Standards Drugs Analysis and Interpretation (005.00), Drugs Comparison (005.01), Drugs Production (005.02)

Part I. 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 (hereinafter: 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 in the register for the field of expertise to which the application relates. The repeat applicant is an expert who is already registered in the register for the field of expertise to which the application relates.

These two types of applicants are subdivided as follows:

Initial applicant:

Repeat applicant:

The initial applicant is an applicant who at the time of submission of the application does not have an NRGD registration. An initial applicant could be:

In respect of initial applicants, it is necessary to make a clear distinction between the independent reporter and the reporter without work of his own. An example of a reporter without work of his own is the newly-trained expert. This expert has completed the forensic training (reporter’s 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’. An additional requirement applies to the applicant who was rejected earlier: the case reports included in the List of Case Information must have been drawn up after the date of the Board’s decision rejecting the earlier application (Policy Framework on Application after Rejection).1It is possible to make an exception to this general rule, namely in case of an earlier rejection pursuant to Article 12(2), sub-paragraph a, of the Register of Court Experts in Criminal Cases, the so-called training requirement. Reports written before the date of the Board’s decision rejecting the earlier application may be included in the List of Case Information, provided that they were drawn up within the generally applicable period preceding the time of submission of the new application.

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 assessment method.

§ 3. Justification of Standards

These Standards have been established by the Board in accordance with the Register of Court Experts in Criminal Cases Decree (Besluit register deskundige in strafzaken) and the Experts 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 as being up-to-date. This check can lead to a new version. The aim is to publish the 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 C). This makes it possible to trace which Standards are valid at any given moment at all times.

Part II. Demarcation of Drugs Analysis and Interpretation

§ 1. Introduction

Within the field of expertise of Drugs Analysis and Interpretation, a distinction must be made between four types of examinations:

In respect of these four types of examinations, different questions are of relevance in two different stages: the stage of the chemical-physical examination and the interpretation stage. In all types of examination it is important that the expert has the skills to conduct a proper sampling and to analyze samples in a correct manner. Additionally, all types of examination must include an interpretation within the framework of the relevant legislation, i.e. the Dutch Opium Act, the European guidelines referred to in the Misuse of Chemicals Prevention Act and the Dutch Medicines Act. The expert must be aware of his limited knowledge in this respect.

1.1.1. Identification and quantification

Identification aims to determine the presence of:

Quantification aims to determine the concentration and/or amount present of the above-mentioned agents.

a. The chemical-physical examination stage

The following questions are, inter alia, of relevance here:

‘Can drugs or related substances be identified, if so which?’

‘What is the concentration and/or amount of the agent present?’

1.1.2. Trace examinations

Trace examinations are also intended to determine the presence of agents and substances listed under 1.1.1. These examinations are carried out on trace carriers (anything on which a trace is available or could be present) or specific samples obtained from a suspected trace carrier.

a. The chemical-physical examination stage

The following questions are, inter alia, of relevance here:

‘Can traces of drugs or related substances be identified?’

‘If so, where are these traces to be demonstrably identified on the trace carrier?’

b. The interpretation stage

When requested, the probability of the results of the chemical-physical examination is evaluated by the expert within the context of the proposed activity scenarios that could have led to the transfer/movement of traces of drugs.

1.1.3. Comparative examination

A comparative examination is carried out in order to provide an answer to the question whether, and to what degree or at which level, different samples/batches of drugs or drug precursors are from the same origin. In this context the term origin refers to a pre-existing quantity of substance that has been divided into different parts. The possibly corresponding origin is investigated by comparing features like physical characteristics and chemical composition.

a. The chemical-physical examination stage

The following questions are, inter alia, of relevance here:

‘What are the external features and physical qualities of the material for examination?’

‘What chemical components (e.g. major component, cutting agents, by-products, solvents) are demonstrably identified and in what (relative) concentrations?’

b. The interpretation stage

The following questions are, inter alia, of relevance here:

‘Do the examined samples or any processed materials contain drugs that are from the same origin?’

‘Are the examined samples or any processed materials from the same origin as previously examined materials (database)?’

In this stage the expert comments on the probability of the measured results within the context of the various hypotheses.

1.1.4. Production process examination

The production process examination aims at determining what agent has been produced and in what manner, and which waste material has been created during these processes. The drug related production processes examination is primarily carried out on material which has been secured at a crime scene. By combining the achieved results with information on the circumstances and materials found at the crime scene, comments can be made on possible processes and manufactured agents.

Examples of such processes are:

'Production of synthetic drugs and precursors’

'Extraction/conversion lab of cocaine’

‘Production of cutting agents e.g. in connection with heroin’

‘Cutting, (re)packing or making pharmaceutical forms of drugs (e.g. tablets, powders)’

‘Hash/hash oil production’

‘Cultivation and production of cannabis products’

a. The chemical-physical examination stage

The following questions are, inter alia, of relevance here:

b. The interpretation stage

The following questions are, inter alia, of relevance here:

‘Was an agent as referred to under 1.1.4.a manufactured2Manufacturing also includes ‘preparation, treatment and processing’.?’

‘Which production processes have been used or could have been applied?'

‘Which agents (precursors) and equipment for the production of the agent were present at the crime scene?’

'What is the production capacity of the equipment found at the crime scene?'

‘What do the expected proceeds of drugs amount to, according to the equipment and agents found at the scene?’

‘Which production process can be linked to the discarded materials? (in the event of illegal waste dumping)’

§ 2. Core activities

Drugs examination is concerned with samples that are expected to contain:

Within the field of expertise of Drugs Analysis and Interpretation a distinction must be made between two categories for registration: Drugs Comparison and Drugs Production.

For both categories experts will be able to answer the questions of identification, quantification and trace examination in the chemical-psychical examination stage(see 1.1.1.a, 1.1.2.a).

In addition experts with a registration for Drugs Comparison are involved with answering questions related tocomparative examination in the interpretation stage(see 1.1.3.b). Furthermore these experts will be able to answer questions of comparative examinationin the chemical-physical examination stage(see 1.1.3.a).

Experts with a registration for Drugs Production are involved with answering questions related to production process examination in the interpretation stage(see 1.1.4.b). Furthermore these experts will be able to answer the questions of production process examinationin the chemical-physical examination stage(see 1.1.4.a).

§ 3. Boundaries of the field of expertise

Experts in the field of expertise of Drugs Analysis and Interpretation must be aware of the opportunities and limitations of their answers to questions concerning trace examinations in the interpretation stage(1.1.2.b).

Experts must be aware that standard equipment and routine methods will not automatically detect and identify all new and previously unknown substances or detect low dosed substances.

§ 4. Registration

4.1. Registration

The register will record the name of the relevant expert as an expert in the field of Drugs Analysis and Interpretation.

4.2. Defined subfields

Within the field of expertise Drugs Analysis and Interpretation experts can be registered for:

005.1 Drugs Comparison; and /or

005.2 Drugs Production

Part III. Registration requirements for Drugs Analysis and Interpretation

The general (repeat) registration requirements are given in the next paragraphs in italics with a reference to Article 12 paragraph 2 in the Register of Court Experts 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:

§ 1. Article 12(2) sub-paragraph a

(...) has sufficient knowledge and experience in the field of expertise to which the application relates.

1.1. Initial: independent reporter

¹ European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System, 1 ECTS = 28 study hours.

1.2. Initial: reporter without work of his own

¹ European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System, 1 ECTS = 28 study hours.

1.3. Repeat applicant: after unconditional registration

¹ European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System, 1 ECTS = 28 study hours.

1.4. Repeat applicant: after conditional registration

¹ European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System, 1 ECTS = 28 study hours.

§ 2. Article 12(2) sub-paragraph b

(...) 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.

§ 3. Article 12(2) sub-paragraph c

(...) 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 should:

§ 4. Article 12(2) sub-paragraph d

(...) 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 should:

§ 5. Article 12(2) sub-paragraph e

(...) is able to collect, document, interpret and assess investigative materials and data in a forensic context in accordance with the applicable standards.

An applicant should:

§ 6. Article 12(2) sub-paragraph f

(...) is able to apply the current investigative methods in a forensic context in accordance with the applicable standards.

An applicant should:

§ 7. Article 12(2) sub-paragraph g

(...) 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 should:

§ 8. Article 12(2) sub-paragraph h

(...) is able to complete an assignment within the stipulated or agreed period.

§ 9. Article 12(2) sub-paragraph i

(...) is able to carry out the activities as an expert independently, impartially, conscientiously, competently, and in a trustworthy manner.

An applicant should:

§ 10. Hardship clause

The Board may decide not to apply or deviate from a registration requirement if application of such requirement would produce very unreasonable results. The hardship clause may only offer a solution in certain exceptional situations. It is up to the applicant himself to submit facts and circumstances showing that a certain registration requirement is unreasonable in his specific case.

Part IV. Assessment procedure for Drugs Analysis and Interpretation

§ 1. General

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:

If it is felt necessary in the context of the assessment an additional case report and/or information, for example information about the way collegial review and/or supervision is organized within the organization, can be requested.

§ 2. Assessment procedure per type of applicant

2.1. Initial: independent reporter

¹ It is left to the applicant to decide in which form this evidence is provided, e.g. in the form of a logbook or by means of certificates.

2.2. Initial: reporter without work of his own

¹ It is left to the applicant to decide in which form this evidence is provided, e.g. in the form of a logbook or by means of certificates.

2.3. Repeat applicant: after unconditional registration

¹ It is left to the applicant to decide in which form this evidence is provided, e.g. in the form of a logbook or by means of certificates.

2.4. Repeat applicant: after conditional registration

¹ It is left to the applicant to decide in which form this evidence is provided, e.g. in the form of a logbook or by means of certificates.

Annex A. Suggested literature and guidelines

‘Development of a harmonised method for the profiling of amphetamines, deel I-VI (serie)’:

Aalberg, L. Andersson, K., Bertler, C. Borén, H. (2005). Development of a harmonised method for the profiling of amphetamines I: Synthesis of standards and compilation of analytical data. Forensic Science International (149) 2-3, p. 219-229.

Aalberg, L., Andersson, K., Bertler, C., Cole, M.D. e.a. (2005). Development of a harmonised method for the profiling of amphetamines II: Stability of impurities in organic solvents. Forensic Science International(149) 2-3, p. 231-241.

Andersson, K., Jalava, K., Lock, E., Finnon, Y. e.a.(2007). Development of a harmonised method for the profiling of amphetamines III: Development of the gas chromatographic method. Forensic Science International, (169) 1, p. 50-63.

Andersson, K., Jalava, K., Lock, E. Huizer e.a. (2007). Development of a harmonised method for the profiling of amphetamines IV: Optimisation of sample preparation. Forensic Science International (169) 1, p. 64-76.

Aalberg, L., Andersson, K., Dahlén, J., Lock, E. e.a. (2007) Development of a harmonised method for the profiling of amphetamines V: Determination of the variability of the optimised method. Forensic Science International (169) 1, p. 77-85.

Andersson, K., Lock, E., Jalava, K., Huizer H. e.a. (2007). Development of a harmonised method for the profiling of amphetamines VI: Evaluation of methods for comparison of amphetamine. Forensic Science International, (169) 1, p. 86-99.

Deursen, M.M. van, Lock, E.R.A., Poortman- van der Meer, A.J. (2006). Organic impurity profiling of 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) tablets seized in the Netherlands. Science & Justice (46), p. 135 -152.

Donnell jr., C. R. (2003),Forensic Investigation of Clandestine Laboratories.Professional Business Solutions, USA: O'Fallon.

International Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation (ILAC) (2002). Guidelines for Forensic Science Laboratories. ILAC, Rhodes, Australia.

Moffat, A.C., Osselton, D. M. and Widdop, B., (2011). Clarke’s Analysis of Drugs and Poisons: in pharmaceuticals, body fluids, and postmortem material.

London: Pharmaceutical Press.

United Nations Division of Narcotic Drugs (1986). Recommended Methods for Testing Cocaine. New York: United Nations.

United Nations Division of Narcotic Drugs (1989). Recommended Methods for Testing Lysergide (LSD). New York; United Nations.

United Nation Office on Drugs and Crime (2005). Methods for Impurity Profiling of Heroin and Cocaine.New York: United Nations.

United Nation Office on Drugs and Crime (2006).Recommended Methods for the Identification and Analysis of Amphetamine, Methamphetamine and their Ring-Substituted Analogues in Seized Materials. New York: United Nations.

United Nation Office on Drugs and Crime (2009). Recommended methods for the identification and analysis of cannabis and cannabis products. New York: United Nations.

United Nations in cooperation with the Drugs Working Group of the European Network of Forensic Science Institutes (2009). Guidelines on Representative Drug Sampling. New York: United Nations.

United Nations International Drug Control Programme (1998). Recommended Methods for Testing Opium, Morphine and Heroin. New York: United Nations

United Nation Office on Drugs and Crime (2005). Methods for Impurity Profiling of Heroin and Cocaine.New York: United Nations.

United Nations Office for Drug Control and Crime Prevention (2001). Drug Characterization/Impurity Profiling: Background and Concepts. New York: United Nations.

United Nations Office for Drug Control and Crime Prevention (2013). Clandestine Manufacture of Substances under International Control. New York: United Nations.

Website:

http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/scientists/publications.html

Annex B. NRGD glossary

Advisory Committee for Assessment	A committee appointed by the Board which advises the Board on the (repeat) applicant’s (degree of) suitability for (repeat) registration.
Applicant	Natural person submitting an application to the NRGD in order to be (re-) registered in the register.
Assessor	A member of an Advisory Committee for Assessment.
Board	The Board of Court Experts is the body as referred to in Section 51k(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and is charged with managing the register.
Brdis	Register of Court Experts in Criminal Cases Decree (Besluit register deskundige in strafzaken).
Bureau	The NRGD Bureau that supports the Board.
Collegial review	The assessment of another person’s work for the purpose of continuous quality control of a person’s expertise. There is thereby not a hierarchical but a horizontal relationship between colleagues specialised in the same subject area. The reviewer does not sign the report.
Conditional registration	The registration of an expert for a period specified by the Board and possibly under certain conditions which must be met within that period. In principle the period to be specified by the Board is two years.
Continuous professional development	All (training) activities that contribute to the ongoing development of knowledge and skills, which is desirable and necessary in order to be able to continue performing the role of court expert in a professional manner.
Independent reporter	A reporter who has independently prepared and signed the required number of case reports
Initial applicant	An applicant who makes an application to be entered in the register and does not or not yet have an NRGD registration at the time when the application is made.
Intervision	Intervision is a structured (interdisciplinary) meeting between people who are working or training in the same professional area. The subject of discussion is in any case the forensic work carried out and the associated problems. The aim is to enhance the expertise of those involved and improve quality of work. Unlike supervision, there is no hierarchical relationship between the participants.
NRGD	The Netherlands Register of Court Experts of which the Board and the Bureau form part.
Register	The national public register as referred to in Section 51 k(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which lists the court experts which the Board deems suitable.
Registered expert	An expert who is entered in the register.
Registration	Entry in the register.
Repeat applicant	An expert who at the time of submitting a repeat application already has a NRGD registration, possibly for a conditional registration.
Reporter	An individual who issues a report for the administration of justice and/or gives testimony in court.
Reporter training	A coherent and structured arrangement of organised training activities in which the necessary knowledge and experience are acquired to report as a court expert in criminal law proceedings and that is completed by an exam.
Reporter with no own work	A reporter who has not independently completed and signed the number of case reports required for registration.
Supervision	The assessment of another person’s work, the joint consideration of the work and the supervision of a supervisee as part of a training or additional training process. Supervisor and supervisee are thereby in a hierarchical relationship. The supervisor will observe the subject of the investigation (the investigated person) in such a way that they can check the supervisee’s investigation, and can endorse and take responsibility for the conclusions thereof. The supervisor will sign the report in all cases.
User	Someone who uses the register in order to find and potentially engage a registered expert.

Annex C. Revision history

Version	Date	Revisions made
3.0	12.12.2016	Generic adjustments: – addition: generic introduction for all fields of expertise in Part I – adjusted description of types of applicants: independent/work of his own – differentiation per types of applicants to provide an immediate overview of respective requirements (Part III) and assessment procedure (Part IV) – number of case reports adjusted because of extending the registration period; – possibility to submit case reports that were interpreted and reported on under the supervision of the applicant – integration of several NRGD policy frameworks in Standards selection of case reports by applicant themselves.
2.0	01.11.2014	The specialism has been divided into two different categories: Drugs Comparison and Drugs Production. Experts can register for one or both categories; Renewal registration: – collegial reviewed reports mandatory; – 40 hours per year on continued professional development .
1.0	01.04.2011	First standards documents Drugs Analysis and Interpretation