Standards Forensic Weapon and Ammunition Examination (006.1)

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 at all times which Standards are valid at any given moment.

Part II. Demarcation of Forensic Weapon and Ammunition Examination

§ 1. Introduction

The ‘Forensic Weapon and Ammunition Examination’ field of expertise (further: Weapon and Ammunition) consists of the examination of portable weapons (further: ‘weapons’). The term weapon covers both firearms (and the suitable cartridges) and portable devices2Air and spring piston guns that are capable of accelerating one or more projectiles (also referred as ‘bullets’) or merely of producing a bang. Firearms utilise a chemical process through the ignition of a propellant charge and are provided with a combustion chamber and a barrel. Portable devices make use of a physical process, for example the pressure caused by the expansion of gas or the energy released by a spring. A cartridge is ammunition in which the (the) projectile(s), the propellant charge and the primer are combined in the cartridge case.

Shooting incidents involving munitions other than the ordinary unit cartridge (for example, propellant, primer and projectile separated) are not excluded.

The field of expertise relates to a technical examination of the weapon, the identification of the firearms used during a shooting incident, and the technical reconstruction of the shooting incident itself.

The Gunshot Residue Examination, the Explosions and Explosives Examination, the field of expertise of Pathology and the field of expertise Assessment regarding the Weapons and Ammunition Act fall outside the scope of this field of expertise.

The following disciplines are distinguished within the field of expertise:

Different questions are relevant per discipline. An overview of the most frequent questions has been provided in Annex A.

§ 2. Core activities

General: an expert in Forensic Weapon and Ammunition Examination identifies, typifies, classifies and describes portable firearms and the ammunition intended for such weapons according to the Weapons and Ammunition Act.

Comparative bullet and cartridge case examination

During the comparative bullet and cartridge case examination, an examination is conducted into microscopically small mechanical damage (weapon marks) on components of ammunition (bullets and cartridge cases) and cartridges. These marks are created when shooting or chambering ammunition in a firearm. The marks are characteristic of or particular to the firearm used and are consequently, highly indicative.

Connections can be established between each of the examined components of ammunition and/or between those components of ammunition and a firearm by comparing the weapon marks on bullets, cartridge cases and cartridges with each other. A special form of comparative bullet and cartridge case examination is an examination of the found ammunition components with a larger collection of stored bullets and cartridge cases from various shooting incidents.

During the comparative bullet and cartridge case examination, the expert identifies relevant weapon marks and compares these with the aid of a comparison microscope equipped for this purpose. The discovered similarities and differences are recorded and interpreted. The latter leads to a statement as to whether the findings are in line with the hypothesis that ammunition components had been discharged in the same firearm or that a given individual firearm had been used or that it was not used.

Weapon-technical examination for the purpose of reconstruction

During a weapon-technical examination, a weapon is examined for mechanical operation, defects and failures for the purpose of reconstructing the causes of a shooting incident. The condition and construction of the weapon are considered while taking into account the actions alleged to have been performed with it. These acts largely concern the possibility of accidental firing during throwing, falling, hitting or struggles.

The weapon is tested for sound operation. The examination consists of a thorough (microscope) inspection for damage, signs of wear and tear or missing components. The safety mechanisms that should be present have to be checked, followed by shooting tests and/or experiments that can recreate the acts that have been suggested as possible scenarios. The expert is able to establish, by means of inspection, assembly or disassembly an analysis of faults and failures, and an estimation as to whether there is any true basis for the proposition that the examined weapon fired by accident.

The forensic ballistics examination

The forensic ballistics examination consists of all four phases of ballistics: internal, muzzle (or transitional), external and terminal ballistics. The latter two are particularly relevant in connection with the direction of the shot, determining the firing distance and the effect of the bullets on targets that have been hit.

Experiments are conducted during ballistics examinations with the aim of evaluating the hypotheses proposed by the commissioning party concerning the shooting incident. The questions that can be asked are highly diverse in nature.

External ballistics:

Terminal ballistics:

The expert has to be capable and competent in the performance of all necessary experiments, perform them or have them performed, and to process and interpret the data of a significant number of measurements (statistically).

Legal domain: criminal law.

§ 3. Boundaries of the field of expertise

Within the practice of the Forensic Weapon and Ammunition Examination field of expertise, the expert will come into contact with other fields of expertise, which are not part of his expertise.

The expert in Forensic Weapon and Ammunition Examination is aware of the possibilities and restrictions of the fields of expertise mentioned below:

The expert in Forensic Weapon and Ammunition Examination can assist and advise the police on site when searching, describing, recording, interpreting and securing marks and carriers of marks of shooting incidents on and around the crime scene.

In doing so, the expert will focus on:

The Gunshot Residue Examination field of expertise concerns itself with:

The Pathology field of expertise comprises the determination of the victim’s cause of death. It is also determined whether the identified shooting is the cause of the death.

Explosions and Explosives Examination field of expertise

The Explosions and Explosives field of expertise is primarily deals with the following investigation:

Usually, Explosions and Explosives examinations concern incidents other than shooting incidents.

The field of expertise of Assessment regarding the Weapons and Ammunition Act focuses on:

§ 4. Registration

The register will state the name of the relevant expert as an expert in the field of 006.1 Forensic Weapon and Ammunition Examination.

Part III. Registration requirements for Forensic Weapon and Ammunition Examination

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

1.2. Initial: reporter without work of his own

1.3. Repeat applicant: after unconditional registration

1.4. Repeat applicant: after conditional registration

§ 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.

§ 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.

§ 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.

§ 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 Forensic Weapon and Ammunition Examination

§ 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 Including the observation form and corresponding (digital) image material.

2.2. Initial: reporter without work of his own