Fifteen years of the NRGD in an evolving forensic landscape

This article begins by exploring the origins of the NRGD. It then outlines the organisation’s role and highlights its key achievements over the past fifteen years. Finally, it looks ahead to the NRGD’s future within the evolving forensic landscape.

1. How it began

1.1. The NRGD

The Experts in Criminal Cases Act introduced requirements relating to the quality, reliability and competence of expert witnesses. The Act, which was subsequently incorporated into the Code of Criminal Procedure, entered into force on 1 January 2010. One of the key drivers behind this legislation was the Schiedam Park Murder case, in which a wrongful conviction was later overturned, partly due to concerns about the forensic evidence on which it had been based. The case sparked extensive public and political debate about the expertise and reliability of forensic experts and highlighted the need for more robust quality assurance.

Against this background, the Posthumus Committee was established (Commissie-Posthumus, Evaluatieonderzoek in de Schiedammer Parkmoord, Ministerie van Justitie, 2005). Although its final report, published in 2005, did not explicitly recommend the creation of a national register, it directly led to the establishment of the NRGD: an independent register responsible for setting standards, assessing, registering and recognising court experts, thereby strengthening the reliability of expert evidence in criminal proceedings.

Following the adoption of the Decree on the Register of Experts in Criminal Cases, which, among other things, sets out the composition of the Board, the first Board took office. Registration initially opened in the fields of DNA, Handwriting Examination and FPPO (Forensic Psychology, Psychiatry and Orthopedagogy). These areas were selected because they represented a broad range of forensic disciplines and professional practices. The experience gained from these initial registrations enabled the NRGD to develop effective assessment procedures and standards frameworks for a wide variety of fields of expertise.

1.2 The role of the NRGD

The NRGD is an independent quality assurance organisation for forensic expertise that serves the Dutch criminal justice system. Collaboration, both nationally and internationally, is central to its work. To this end, the NRGD involves national and international assessors in the development of standards and in the assessment of experts. It also participates in professional networks and conferences and closely monitors developments in forensic science and relevant academic literature worldwide.

The NRGD ensures that forensic experts and their reports meet nationally and internationally recognised quality standards. These standards are developed in consultation with the relevant professional field and are tailored to each area of expertise.

Through dedicated standards advisory committees, the competencies required of experts are defined, together with the ways in which those competencies must be demonstrated. Experts are subsequently assessed against the statutory quality requirements and the standards applicable to their field. This provides courts, legal professionals and other stakeholders with confidence in the quality and reliability of forensic expert evidence.

As an independent and transparent organisation, the NRGD promotes, safeguards and continuously enhances the quality of forensic expertise. In doing so, it also contributes to quality development across the wider forensic field.

The NRGD is a statutory register operating within the criminal justice system. It has an independent position and receives structural government funding. By developing objective quality standards for each area of expertise and assessing experts against those standards, the NRGD promotes professionalism, transparency and consistency in forensic expert evidence. To support this objective, it has also established a Code of Conduct that sets out the professional obligations of registered experts.

Experts may be registered either unconditionally for a period of five years or conditionally for two years. Conditional registration may be granted where the assessment identifies specific areas in which an expert can further develop or improve the quality of their reporting.

The NRGD is governed by the independent Board of Court Experts, an independent administrative authority within the meaning of the General Administrative Law Act. Chaired by a member of the judiciary, the Board also includes representatives from the police, the Public Prosecution Service, the legal profession and the forensic science community.

The Board's responsibilities include:

• deciding on applications for registration and on the removal of registrations;
• developing and adopting standards for specific areas of expertise;
• establishing and maintaining the Code of Conduct for registered experts; and
• recognising relevant training programmes.

The Board may also advise the Minister of Justice and Security on policy and legislation relating to court experts. It is supported by the NRGD Bureau, which manages and maintains the register on the Board’s behalf and serves as a point of contact for experts and other stakeholders.

The governance and organisation of the NRGD are set out in broad terms in the Decree on the Register of Experts in Criminal Cases.

2. Current state of affairs

2.1. The NRGD’s achievements

Since its establishment, the NRGD has followed a gradual growth model, introducing new areas of forensic expertise in which experts can apply for registration. The register currently covers fourteen areas of expertise, with Radiology at an advanced stage of development. As a result, the NRGD is expected to encompass fifteen registered areas of expertise within approximately fifteen years of its founding.

Over this period, the NRGD has developed a hybrid quality assurance system consisting of three complementary instruments:

1. Individual assessment of experts;
2. Recognition of organisations and training programmes; and
3. A toolbox for ad hoc experts.

Together, these instruments contribute to the quality and reliability of forensic expertise within the criminal justice system. They are briefly outlined below.

1. An individual assessment

The NRGD began assessing experts on an individual basis in 2010. For each area of expertise, dedicated committees developed field-specific quality standards against which reporting experts could be assessed. In the early years, the quality of applicants varied considerably, and some applications were therefore rejected. This is an inherent feature of any quality register. A reliable register provides users of forensic expertise with greater clarity about which experts meet the required standards in a particular field and which do not. At the same time, it strengthens confidence among experts in the value and credibility of registration.

Figures for the period 2020–2025 show that 1,001 applications were submitted, of which 56 were rejected (see Table below). Applicants whose registration was refused could lodge an objection and, where appropriate, appeal the decision.

In addition, the NRGD offers an accelerated route to registration following a rejection. Through this procedure, applicants may still obtain registration within two years of the original decision. A renewed application must include three case reports, together with the supervision or peer-review reports prepared after the earlier rejection. The applicant is then required to undergo an oral assessment. As part of this process, the assessment advisory committee and the Board may also review the advisory report from the previous assessment.

2. Recognitions

The NRGD’s recognition framework enables organisations to assume primary responsibility for the quality assurance of their own experts. Organisations may be granted this responsibility if they can demonstrate that their internal quality systems meet the standards required by the NRGD. At all times, however, the integrity and reliability of the register remain paramount.

To safeguard quality, recognised organisations are subject to a range of oversight measures, including visitations, examinations involving external assessors, annual sample audits and reporting requirements. The NRGD also supports organisations and individuals in developing quality assurance systems that meet the necessary standards.

To date, two organisations have been recognised by the NRGD: the Netherlands Institute of Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology (NIFP) and the Netherlands Forensic Institute (NFI). As a result, many experts employed by these organisations no longer require an individual assessment by the NRGD.

Recognition places responsibility for quality assurance where it belongs: with the organisation in which the expert works, while maintaining independent oversight by the NRGD.

3. Ad Hoc Expert Tools

This instrument is intended for areas of expertise that are only occasionally relevant in criminal proceedings and for which recognised forensic experts are often not readily available. In such cases, subject-matter experts may possess the necessary specialist knowledge but have little or no experience in reporting within the context of the criminal justice system.

To help safeguard the quality of these expert reports, the NRGD, together with several partners across the criminal justice chain, has developed a set of Ad Hoc Expert Tools (K. van den Doel, N. Laan & N. Raats, ‘Signalement − Kwaliteitsborging van elke gerechtelijke deskundige? Lancering van het Ad Hoc-instrumentarium door het NRGD’). These tools support experts who are rarely, or have never previously been, asked to provide expert evidence in a criminal case.

The tools enable experts to:

• complete an e-learning module on the fundamentals of criminal procedure and the role of expert evidence;
• use practical guidance for drafting forensic reports; and
• receive feedback on a draft report from an experienced NRGD assessor.

This feedback focuses on aspects such as clarity, consistency and the transparency of the reasoning underlying the conclusions. It does not constitute a substantive review of the expert’s findings or professional judgment. Rather, it provides an additional independent review aimed at improving the report’s accessibility and helping experts avoid unnecessary technical jargon or procedural and legal pitfalls.

The feedback remains confidential. Neither the content of the feedback nor the identity of the assessor is disclosed to third parties. This ensures that responsibility for the report remains solely with the reporting expert.

The Ad Hoc Expert Tools are available free of charge to any expert reporting in a criminal case. In practice, they are used primarily by experts referred through the National Expertise Broker.

2.2. Evaluation of the NRGD

Each year, the NRGD reports to the Ministry of Justice and Security through its annual plan and annual report. In addition, the organisation has been evaluated twice by the Research and Data Centre. The most recent evaluation, conducted in 2020, found broad support for the NRGD’s approach among all stakeholder groups consulted, including registered experts. The evaluation concluded that the NRGD operates objectively and independently.

The report also found that the standards used in the registration assessment process are firmly grounded in current scientific knowledge and professional best practice. Furthermore, the members of the assessment advisory committees were considered to possess the expertise required to carry out their role effectively.

The quality of registered experts was assessed positively as well. According to the researchers, the NRGD system ensures that experts meet a defined minimum standard of quality and competence. As a result, questions about the expertise of NRGD-registered experts now rarely arise during court proceedings.

The evaluation further concluded that the NRGD has made a significant contribution to achieving the objectives of the Experts in Criminal Cases Act: strengthening confidence in the administration of justice through the improvement of forensic expertise. It has done so by developing standards for a wide range of forensic disciplines and by maintaining a register in which only experts who meet the Board’s requirements for their field of expertise can be registered.

A new evaluation of the NRGD is scheduled for 2026.

3. Future perspectives

The coming years will present the NRGD with a range of challenges, as well as opportunities to further shape its role within the evolving forensic landscape. This section briefly outlines several key developments that are likely to influence the organisation’s future direction and discusses how the NRGD intends to respond to them. It also highlights a number of the NRGD’s own strategic ambitions for the years ahead.

3.1. The role of the NRGD in an evolving forensic landscape

Neither the law nor forensic science stands still. Both continue to evolve in response to societal needs, new developments and changing expectations. At the same time, advances in knowledge generate new questions, insights and techniques, which in turn shape future developments. Change is therefore an inherent characteristic of both the legal system and forensic science.

The emergence of artificial intelligence (AI), the increasing use of algorithms and the rapid growth of digital forensics illustrate this dynamic. Such developments raise fundamental questions about their implications for the administration of justice. At the same time, the growing integration of different areas of expertise creates new challenges for quality assurance. Forensic investigations increasingly rely on multidisciplinary teams that combine a variety of scientific methods, analytical techniques and specialist knowledge.

Against this backdrop, it is essential that both law and forensic science remain firmly grounded in robust legal frameworks, procedures and scientific methodologies. These foundations not only provide direction but also serve as safeguards for quality, reliability and accountability within both the justice system and scientific practice. Equally important is the existence of widely accepted forensic quality standards, such as the recently adopted ISO 21043 series, to the development of which the NRGD contributed.

Experts and the organisations in which they work play a central role in the practical implementation of these standards. Responsibility for maintaining quality rests first and foremost with the professionals and institutions involved. At the same time, independent and objective oversight remains indispensable. Over the past fifteen years, the NRGD has fulfilled this role by promoting and safeguarding the quality of forensic expertise. Looking ahead, it will continue to strengthen both the quality and efficiency of forensic expert evidence and to keep these issues firmly on the national agenda.

A key ambition is to contribute to quality assurance throughout the forensic chain, particularly where the interpretation and evaluation of forensic findings are concerned. This is becoming increasingly important as forensic investigations grow more complex and multidisciplinary in nature.

For suspects, defendants and other parties to legal proceedings, much ultimately depends on the decisions of the court. While the overarching objective of the Experts in Criminal Cases Act—the prevention of miscarriages of justice—can never be achieved with absolute certainty, a robust and well-governed quality assurance system for forensic expertise can make a significant contribution to minimising that risk.

3.2. Expansion into administrative and civil law

For many years, the judiciary has advocated extending the register to include experts who provide evidence in administrative and civil proceedings. The need for effective quality assurance of expert evidence is not limited to criminal law. In administrative and civil cases, too, expert opinions can have a significant impact on the rights, interests and legal position of individuals. This is particularly true in fields such as medical expertise, where expert reports often play a decisive role in judicial decision-making.

Moreover, when the NRGD was established, the intention was never for the register to serve exclusively the criminal justice system. From the outset, the broader ambition was to create a quality framework that could also support the registration of experts operating in administrative and civil law. Despite sustained efforts over the years, however, and notwithstanding the continued support of the judiciary, this expansion has not yet been realised. The most recent position is that insufficient legislative capacity is currently available to make the necessary legal amendments.

Any extension of the NRGD’s remit would require amendments to the Decree on the Register of Experts in Criminal Cases, the General Administrative Law Act and the Code of Civil Procedure. In the NRGD’s view, however, these changes would be relatively limited in scope and could be implemented within a reasonable timeframe.

3.3. Should the NRGD have regulatory powers

At present, the NRGD is referred to in only a limited number of provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. An alternative—and arguably more comprehensive—approach would be the introduction of a dedicated NRGD Act. Such legislation could provide a clear statutory basis for the registration of experts across the three principal areas of law: criminal, administrative and civil law. It could also give the NRGD greater authority to investigate concerns about the quality of expert performance and, where appropriate, to impose sanctions.

One limitation of the current framework is that concerns about registered experts can be reported to the NRGD, while the organisation itself has only restricted powers to investigate such concerns or take corrective action. The simple reason is that the NRGD is not a regulatory authority. In that respect, it is noteworthy that the forensic domain currently lacks an overarching regulator. This contrasts with the situation in the United Kingdom, where an independent forensic regulator has been established and granted extensive statutory powers. Among other things, the regulator may independently investigate suspected quality deficiencies and, where necessary, impose sanctions. As the regulator itself has described its approach: “walk slowly with a big stick”.

Even within the NRGD’s current mandate, responding to concerns about expert performance can be complex. This is due not only to the organisation’s limited investigative powers, but also to legal questions regarding the distinction between a report of concern and a formal complaint. In addition, reports generally relate to a single case, whereas registration in the NRGD register is based on a comprehensive assessment of an expert’s performance across multiple reports. The challenge, therefore, lies in determining how the findings from an isolated case should be weighed against the broader body of evidence on which an expert’s registration is based.

3.4. Registration authority?

Another possibility would be to develop the NRGD into a registration authority. The NRGD’s extensive experience in assessing and registering experts could also be applied to the registration of professionals in other relevant fields. Mediators, for example, could be considered in this context.

3.5. Government budget cuts

Like many public-sector organisations, the NRGD is affected by the substantial budget cuts imposed by the government. As a result, expanding the number of areas of expertise in which forensic experts can be registered is not currently feasible. The organisation’s priority will therefore be to maintain the existing registered areas at a high level of quality.

This effectively brings to a halt the growth model that has characterised the NRGD’s development over the past fifteen years. Of particular concern to the NRGD is the fact that, on several recent occasions when additional funding was allocated to the criminal justice chain, the NRGD was not included. In addition to limiting opportunities for innovation, this may, over time, lead to an erosion of the quality of the NRGD’s work.

3.6. Position of the legal profession

The NRGD remains concerned about whether a sufficient number of registered counter-experts is available to support the legal profession. In practice, demand is limited because suspects and other parties generally have to bear the costs of expert examinations themselves.

From the perspective of due process, however, it is important that a sufficiently broad range of experts is available. This is essential not only for meaningful scientific debate, but also for the provision of independent second opinions and counter-expertise. A sustainable market for independent forensic expertise can develop only if private providers receive a sufficient volume of cases over a longer period and are adequately remunerated for their work.

To support this objective, the Minister has made additional funding available to enable the Public Prosecution Service and the police to outsource forensic work where appropriate.

3.7. Public-private cooperation

The NRGD closely monitors developments in the supply and demand of forensic expertise. Demand continues to be driven largely by government agencies, while supply remains concentrated among established providers such as the police, the NIFP and the NFI. At the same time, new private providers, including Eurofins and LOEF, have entered the market and are influencing the balance between supply and demand. These organisations tend to compete primarily on speed of delivery. This can be a positive development, provided that high-quality standards are maintained.

Public and private providers of forensic expertise operate under different incentives. This is particularly true for publicly listed companies, such as Eurofins, which are accountable to shareholders and expected to generate financial returns. At the same time, uncertainty regarding the long-term demand for forensic services may affect private providers’ willingness to invest in research, innovation and capacity building.

What the forensic expertise market requires above all is stability. One way of achieving this may be through public–private partnerships. When designed effectively, such partnerships can offer benefits for all parties involved, including shorter turnaround times, improved risk assessment and risk-sharing, and greater cost efficiency.

Such cooperation could take the form of partnerships between public and private providers of forensic expertise. Another possibility, and perhaps the most sustainable long-term option, would be a broader public–private partnership involving both providers of forensic expertise and the organisations that commission forensic examinations.

3.8. Knowledge platform

The NRGD operates within an extensive network of experts and occupies a central position in national and international developments in forensic knowledge and innovation. Now that the NRGD has established itself as a recognised hallmark of quality, this presents both a new challenge and a new opportunity. In the years ahead, the NRGD aims to position itself more clearly as a platform where forensic expertise is brought together, shared and further developed.

Maintaining a high-quality register of experts will remain the NRGD’s core task and the foundation of its activities. At the same time, a register forms part of a much broader forensic ecosystem. Continuous professional dialogue is essential for the further development of forensic expertise. With the foundations now firmly in place, the NRGD also seeks to facilitate and support that dialogue by providing a platform for the exchange of knowledge and experience. This is not based on the assumption that the NRGD itself possesses all the necessary expertise, but rather on the fact that it has access to a broad network of experts who do.

A key theme in this regard is artificial intelligence (AI). All organisations operating within the forensic domain are faced with the opportunities and challenges associated with AI. In response, the NRGD recently adopted an AI addendum to its Code of Conduct for experts. In addition, it will shortly launch an AI Roundtable, bringing together organisations from the criminal forensic domain to explore existing initiatives and identify opportunities for joint action and cooperation in the field of AI.

3.9. NRGD-initiated research

In view of developments such as the changing landscape of forensic service providers, ongoing ISO standardisation and the forthcoming amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure, there is a need to examine the current state of quality assurance within the forensic field and the possibilities for its further development. To this end, a qualitative study of the forensic domain will be conducted in 2026 on behalf of the NRGD and in consultation with the Ministry of Justice and Security.

Mr. drs. H. van den Heuvel, MBA, is Chair of the Board of the NRGD.