- Email: [email protected]
Ethics and discipline in forensic science
SOCIETY NEWS-PROFESSIONAL
AFFAIRS
Ethics and discipline in forensic science BERNARD KNIGHT University of Wales College of Medicine, Cardiff Royal Infirmary, Institute of Pathology, Cardiff, United Kingdom CF2 1SZ
This Presidential Address was delivered at the Autumn Meeting of the Forensic Science Society, held at the Surrey Police Headquarters, Mount Browne, Guildford on 4 November 1988. Having spent almost ten years as a member of the General Medical Council (GMC), the last two years on its Professional Conduct Committee, I feel that I might be able to help to establish some ethics and conduct machinery within the engine-room of the Society. The precipitating factor in requiring a Code of Conduct is the entry of the Forensic Science Society into accreditation procedures. We now offer Diplomas in Document Examination and in Firearms Examination. Another on Scene of Crime Expertise is imminent and no doubt other specialist subjects will come along in due course. The effect of our providing such evidence of accreditation is to change the Society from a scientific and technical craft association into an organisation which offers forensic scientists, police officers, and others, a potential means of obtaining, changing and upgrading their employment status. This privilege carries with it responsibilities, both on the part of the Society and its members-and this responsibility has ethical implications which in turn require the provision of disciplinary measures. To quote my fellow-countryman beginning !"
Dylan Thomas, "To begin at the
It is said that the difference between a trade and a profession is that the latter possesses a self-imposed code of conduct to which its members agree to submit. Such a code has an ethical basis-in other words, it is adhered to voluntarily by members of the profession, rather than being imposed upon them by outside legislation. To use a medical analogy, a doctor refrains from poaching another doctor's patients because it is against the ethics of his profession, not because the criminal or civil law forbids it. Increasingly, the professions are being affected by mandatory rules and regulations and restrictive laws, which intrude and partly replace what were formerly ethical principles. This is particularly true of medicine, where JFSS 1989; 29(1): 53-59
53
massively extensive legislation affects most aspects of a doctor's working life. Even the body which supervises ethics and discipline, the GMC, is itself a statutory body. Thankfully, its activities are largely independent of the State, even though-as at present-it seems to be frequently under siege by the political establishment. Other professions also suffer from increasing legislative controls, including dentistry, pharmacy, chemistry and all the health care and veterinary sciences. In spite of these legal constraints-which are now being progressively supplemented by E E C directives in addition to national legislation-there is still plenty of scope for voluntary ethical codes. Indeed, it is essential that all professions should create their own systems of self-regulation, as it is clear that where they fail to keep their own house in order, governments are not slow to fill the gap by imposing legal rules of their own; these are often far less appropriate and usually much less palatable than those devised by the professionals themselves. How does this affect forensic science? As a profession, we are very small in number by comparison with others. Additionally, many forensic scientists, by reason of their particular speciality and qualifications, already owe allegiance to other professional bodies. Chemistry, biology and other branches of science, may already have well-developed ethical codes and disciplinary machinery-the Royal Society of Chemistry is an example that comes readily to mind.
However, we are here concerned with forensic science in the context of the Forensic Science Society, which is the major body solely concerned with forensic science and the only one-certainly in this country-which now offers accreditation in certain technical disciplines. In relation to what can broadly be called "criminalistic science", I think that few would dispute that the Forensic Science Society is the major organisation which represents that group of scientists. Of course, there are several other organisations which encompass "the forensic sciences", though often with strong medical or legal connotations. Unlike medicine, dentistry, nursing or veterinary science, forensic science has no official recognition or registration which categorises its members and confers on them certain rights and responsibilities. This categorisation grants those persons the exclusive right to employment in a given profession, such as medicine or dentistry-but by the same token, makes them vulnerable to disciplinary action which can just as readily deprive them of their appointment and livelihood. For example, a hospital consultant who is erased from the Medical Register is instantly and automatically sacked within a millisecond of his erasure. In forensic science, this situation does not arise, as all those with adequate academic qualifications are eligible to be employed without any statutory 54
JFSS 1989; 29(1): 53-59
certification or registration. Similarly, the only constraints upon their behaviour, apart from the courts and the wrath of their employers, can arise solely from their obligations as members of a professional organisation, to which they voluntarily accede on being admitted to membership. The only sanction which that organisation can apply to any transgressors of an accepted code of conduct, is expulsion from membership-and in forensic science, this cannot directly affect their employment or continuance of the practice of forensic science, in the absence of statutory registration or a trade union affiliation with a "closed shop" agreement. This situation is exemplified in the medical profession by the contrast between the British Medical Association (BMA) and the GMC-which the public and the media repeatedly fail to understand. Whilst all doctors must be registered with the GMC and immediately lose their job if their names are erased, membership of the BMA is entirely voluntary and in fact, only about 75% of doctors belong. Ejection from membership of the BMA has no effect whatsoever upon their employment-and membership of the Forensic Science Society is exactly comparable. Of course, all employees of any kind are always vulnerable to the displeasure of their employers if they misbehave, but this is a different matter. In forensic science in Britain, we have an almost monopolistic employment system in which the Home Office, the Metropolitan Police Laboratory and similar Scottish authorities are virtually the sole employers. They can certainly "dispense with the services" of a forensic scientist if he or she acts in a dishonest or disgraceful manner, but this is more a matter of contract, rather than ethics. The situation for the increasing number of forensic scientists in private consultant practice is quite different. No disciplinary code can be applied to them--quite unlike medical doctors in private practice, who can be statutorily prohibited (as a criminal offence) from earning a livelihood as doctors if they have seriously transgressed the ethical code. The only possible restraint upon professional misconduct of a forensic scientist is through membership of a craft organisation which in Britain and many other countries, effectively means the Forensic Science Society.
How then can the Society wield any influence over its members and the profession of forensic science in general? The Society obviously has no legal sanctions whatsoever, as membership is voluntary and not tied to any condition of employment. Neither is it relevant to the legal right to be an expert witness before the courts, unlike many countries where the court appoints its scientific witnesses only from State-certified experts. The Society can therefore only hope to raise and maintain ethical standards by creating a code of conduct, disseminating and publicising this as widely as possible and exhorting forensic scientistsJFSS 1989; 29(1): 53-59
55
whether Society members or not-to abide by it. Where breaches of the code occur, it can exert no influence upon non-members apart from public condemnation, but it can have the power of disciplinary investigation and action against members. The ultimate sanction is expulsion from the Society, which may have no immediate consequence upon the ex-member's employment and career status. However, it may well have a salutory impact upon the professional self-esteem and reputation of the errant scientist, and this can obviously have a "knock-on" effect upon his promotion prospects and certainly upon any private consultant practice. How can the Society introduce and maintain such a Code of Conduct and the disciplinary machinery to enforce it? A code must be drawn up, either by the Council itself or delegated to an Ethics Committee of Council, which Council must then ratify and incorporate into the Constitution. The content of such a code is a matter for experienced forensic scientists to decide, but several models exist from other professional bodies, which can assist in formulating a Code, to address certain main topics. The professional integrity of a member is perhaps less of a problem in forensic science than in other professions, as we posses-r perhaps suffer-the most stringent form of quality control in the form of crossexamination in the courts, where any malpractice, omissions or fudging is very likely to be revealed both by opposing Counsel and through him, by the expert on the "other side". Even so, not all forensic expertise reaches the court, especially in civil matters, so that opportunities still exist for evasion, half-truths and frankly dishonest behaviour. It has to be said, for it is patently obvious, that private consultancy offers the greatest risks of malpractice, as here there is less supervision, less peer review and more financial incentive. However, as we are speaking on an international scale, do not let us be deluded into thinking that even "official" expertise is far from immune from dubious procedures and outright corruption. Ethical principles may involve the scientist in conflict with his employers or the State, especially in some countries where democracy, freedom of speech and action are not as unfettered as in most countries where the Society has members. Forensic science laboratory results, and the expert opinion which interprets these, must never be falsified, trimmed, tailored or otherwise modified to suit a third party, whether it be for political, military, racial, financial or other improper motives. It must be recognised that in some countries with more repressive regimes, professional person-including forensic scientists-may be under considerable duress at times. They may be working under threat, sometimes of financial or career penalty and sometimes of physical violence to themselves or their families. The introduction of a strong and widely-publicised Code of Conduct can help in 56
JFSS 1989; 29(1): 53-59
strengthening the resolve of the threatened scientist, especially if he knows that a strong body of internationally-reputable colleagues are willing to expose any oppression or malpractice. This is easier to say in the security of this Home Counties Police Headquarters, than it is in some remote courthouse in a distant land. Some of the audience, especially younger ones who have only known the comfortable environment of a British workplace, might be surprised and a little incredulous to learn of the reality of forensic duress elsewhere. As an example, some years ago I had a post-graduate student in Cardiff from a distant country. He spent two years with me, improving his technical skills and observing the gentlemanly ways of our legal system. He returned home and some time later invited me to visit him. "Professor" he said, "It was a waste of time you showing me how to write correct reports and give impartial evidence. At the first murder trial I had on coming home, two men took me aside in the corridor of the court and offered me money to change my evidence. They said if I didn't take it, they would kill my wife and children". He shrugged and said "What could I do"? Now I am not claiming for a moment that a few people in a room in Harrogate are going to change that situation by writing a Code of Conduct, but we have to start somewhere. Personal behaviour would seem unlikely to require as close a scrutiny in forensic science as in the medical profession, where the doctor-patient relationship is an integral part of medical practice. Failure to treat a child, being abusive to a patient, or improper behaviour with a patient of the opposite sex cannot be so relevant in a forensic scientist-but there must be a threshold of personal conduct below which the Society refuses to continue the acceptance of membership. Continued abuse of alcohol or drugs, criminal convictions for dishonesty or violence, defamation of professional colleagues etc, must surely be incompatible with a scientist who is himself daily concerned with law enforcement.
Another area of misbehaviour would be improper practices in relation to other experts, in denigrating their work or their reputation, even if this fell short of actionable defamation. Unfair practices to obtain clients in private practice, unacceptable methods of advertising and false claims of expertise that was not actually possessed would again be subjects for Society investigation. Formation of an Ethics Committee The professional integrity of members, their ethical principles and the degree to which personal misbehaviour becomes incompatible with continued membership of the Society will all be matters for an Ethics Committee to decide and a Disciplinary Committee to enforce. JFSS 1989; 29(1): 53-59
57
Complaints about a member's conduct could be received by the Society from any source, though their veracity must be established before any action is commenced. The procedure of the GMC is that the conviction of a doctor in the British courts is accepted as its stands and no further investigation is made of the facts-the remaining issue is whether those acts constitute serious professional misconduct. Where a complaint is laid (as opposed to a conviction), the complainant has to make a sworn statement of the allegation. The Forensic Science Society might well decide to adopt the GMC procedure of having the President or his nominee to screen all complaints to reject any obviously trivial, bizarre or malicious allegations. Where there seems to be a potential case to answer, the subject of the complaint must be notified of the substance of allegation and invited to comment or explain. It would seem natural justice to inform him of the identity of the complainant. If the explanation seemed satisfactory to the President and the Officers and/or Council of the Society, the matter could be closed, but if they felt that further investigation were needed, the case would be referred to the Disciplinary Committee. As at present we are a relatively small organisation in terms of the Executive, it may well be that the Ethics Committee and the Disciplinary Committee would be synonymous. The EthicslDisciplinary Committee should be a small committee of Council, with power to co-opt, on an ad hoc basis, any specialist opinion which is necessary to assist with the determination of any technical issue beyond the scope of the current Committee membership. The Rules of Procedure would have to be formulated in advance and written into the Constitution of the Society. In general, they would include the power to request both the complainant and the subject of the complaint to appear before them in person, if thought necessary-and for the latter to have legal representation if he or she so wished. There would naturally be no power whatsoever to enforce such appearance-or indeed for the subject to make any response at all to the complaint, but failure to "enter a defence" might legitimately be considered by the Society as incompatible with continued membership. At the end of disciplinary proceedings, the membership of the subject of the complaint could either be terminated, or suspended for a fixed period. Alternatively, he could be "admonished" and advised about future conduct; or, of course, the accusation could be dismissed. As jealously-guarded professional reputations may well hang upon the results of such proceedings-and hence career and income prospects, especially in private consultancy--every care would have to be taken by the Society to conduct those proceedings strictly in accordance with legal principles. It might well wish to take legal advice in serious cases, as aggrieved members who have been expelled, might bring counter58
JFSS 1989; 29(1): 53-59
proceedings in the courts for unfair expulsion and for financial compensation, perhaps of considerable magnitude, if this had led to career or employment disadvantage. The Society would have to investigate its legal vulnerability in this respect and inevitably take out insurance to cover itself for potential financial losses-something which incidentally is already being pursued since the advent of the Diplomas. In summary, the introduction of a Code of Conduct and the disciplinary apparatus to enforce it, would enhance the professional status of forensic science and consolidate the position of the Forensic Science Society as the arbiter and guardian of professional standards in our speciality. With the introduction of the various Diplomas and the widening role of the Society as a major accrediting body and setter of scientific standards, possession of its membership will be increasingly recognised in many countries as an additional qualifying criterion for the employment of forensic scientists. Although we now formally forbid the use of membership as a badge of expertise, possession of the diplomas is specifically designed for this purpose-and whether we approve or not, it is inevitable that in some parts of the world, mere membership will increasingly be exhibited as proof of competence. With this burgeoning role must also go the responsibility of setting and maintaining standards of professional and personal conduct, as well as of technical expertise, for if Society Diplomas become instrumental in gaining appointments and promotion for members, then the Society has a duty to see that such qualifications continue to be held in good repute by the recipients for the remainder of their professional careers.
JFSS 1989; 29(1): 53-59
AFFAIRS
Ethics and discipline in forensic science BERNARD KNIGHT University of Wales College of Medicine, Cardiff Royal Infirmary, Institute of Pathology, Cardiff, United Kingdom CF2 1SZ
This Presidential Address was delivered at the Autumn Meeting of the Forensic Science Society, held at the Surrey Police Headquarters, Mount Browne, Guildford on 4 November 1988. Having spent almost ten years as a member of the General Medical Council (GMC), the last two years on its Professional Conduct Committee, I feel that I might be able to help to establish some ethics and conduct machinery within the engine-room of the Society. The precipitating factor in requiring a Code of Conduct is the entry of the Forensic Science Society into accreditation procedures. We now offer Diplomas in Document Examination and in Firearms Examination. Another on Scene of Crime Expertise is imminent and no doubt other specialist subjects will come along in due course. The effect of our providing such evidence of accreditation is to change the Society from a scientific and technical craft association into an organisation which offers forensic scientists, police officers, and others, a potential means of obtaining, changing and upgrading their employment status. This privilege carries with it responsibilities, both on the part of the Society and its members-and this responsibility has ethical implications which in turn require the provision of disciplinary measures. To quote my fellow-countryman beginning !"
Dylan Thomas, "To begin at the
It is said that the difference between a trade and a profession is that the latter possesses a self-imposed code of conduct to which its members agree to submit. Such a code has an ethical basis-in other words, it is adhered to voluntarily by members of the profession, rather than being imposed upon them by outside legislation. To use a medical analogy, a doctor refrains from poaching another doctor's patients because it is against the ethics of his profession, not because the criminal or civil law forbids it. Increasingly, the professions are being affected by mandatory rules and regulations and restrictive laws, which intrude and partly replace what were formerly ethical principles. This is particularly true of medicine, where JFSS 1989; 29(1): 53-59
53
massively extensive legislation affects most aspects of a doctor's working life. Even the body which supervises ethics and discipline, the GMC, is itself a statutory body. Thankfully, its activities are largely independent of the State, even though-as at present-it seems to be frequently under siege by the political establishment. Other professions also suffer from increasing legislative controls, including dentistry, pharmacy, chemistry and all the health care and veterinary sciences. In spite of these legal constraints-which are now being progressively supplemented by E E C directives in addition to national legislation-there is still plenty of scope for voluntary ethical codes. Indeed, it is essential that all professions should create their own systems of self-regulation, as it is clear that where they fail to keep their own house in order, governments are not slow to fill the gap by imposing legal rules of their own; these are often far less appropriate and usually much less palatable than those devised by the professionals themselves. How does this affect forensic science? As a profession, we are very small in number by comparison with others. Additionally, many forensic scientists, by reason of their particular speciality and qualifications, already owe allegiance to other professional bodies. Chemistry, biology and other branches of science, may already have well-developed ethical codes and disciplinary machinery-the Royal Society of Chemistry is an example that comes readily to mind.
However, we are here concerned with forensic science in the context of the Forensic Science Society, which is the major body solely concerned with forensic science and the only one-certainly in this country-which now offers accreditation in certain technical disciplines. In relation to what can broadly be called "criminalistic science", I think that few would dispute that the Forensic Science Society is the major organisation which represents that group of scientists. Of course, there are several other organisations which encompass "the forensic sciences", though often with strong medical or legal connotations. Unlike medicine, dentistry, nursing or veterinary science, forensic science has no official recognition or registration which categorises its members and confers on them certain rights and responsibilities. This categorisation grants those persons the exclusive right to employment in a given profession, such as medicine or dentistry-but by the same token, makes them vulnerable to disciplinary action which can just as readily deprive them of their appointment and livelihood. For example, a hospital consultant who is erased from the Medical Register is instantly and automatically sacked within a millisecond of his erasure. In forensic science, this situation does not arise, as all those with adequate academic qualifications are eligible to be employed without any statutory 54
JFSS 1989; 29(1): 53-59
certification or registration. Similarly, the only constraints upon their behaviour, apart from the courts and the wrath of their employers, can arise solely from their obligations as members of a professional organisation, to which they voluntarily accede on being admitted to membership. The only sanction which that organisation can apply to any transgressors of an accepted code of conduct, is expulsion from membership-and in forensic science, this cannot directly affect their employment or continuance of the practice of forensic science, in the absence of statutory registration or a trade union affiliation with a "closed shop" agreement. This situation is exemplified in the medical profession by the contrast between the British Medical Association (BMA) and the GMC-which the public and the media repeatedly fail to understand. Whilst all doctors must be registered with the GMC and immediately lose their job if their names are erased, membership of the BMA is entirely voluntary and in fact, only about 75% of doctors belong. Ejection from membership of the BMA has no effect whatsoever upon their employment-and membership of the Forensic Science Society is exactly comparable. Of course, all employees of any kind are always vulnerable to the displeasure of their employers if they misbehave, but this is a different matter. In forensic science in Britain, we have an almost monopolistic employment system in which the Home Office, the Metropolitan Police Laboratory and similar Scottish authorities are virtually the sole employers. They can certainly "dispense with the services" of a forensic scientist if he or she acts in a dishonest or disgraceful manner, but this is more a matter of contract, rather than ethics. The situation for the increasing number of forensic scientists in private consultant practice is quite different. No disciplinary code can be applied to them--quite unlike medical doctors in private practice, who can be statutorily prohibited (as a criminal offence) from earning a livelihood as doctors if they have seriously transgressed the ethical code. The only possible restraint upon professional misconduct of a forensic scientist is through membership of a craft organisation which in Britain and many other countries, effectively means the Forensic Science Society.
How then can the Society wield any influence over its members and the profession of forensic science in general? The Society obviously has no legal sanctions whatsoever, as membership is voluntary and not tied to any condition of employment. Neither is it relevant to the legal right to be an expert witness before the courts, unlike many countries where the court appoints its scientific witnesses only from State-certified experts. The Society can therefore only hope to raise and maintain ethical standards by creating a code of conduct, disseminating and publicising this as widely as possible and exhorting forensic scientistsJFSS 1989; 29(1): 53-59
55
whether Society members or not-to abide by it. Where breaches of the code occur, it can exert no influence upon non-members apart from public condemnation, but it can have the power of disciplinary investigation and action against members. The ultimate sanction is expulsion from the Society, which may have no immediate consequence upon the ex-member's employment and career status. However, it may well have a salutory impact upon the professional self-esteem and reputation of the errant scientist, and this can obviously have a "knock-on" effect upon his promotion prospects and certainly upon any private consultant practice. How can the Society introduce and maintain such a Code of Conduct and the disciplinary machinery to enforce it? A code must be drawn up, either by the Council itself or delegated to an Ethics Committee of Council, which Council must then ratify and incorporate into the Constitution. The content of such a code is a matter for experienced forensic scientists to decide, but several models exist from other professional bodies, which can assist in formulating a Code, to address certain main topics. The professional integrity of a member is perhaps less of a problem in forensic science than in other professions, as we posses-r perhaps suffer-the most stringent form of quality control in the form of crossexamination in the courts, where any malpractice, omissions or fudging is very likely to be revealed both by opposing Counsel and through him, by the expert on the "other side". Even so, not all forensic expertise reaches the court, especially in civil matters, so that opportunities still exist for evasion, half-truths and frankly dishonest behaviour. It has to be said, for it is patently obvious, that private consultancy offers the greatest risks of malpractice, as here there is less supervision, less peer review and more financial incentive. However, as we are speaking on an international scale, do not let us be deluded into thinking that even "official" expertise is far from immune from dubious procedures and outright corruption. Ethical principles may involve the scientist in conflict with his employers or the State, especially in some countries where democracy, freedom of speech and action are not as unfettered as in most countries where the Society has members. Forensic science laboratory results, and the expert opinion which interprets these, must never be falsified, trimmed, tailored or otherwise modified to suit a third party, whether it be for political, military, racial, financial or other improper motives. It must be recognised that in some countries with more repressive regimes, professional person-including forensic scientists-may be under considerable duress at times. They may be working under threat, sometimes of financial or career penalty and sometimes of physical violence to themselves or their families. The introduction of a strong and widely-publicised Code of Conduct can help in 56
JFSS 1989; 29(1): 53-59
strengthening the resolve of the threatened scientist, especially if he knows that a strong body of internationally-reputable colleagues are willing to expose any oppression or malpractice. This is easier to say in the security of this Home Counties Police Headquarters, than it is in some remote courthouse in a distant land. Some of the audience, especially younger ones who have only known the comfortable environment of a British workplace, might be surprised and a little incredulous to learn of the reality of forensic duress elsewhere. As an example, some years ago I had a post-graduate student in Cardiff from a distant country. He spent two years with me, improving his technical skills and observing the gentlemanly ways of our legal system. He returned home and some time later invited me to visit him. "Professor" he said, "It was a waste of time you showing me how to write correct reports and give impartial evidence. At the first murder trial I had on coming home, two men took me aside in the corridor of the court and offered me money to change my evidence. They said if I didn't take it, they would kill my wife and children". He shrugged and said "What could I do"? Now I am not claiming for a moment that a few people in a room in Harrogate are going to change that situation by writing a Code of Conduct, but we have to start somewhere. Personal behaviour would seem unlikely to require as close a scrutiny in forensic science as in the medical profession, where the doctor-patient relationship is an integral part of medical practice. Failure to treat a child, being abusive to a patient, or improper behaviour with a patient of the opposite sex cannot be so relevant in a forensic scientist-but there must be a threshold of personal conduct below which the Society refuses to continue the acceptance of membership. Continued abuse of alcohol or drugs, criminal convictions for dishonesty or violence, defamation of professional colleagues etc, must surely be incompatible with a scientist who is himself daily concerned with law enforcement.
Another area of misbehaviour would be improper practices in relation to other experts, in denigrating their work or their reputation, even if this fell short of actionable defamation. Unfair practices to obtain clients in private practice, unacceptable methods of advertising and false claims of expertise that was not actually possessed would again be subjects for Society investigation. Formation of an Ethics Committee The professional integrity of members, their ethical principles and the degree to which personal misbehaviour becomes incompatible with continued membership of the Society will all be matters for an Ethics Committee to decide and a Disciplinary Committee to enforce. JFSS 1989; 29(1): 53-59
57
Complaints about a member's conduct could be received by the Society from any source, though their veracity must be established before any action is commenced. The procedure of the GMC is that the conviction of a doctor in the British courts is accepted as its stands and no further investigation is made of the facts-the remaining issue is whether those acts constitute serious professional misconduct. Where a complaint is laid (as opposed to a conviction), the complainant has to make a sworn statement of the allegation. The Forensic Science Society might well decide to adopt the GMC procedure of having the President or his nominee to screen all complaints to reject any obviously trivial, bizarre or malicious allegations. Where there seems to be a potential case to answer, the subject of the complaint must be notified of the substance of allegation and invited to comment or explain. It would seem natural justice to inform him of the identity of the complainant. If the explanation seemed satisfactory to the President and the Officers and/or Council of the Society, the matter could be closed, but if they felt that further investigation were needed, the case would be referred to the Disciplinary Committee. As at present we are a relatively small organisation in terms of the Executive, it may well be that the Ethics Committee and the Disciplinary Committee would be synonymous. The EthicslDisciplinary Committee should be a small committee of Council, with power to co-opt, on an ad hoc basis, any specialist opinion which is necessary to assist with the determination of any technical issue beyond the scope of the current Committee membership. The Rules of Procedure would have to be formulated in advance and written into the Constitution of the Society. In general, they would include the power to request both the complainant and the subject of the complaint to appear before them in person, if thought necessary-and for the latter to have legal representation if he or she so wished. There would naturally be no power whatsoever to enforce such appearance-or indeed for the subject to make any response at all to the complaint, but failure to "enter a defence" might legitimately be considered by the Society as incompatible with continued membership. At the end of disciplinary proceedings, the membership of the subject of the complaint could either be terminated, or suspended for a fixed period. Alternatively, he could be "admonished" and advised about future conduct; or, of course, the accusation could be dismissed. As jealously-guarded professional reputations may well hang upon the results of such proceedings-and hence career and income prospects, especially in private consultancy--every care would have to be taken by the Society to conduct those proceedings strictly in accordance with legal principles. It might well wish to take legal advice in serious cases, as aggrieved members who have been expelled, might bring counter58
JFSS 1989; 29(1): 53-59
proceedings in the courts for unfair expulsion and for financial compensation, perhaps of considerable magnitude, if this had led to career or employment disadvantage. The Society would have to investigate its legal vulnerability in this respect and inevitably take out insurance to cover itself for potential financial losses-something which incidentally is already being pursued since the advent of the Diplomas. In summary, the introduction of a Code of Conduct and the disciplinary apparatus to enforce it, would enhance the professional status of forensic science and consolidate the position of the Forensic Science Society as the arbiter and guardian of professional standards in our speciality. With the introduction of the various Diplomas and the widening role of the Society as a major accrediting body and setter of scientific standards, possession of its membership will be increasingly recognised in many countries as an additional qualifying criterion for the employment of forensic scientists. Although we now formally forbid the use of membership as a badge of expertise, possession of the diplomas is specifically designed for this purpose-and whether we approve or not, it is inevitable that in some parts of the world, mere membership will increasingly be exhibited as proof of competence. With this burgeoning role must also go the responsibility of setting and maintaining standards of professional and personal conduct, as well as of technical expertise, for if Society Diplomas become instrumental in gaining appointments and promotion for members, then the Society has a duty to see that such qualifications continue to be held in good repute by the recipients for the remainder of their professional careers.
JFSS 1989; 29(1): 53-59