnerable to suggestion or pressure) and how this may affect the quality of their statements. They also look into environmental influences on statements (e.g., perception conditions, imprisonment, sleep deprivation).
Deception relevant to statements Within this subfield, experts on Legal Psychology conduct evaluations related to deception detection techniques, including expert opinions on so called verbal and non- verbal credibility assessment techniques (CBCA, RM, SCAN) and tests to detect malingering (faking symptoms of illness or disorder) and claimed memory dysfunctions.
The psychology of evidence and evidence-gathering Within this subfield, experts on Legal Psychology try to inform triers of fact by applying principles of psychological decision theory (e.g., the literature on cognitive biases) to potential evidence (e.g., outcomes of line-ups). Experts within this subfield take into account the reliability and validity of investigative methods used as well as identification and identification procedures, both of persons (e.g. line-ups, show-ups), objects (e.g., evidence line-up), and voices.
Legal Psychology experts also provide second opinion reports on the topics listed above.
Registered Legal Psychology experts draw upon the scientific literature in experimental psychology, cognitive psychology, social psychology, and decision-making theory. Legal Psychology experts generally answer the question of how likely they think a proposed scenario is compared with relevant alternative scenarios. Experts in Legal Psychology assess the relevant empirical literature in terms of how it matches the case at hand and whether the legal psychological literature can be applied to this particular case. They also employ test theory and psychometrics to evaluate potential evidence that has been collected and whether it is sufficient to answer the question at hand. As well, Legal Psychology experts may rely on the outcomes of tailor-made experiments that they themselves carry out, based on accepted scientific procedures, to address case-specific questions. This could, for example, involve establishing the quality of witness perception under specific environmental conditions or determining the evidentiary value of a specific line-up.
When reporting as a Legal Psychology expert, the expert should be aware of the limitations of the approach mentioned above.
The field of Legal Psychology and the field of 003.0 Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology (FPP) as determined by the Board are different fields of expertise. The core question answered by experts within the field of Legal Psychology concerns the validity of statements and the value of potential evidence. Experts in Legal Psychology evaluate eyewitness’ and suspects’ statements, assess deception-detection (tools), and examine cognitive biases in investigative techniques as far as these are relevant to the evidence. They are not examining the psychopathology of suspects or witnesses (per se). Within the field of FPP, the question of the value of evidence is not answered. FPP concerns primarily the diagnostic assessment of the psychopathology of the suspect in relation to the alleged crime. Although both fields are concerned with answering different questions, experts within the field of Legal Psychology may use information from the field of FPP. In using such information, experts registered as Legal Psychology respect the boundaries of their expertise.
The field of Legal Psychology as defined by the NRGD is also separate from that of investigative psychologist working in a police context. Investigative psychologists provide advice to law enforcement employees during police investigations. They can be described as actors in the legal field. Although the underlying scientific knowledge base of both Legal Psychology experts and investigative psychologists is similar, their respective roles within legal proceedings are distinctly different. When an investigative psychologist provides advice to the police during police investigations, she/he is not considered an expert in terms of the Dutch Code of Criminal Procedure (Wetboek van Strafvordering, WvSv). This field of expertise, therefore, does not fall within the field of Legal Psychology as defined by the NRGD. When a Legal Psychology expert advises the police during the course of a particular case, she/he does not qualify as an expert in terms of the Dutch Code of Criminal Procedure for that case.
For registration as an expert within the field of 009. Legal Psychology, the following subfields are defined:
009.1 Statement Validity;
009.2 Deception Detection;
009.3 Psychology of Evidence.
When submitting a request for registration, the expert must stipulate for which subfield(s) he/she is requesting registration and will be accordingly assessed by the NRGD
Part III. Registration requirements for Legal Psychology
The general (repeat) registration requirements are given below in italics with a reference to the article in the Register of Court Expert in Criminal Cases Decree (Besluit register deskundige in strafzaken).
An expert will only be registered as an expert in criminal cases upon submission of the application if, in the opinion of the Board, the expert:
has sufficient knowledge and experience in the field of expertise to which the application relates;
has sufficient knowledge of and experience in the field of law concerned, and is sufficiently familiar with the position and the role of the expert in this field;
is able to inform the commissioning party whether, and if so, to what extent the commissioning party’s question at issue is sufficiently clear and capable of investigation in order to be able to answer it on the basis of their specific expertise;
is able, on the basis of the question at issue, to prepare and carry out an investigation plan in accordance with the applicable standards;
is able to collect, document, interpret and assess investigative materials and data in a forensic context in accordance with the applicable standards;
is able to apply the current investigative methods in a forensic context in accordance with the applicable standards
is able to give a verifiable and well-reasoned case report on the assignment and any other relevant aspects of their expertise in terms which are comprehensible to the commissioning party, both orally and in writing;
is able to complete an assignment within the stipulated or agreed period;
is able to carry out the activities as an expert independently, impartially, conscientiously, competently, and in a trustworthy manner.
(…) has sufficient knowledge and experience in the field of expertise to which the application relates.
1. Initial: independent reporter
Basic requirements
Should have completed an academic Master’s Degree in Psychology or a PhD in the domain of Psychology.
Should demonstrate that he/she contributes to the academic knowledge base and debate in the field of expertise, for example, by publications or peer reviewing;
Should have recent experience in interpreting and reporting about cases at the time of the application.
Specific requirements
Should have up-to-date knowledge about the relevant scientific literature and must be able to apply this knowledge to an individual case;
has written a minimum of 2 reports in the past 5 years per stipulated subfield and a total of at least 5 reports in the past 5 years;
Should be able to demonstrate that her/his reports have been collegially reviewed; - has spent an average of 40 hours per year in the past 5 years on forensically relevant continued professional development (e.g., attending conferences, running or attending courses, publications).
2. Initial: reporter without work of his own
Basic requirements
Should have completed an academic Master’s Degree in an empirical social science. As a rule this means a Psychology degree. However, other empirical social science degrees are acceptable provided that the candidate has sufficiently covered psychological research methods;
Should demonstrate that he/she contributes to the academic knowledge base and debate in the field of expertise, for example, by publications, peer reviewing or a PhD; - Should have recent experience in interpreting and reporting about cases at the time of the application. Specific requirements:
Should have up-to-date knowledge about the relevant scientific literature and must be able to apply this knowledge to an individual case;
Has reported under supervision on a minimum of 3 reports per stipulated subfield;
Has spent an average of 40 hours a year in the past 2 years on forensically relevant professional development (e.g. attending conferences, running or attending courses, publications).
3. Repeat applicant: after full registration period
[Will be determined within two to three years]
4. Repeat applicant: after conditional registration
Basic requirements
Should have completed an academic Master’s Degree in an empirical social science. As a rule this means a Psychology degree. However, other empirical social science degrees are acceptable provided that the candidate has sufficiently covered psychological research methods;
Should demonstrate that he/she contributes to the academic knowledge base and debate in the field of expertise, for example, by publications, peer reviewing or a PhD;
Should have recent experience in interpreting and reporting about cases at the time of the application.
Specific requirements
Should have up-to-date knowledge about the relevant scientific literature and must be able to apply this knowledge to an individual case;
Has written a minimum of 2 reports in the past 2 years per stipulated subfield and a total of at least 2 reports;
Should demonstrate that all reports have been collegially reviewed;
Has spent an average of 40 hours per year in the past 2 years on forensically relevant continued professional development (e.g. attending conferences, running or attending courses, publications).
(…) has sufficient knowledge of and experience in the field of law concerned, and is sufficiently familiar with the position and the role of the expert in this field.
In general an applicant should have adequate knowledge of Dutch criminal law.
Context of criminal law:
Trias Politica, distinction between civil law, administrative law and criminal law.
Criminal law procedure:
pre-trial investigation;
coercive measures;
stages of the proceedings;
actors in the criminal justice system (tasks/powers/responsibilities);
regulations concerning experts laid down in the Dutch Code of Criminal Procedure (position and powers of commissioning party, legal position of expert, position and powers of lawyer, forms of counter-analysis, register of experts in the context of criminal law);
legal decision-making framework of the court in criminal cases (decision- making schedule laid down in Section 350 of the Dutch Criminal Code of Procedure), also with a view to the relevance of the commission to the expert and to the question at issue;
course of the criminal trial;
position of the expert in the court procedure.
Substantive criminal law:
sanctions and grounds for exemption from criminal liability (very basic).
Knowledge of the legal context of safeguarding the quality of the expert and the analysis/investigation:
position and role of the co-operating organisations in the criminal justice system in safeguarding the quality of the reports;
professional codes and relevant regulations in relation to the NRGD Code of Conduct.
(…) is able to inform the commissioning party whether, and if so, to what extent the commissioning party’s question at issue is sufficiently clear and capable of investigation in order to be able to answer it on the basis of their specific expertise.
An applicant for the field of expertise of Legal Psychology:
Should return (part of) the assignment to the commissioning party or refer the commissioning party to another expert of (another) field of expertise, in case his/her expertise does not cover the core question(s) of the assignment and/or if the available data is (of) insufficient (quality) to perform the work;
Be able to inform the commissioning party if on the basis of his specific expertise the commissioning party’s questions should be adjusted in order to benefit the forensic evaluation;
The report and oral presentation in court should reflect:
- An awareness of the limitations of his/her expertise;
- An awareness of the limitations of the used methods and conclusions.
(…) is able, on the basis of the question at issue, to prepare and carry out an investigation plan in accordance with the applicable standards.
An applicant for the field of expertise of Legal Psychology:
Has an academic embedding, as reflected in one or more of the following:
- Access to relevant scientific journals;
- Membership of relevant scientific associations such as the EAPL, APLS, and APS;
- Peer-review of the applicant’s reports by colleagues in academia.
Has knowledge of and experience with scientific research, as reflected in one or more of the following;
- Publications in peer-reviewed scientific journals, handbooks etc.;
- Attendance and/or presenting at relevant academic conferences;
- Involvement in ongoing research in relevant fields;
- Supervising graduate students in relevant fields;
- Membership of relevant Ph.D.-committees and/or research funding committees;
Should translate the referral question into hypotheses and/or scenarios.
(…) is able to collect, document, interpret and assess investigative materials and data in a forensic context in accordance with the applicable standards.
An applicant for the field of expertise of Legal Psychology:
Should be aware of the possibilities and limitations of any tools and methods that have been employed previously in the investigation;
Should be able to oversee and identify the relevant sources of information for the examination and adapt the conclusions to the available data;
Should refrain from making conclusions based on insufficient data;
Should be able to gather information in a systematic and critically reflective way;
Has knowledge of and experience with scientific research, as reflected in:
- Use of empirically supported methods;
- Use of reliable and valid instruments (if applicable).
(…) is able to apply the current investigative methods in a forensic context in accordance with the applicable standards.
An applicant for the field of expertise of Legal Psychology:
Should demonstrate that he/she is knowledgeable regarding the relevant scientific literature;
Should demonstrate that he/she is able to independently and correctly apply scientific methods to an individual case;
Should demonstrate taking precautions to prevent being influenced by biases of all sorts (e.g., expectancy effects, confirmation bias, hindsight bias, allegiance bias, belief perseverance);
Should be trained to use relevant psychometric tools (whenever appropriate training is available), such as symptom validity tests, statement validity tests, and suggestibility tests.
(…) is able to give a verifiable and well-reasoned case report on the assignment and any other relevant aspects of their expertise in terms which are comprehensible to the commissioning party, both orally and in writing.
An applicant for the field of expertise of Legal Psychology:
Should be able to write down the question at hand in a clear way;
Should be able to give a clear explanation of the method applied to answer the question;
Should in his/her reports provide references to the relevant literature to demonstrate that the applicant is anchored in the existing scientific knowledgebase;
Should be able to communicate effectively the scientific literature and application thereof, including the conclusions, in a way that is understandable to triers of fact;
Should carefully document all communications with involved parties and list all sources of information consulted during the examination in the final report;
Should demonstrate awareness of potentially biasing communications with involved parties (if applicable);
Should in his/her reports reflect hypotheses-driven and/or scenario-based reasoning.
(…) is able to complete an assignment within the stipulated or agreed period.
An applicant for the field of expertise of Legal Psychology:
Should inform the commissioning party immediately in case of delay or more time needed due to the complexity of the case.
(…) is able to carry out the activities as an expert independently, impartially, conscientiously, competently, and in a trustworthy manner.
See the NRGD Code of Conduct determined by the Board of Court Experts and published on the website of the NRGD.
If the applicant wants the Board to make an exception for him on the grounds of what is set out above, the applicant must submit a request for exception to the Board. The substantiated request must be submitted as an accompanying letter with the (repeat) application.
Part IV Assessment procedure for Legal Psychology
In all fields of expertise the assessment will be based on the written information provided, including as a minimum requirement case reports and items of evidence, supplemented in principle with an oral assessment. However, such an oral assessment will not be necessary if the applicant's expertise has already been clearly demonstrated by the written information.
The assessment will in principle be carried out on the basis of the information provided by the applicant:
general information as part of the application package;
documentary evidence of competence.
An additional case report and/or information can be requested if it is felt necessary in the context of the assessment.
1. Initial: independent reporter
Documents to be submitted
NRGD application form;
Statement accompanying the application for registration with the NRGD;
Certificate of Good Conduct;
A clearly legible copy (black and white) of a valid passport or identity card;
An up to date curriculum vitae (CV), preferably in English, and when available copies of relevant certificates and evidence of contributions to the relevant academic knowledge base and debate;
A list of case information;
A minimum of 3 case reports selected by the applicant from the provided list of case information. The case reports should provide a clear and broad picture of the applicant’s competences;
A list of forensically relevant continued professional development activities.
Assessment method
administrative, by the NRGD Bureau;
substantive, by an Advisory Committee for Assessment (ACA) made up of at least three people on the basis of the available written material, including possible supplementary written information. In principle this ACA consists of a legal expert and two subject-matter experts;
substantive, by the ACA specified at b. by means of an oral assessment. This oral assessment will be waived if the applicant’s expertise has already been clearly established;
decision by the Board: registration, registration for a temporary period or no registration.
2. Initial: reporter without work of his own
Documents to be submitted
NRGD application form;
Statement accompanying the application for registration with the NRGD;
Certificate of Good Conduct;
A clearly legible copy (black and white) of a valid passport or identity card;
An up to date curriculum vitae (CV), preferably in English and when available copies of relevant certificates and evidence of contributions to the relevant academic knowledge base and debate;
A list of case information;
A minimum of 3 case reports selected by the applicant from the list of case information. The case reports should provide a clear and broad picture of the applicant’s competences;
A list of forensically relevant continued professional development.
Assessment method
administrative, by the NRGD Bureau;
substantive, by an Advisory Committee for Assessment (ACA) made up of at least three people on the basis of the available written material, including possible supplementary written information. In principle this ACA consists of a legal expert and two subject-matter experts;
substantive, by the ACA specified at b. by means of an oral assessment. This oral assessment will be waived if the applicant’s expertise has already been clearly established;
decision by the Board: registration for a temporary period or no registration.
3. Repeat applicant: after full registration period
[Will be determined within two to three years]
4. Repeat applicant: after temporary registration
Documents to be submitted
NRGD application form;
Statement accompanying the application for registration with the NRGD;
An updated curriculum vitae (CV), preferably in English and when available copies of relevant certificates and evidence of contributions to the relevant academic knowledge base and debate;
A list of case information;
A minimum of 2 case reports selected by the applicant from the list of case information. The case reports should provide a clear and broad picture of the applicant’s competences;
A list of forensically relevant continued professional development activities.
Assessment method
administrative, by the NRGD Bureau;
substantive, by an Advisory Committee for Assessment (ACA) made up of at least three people on the basis of the available written material. In principle this ACA consists of a legal expert and two subject-matter experts;
substantive, by the ACA specified at b. by means of an oral assessment. This oral assessment will be waived if the applicant’s expertise has already been clearly established;
decision by the Board: registration, registration for a temporary period or no registration.
