Forensic Anthropology – regulation in the United Kingdom

Forensic Anthropology

Forensic Anthropology - regulation in the United Kingdom

SM Black OBE Department of Anatomy and Forensic Anthropology, University of Dundee, Dundee. United Kingdom

The word Iforensic' is powerful, emotive and formidable. It is defined as 'pertaining to the law courts' and the word derives from the Latin Iforensis' relating to matters of the 'forum' i.e. the judicial courts of Rome. A foray into the historical literature reveals many instances of science and medicine being practised for the purposes of enlightenment of the court. Indeed, included in the Capitularies drawn up by the bishops of the first Holy Roman Emperor (Charlemagne) were instructions to include medical expert testimony in cases of wounding, abortion, rape, incest, infanticide and suicide [I]. However, the modem public perception of the essence of the definition has subtly drifted from its original meaning as we tend, quite erroneously, to associate it with the police and investigative authorities rather than its true purpose which is to serve the courts of justice. Medico-legal investigations have been practised in the UK for centuries but it was not until the 16th Century that separate identities with specific responsibilities began to emerge [2]. However it is only within the last 25 years that the omnipotence of forensic medicine has had to share centre stage with emerging specialised disciplines as the demands on forensic science altered. The court's insistence on greater precision, detail and commitment from its experts, forced many subjects to reassess and re-evaluate their criteria of operation. Recent years have seen an enormous explosion in both the number and diversity of forensic specialties within the UK and it is difficult to interpret the true origin of this expansion. Whilst it would of course be most tempting to assume that they have arisen directly from the demands of the court, there is the unfortunate possibility that they are, in part, a symptom of 'popularity'. Witness the television programmes, the films, the soap operas and the novels all glorifying and shamelessly advocating the unswerving honesty, dedication and miraculous talents of the forensic practitioners slaving away in their somewhat seductive profession.

A publication in the Boston Globe [3] highlighted the adverse influence that popular media can exert on both the public and the forensic community. Exposure to the raft of fictitious scenarios and the lightning speed with which crimes are solved in the serialised forensic soaps, can lead to unrealistic expectations. Members of the jury come to undertake their service to the court with an element of forensic awareness. Unfortunately, these often uninformed opinions may be based on little more substance than the imagination of the television writer. The experience and measured caution of the real practitioner may be measured against the world of make believe.

science&justice Volume 43 ~ o . (2003) 4 I87 - I92

Recently, the Independent newspaper published a list of the courses offered by institutions of higher education in the UK and it was sobering to realise that over 60 offer courses in a variety of forensic disciplines - and many offer more than one course. This is more than double the number that would have been found only ten years ago and it would seem that the number increases with each academic year. One really has to question if our crime rate has expanded so exponentially to justify and support such a blossoming market in forensic employment? Or perhaps, more cynically, our universities and colleges are 'cashing in' on the public popularity of the subjects, realising that they will attract a great number of students and therefore revenue. Recent university reports have emphasised that many of the more traditional pure sciences, such as mathematics, chemistry and physics are experiencing a recruitment crisis but equally confirm that the uptake in forensic related disciplines has more than doubled [personal communications]. Forensic anthropology is in this expansionist state in the UK, but before this can be considered and the need for a more organised structure is discussed, it is necessary to understand how and why the discipline has developed within the UK as its history is very different from many other parts of the world. Forensic anthropology has been defined in many ways and the most concise is that it is 'the identification and analysis of human remains for medico-legal purposes'. This is in itself a somewhat unsatisfactory definition as the terms 'identification' and 'analysis' would benefit from some clarification. However, at its very core, forensic anthropology is considered to be the science of the application of reliable and tested methodologies to establish the identity of the deceased. The American Board of Forensic Anthropology defines it as follows - Forensic anthropology is the application of the science of physical anthropology to the legal process. The identification of skeletal, badly decomposed, or otherwise unidentified human remains is important for both legal and humanitarian reasons. Forensic anthropologists apply standard scientific techniques developed in physical anthropology to identiJj, human remains and to assist in the detection of crime [4]. Until relatively recently, the responsibility for the identification of the deceased fell within the remit of the forensic pathologist and/or odontologist but many of these practitioners have been willing to share responsibility with anthropologists, particularly

O The Forensic Science Society 2003 Key words Forensic science, forensic anthropology, regulation, United Kingdom, CRFP.

Page 187

SM Black Forensic Anthropology - regulation in the United Kingdom

in cases that involve identification from skeletal remains as this requires detailed and specialised knowledge. As a result, the UK practitioners who stepped into these forensic shoes tended to originate either from the Anatomy Departments of Medical Schools or units and departments of Archaeology. Neither was vocationally trained in the subject or sufficiently judicially aware, but through the application of osteological techniques they provided useful information to the pathologist and the investigative agencies. It was extremely rare for an anthropologist to appear in court as an expert witness, as the identity of the deceased was usually confirmed and duly reported by either the pathologist or the odontologist. The dichotomy of the origin of the forensic anthropologists, anatomy or archaeology, resulted in slightly different approaches to the subject. Given the medical awareness of the anatomists, many pathologists felt more comfortable with their involvement especially as they carried extensive knowledge of soft and hard tissue structures, pathology, embryology, neurology and histology. However the archaeologists were experienced only in the analysis of dry bones and palaeopathological conditions and so, for them and the pathologist or police force, the step into a forensic and medical environment was made with a greater leap of faith. For many years, 'forensic anthropology' in the UK ambled along comfortably, offering assistance in an ad hoc manner, but rarely ever taking centre stage. The relatively low crime rate within the UK ensured that their services were required only on a sporadic basis and the demand for courses and teachers in this subject kept apace with this requirement and were restricted in number. However, within the last ten years, the global profile of forensic anthropology has altered dramatically, following the demand for practitioners to assist in overseas work including mass disasters, mass graves, human rights abuses and war crimes [ 5 ] .The media exposure of these atrocities led to an increased awareness and acceptance of forensic anthropology as a credible profession. However, it should be remembered that there was no great increase in the crime rate within the UK and therefore no greater demand for forensic anthropological services in this country. It should also be borne in mind that the UK was by no means the sole provider of these services throughout the world and that larger countries with greater experience in the field were contributing to the global demand, probably with greater effectiveness. Forensic anthropology in the US is a well established and fully regulated profession and their experiences gained during the repatriation of the Vietnamese and Korean War dead in particular and their indigenous high rate of violent crime, firmly established the Americans as the world leaders in this field [6,7]. Probably in an attempt to capitalise on this global exposure, many UK universities were quick to realise the potential attraction of this subject and readily adopted the magic 'f' word into their curriculum and student prospectuses. For forensic anthropology, this drive for expansion did not come from the medical schools or the anatomy departments but principally from archaeology departments. These courses proved extremely

Page 188

popular and in a very short space of time a plethora of students were released onto the employment market looking to practise their newly acquired knowledge and skills. It should be appreciated though that all degree courses currently offered in the UK are postgraduate, in some cases admission requirements can be less than stringent. For example, a police officer with no previous scientific training can enter a postgraduate programme in forensic anthropology and may consider himlher self fit to practise having gained their supposed 'forensic' experience on archaeological skeletal remains. Many of these courses are high on theory and low on practical experience. However, forensic anthropology is a highly practical subject and it is a credit to the integrity of many of these students that they are painfully aware of their inexperience and inability to practise their chosen discipline. Not surprisingly many have voiced considerable dissatisfaction at the limited post qualification opportunities available to them and the lack of access to experience. A classic situation of inverse imbalance of supply and demand has therefore arisen within the discipline - too many people and not enough employment or exposure to experience that will allow them to gain employment. Whilst it is unfortunate for the students that this imbalance exists, it is potentially disastrous for the judicial system when those who are less reluctant to admit to lack of experience choose to offer their services when they are clearly ill-equipped to practise with credibility. As such, forensic anthropology has balanced on the very brink of experiencing a crisis in professional credibility and judicial and public confidence in its ability. Forensic anthropology in the UK is currently in this unacceptable situation of advanced saturation [8] where students are literally on waiting lists to enter these courses but there is already an overflow of unemployed novitiates at the opposite end of the conveyor belt. Few will be able to take their studies further, find gainful employment in their chosen subject or be afforded sufficient experience to become a credible practitioner unless there is a radical change in the education and vocational perspective of the subject. Forensic anthropology is undoubtedly a fascinating subject and some students will choose to study it purely for the sake of education and interest but most have a desire to pursue it as a future profession and such personal determination can lead to an element of desperation to 'break into' the field. It is somewhat ironic that the more stringently controlled and more demanding subjects of forensic pathology and odontology are struggling to attract and sustain students within their disciplines and the recent Home Office restructuring of Forensic Medicine in the UK bears testimony to this crisis [9]. It is possible that the protracted and intensive training courses and internships required for both dental and medical areas of jurisprudence are the major deterrent and those who wish to gain access to the forensic world by less challenging means may look to other less demanding and unregulated sources - perhaps forensic anthropology. However, like every forensic discipline, anthropology has a duty to the courts to ensure that its practitioners are credible and experienced. The professionalism of forensic anthropology in the UK is suffering from the over-population syndrome and the

science&justice Volume 43 ~ o . (2003) 4 187 - 192

SM Black Forensic Anthropology - regulation in the United Kingdom

experienced practitioners in this subject recognised the potential dangers and long term detrimental effects on the discipline if it continued. It is important to realise that the anthropological investigation is undertaken to provide evidence for the court and that same court has the right to demand and expect that its witnesses, both for the prosecution and the defence, provide evidence that is dependable and informed. To be identified as an 'expert witness' is an onerous and responsible title as it conveys to the public, the court and the jury, that the judiciary are confident that the opinions of that expert may be accepted with trust and faith. Being able to attach the 'forensic' label to any field of operation therefore carries a heavy burden of responsibility that cannot be accepted lightly and practitioners have a duty to ensure that it is borne only by those who merit the distinction. Equally, the practitioners must therefore shoulder the responsibility of ensuring that the novitiates of their subject are properly trained and given access to the experiences that will allow them to succeed the current professionals in due course. Regulation comes at a high price but forensic anthropologists are no more immune to the rigours of professionalism and competence than any other forensic practitioner and unfortunately this is not always fully appreciated by those who are trying to break into the subject.

CRFP would be non-statutory, self-financing, self-regulating and independent, covering England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. He stated that 'oncefully established, the aim would be for registration with the Council to become expected of those presenting expert forensic evidence in court. ' He further stated that 'the setting up of the Registration Council will be a significant step forward in further raising quality and standards in the forensic science industry. Taken together with the other measures already taken by the industry, the Council will do much to enhance the standing of forensic science in the criminal justice process'.

The practising forensic anthropologists who are members of the British Association for Human Identification [lo] became increasingly concerned at the lack of regulation within their subject and independently set about the construction of a register of competent practitioners that could be lodged with the National Crime and Operations Faculty. Unbeknownst to them, this coincided with a Home Office project initiative that was examining much the same problem but on a far larger scale. An approach to the Chief Executive (Alan Kershaw) of the Council for the Registration of Forensic Practitioners (CRFP) resulted in discussions and before long, the first ever regulation of forensic anthropology in the UK had begun.

Registration is voluntary, certainly in the first instance, and although courts retain the right to hear evidence from whom-soever they choose, registration is an indicator of competence. 'Unregistered practitioners will need to explain why they have preferred not to apply for the independent accreditation that CRFP offers' [ I l l . The fact that the initiative is supported and recognised by the Home Office, the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Association of Chief Police Officers of Scotland, the Police Service of Northern Ireland, Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary and the Forensic Science Service indicates the high standing with which this Council is regarded and the confidence that is being placed in its ability to raise standards and reassure the public and the judiciary that its registrants are competent to practise.

The Home Office initiative developed following reports into a number of damning high profile cases in the 70s and 80s where public concerns over the reliability of forensic evidence were raised e.g. the Birmingham Six. In November 1997, a Forensic Science Working Group under the guidance of Lord Lewis of Newnham recommended that a Council for the Registration of Forensic Practitioners (CRFP) be established. The criteria for this system was that it should: a. be virtually self financing, b. set high standards of competence and integrity and c. cover the whole forensic process from the scene of the incident to the presentation of evidence in the court room.

The then Home Secretary, the Right Honourable Mr Jack Straw MP, announced the creation of the Council, supported by initial funding from his ministerial office. In response to the question from the Member of Parliament for Northampton North, Mr Straw announced that the aims of the Council would be to promote and maintain high standards of competence, practice, discipline and ethics amongst forensic science practitioners. The

science&justiceVolume 43 N0.4 (2003) 187 - 192

CRFP was registered as a company in August 1999 and the first UK forensic multidisciplinary register was formally opened on 30th October 2000. The aims of CRFP are: To publish a register of competent forensic practitioners To ensure through periodic revalidation that forensic practitioners keep up to date and maintain competence To deal with registered practitioners who fail to meet the necessary standards

Criteria for registration differ between disciplines, as to provide a uniform set of regulations would be unworkable and inappropriate. The standards required include some generic skills necessary for sound forensic practice but are balanced with knowledge and skills particular to each discipline. For this reason, CRFP enter into discussions and negotiations with reputable Colleges, Associations and Authorities before the suitability of a discipline for registration is considered. CRFP focuses on the overriding duty that the practitioner has to the court and the administration of justice. To be credible, the procedure must adhere to sound principles of quality management and must include a disciplinary element. External and Internal scrutiny The Governing Council consists of a Chairman and not more than 22 other members including one member nominated by, or on behalf of, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, one member of the judiciary nominated by, or on behalf of, the Lord Chancellor and one member nominated by, or on behalf of,

Page 189

SM Black Forensic Anthropology - regulation in the United Kingdom

the Crown Agent for Scotland. In addition, one member is appointed via consultation with each of the following - the Bar Council, the Law Society, the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Association of Chief Police Officers of Scotland, the UK Forensic Science Liaison Group, learned societies with forensic practitioner members, the national training organisation, the General Medical Council and the Consultative Forum. Up to three members are co-opted to the Council from persons with experience of academic, philosophical, legal, ethical or other aspects of forensic sciences, allied or ancillary disciplines. As the register approaches predetermined critical thresholds, up to three members will be elected from current registrants. Up to five ex-officio members, being the Chairmen of the Sector Assessment Panels, constitute the final component of the Governing Council. The principal purpose of this Council is to decide strategy and priorities and set policy. The Council meets twice a year and members serve for a three year term that is only renewable once. The Executive Board meets about four times a year and has 12 members. It is chaired by the Chairman of the Governing Council and consists of the Chairmen of the Sector Assessment Panels, the Chief Executive and five other members selected from fields that either use, or train, forensic practitioners. There are currently three Sector Assessment Panels - Medicine and Healthcare, Science and Incident Investigation with the option for two others to be added as and when required. These panels are responsible for the preparation of registration requirements of each specialty within each sector, assessing applicants' competence and recommending admission. Each subject that is accepted for registration purposes must elect a lead assessor who sits on the appropriate sector assessment panel and at least two specialty assessors. Forensic Anthropology falls within the Medicine and Healthcare Sector and its lead assessor sits on this panel. The lead assessor is responsible for guiding the process of registration within that discipline and acts as the point of co-ordination for the specialty assessors who undertake the actual assessment of each application within their discipline. For Forensic Anthropology, the lead assessor and the specialty assessors were elected by their peers and underwent intensive training. Process verifiers provide external verification across all the sector assessment teams ensuring a high and constant level of quality control. Registration process The applicant must obtain a suitable registration pack from the CRFP. They must consider which area(s) they wish to be considered for with regards to registration. Within Forensic Anthropology there are four specialty areas under which applicants may apply for registration. 1. General Forensic Anthropology - To qualify within this category, practitioners must demonstrate that they have experience in all stages of decomposition from fresh through to dry bone and cremated remains. It is important that the judiciary can have confidence that a registrant selected from this category will have experience in all aspects of their subject. The registrant

Page 190

must also be able to provide evidence of experience in the assessment of both adult and juvenile remains. 2. Osteology - There are many competent practitioners who have considerable experience in the analysis of dry skeletal remains and this category was introduced to ensure that their valuable contribution was not lost to the register. These might be osteoarchaeologists who have no direct experience of the analysis of fleshed or decomposing remains or who indeed may have no desire to work with such material. These practitioners must also have experience in the analysis of both adult and juvenile remains. 3. Facial anthropology - modelling. This category is for those practitioners who have experience in the reconstruction of the human face by means of modelling - usually, but not exclusively, clay.

4. Facial anthropology - computer based. This category is for those practitioners who have experience in the reconstruction of the human face through computer based analysis. The application form is relatively simple and its completion relies heavily on a detailed case log of professional experience although academic qualifications and teaching experiences are taken into consideration. Each application must be accompanied by two referee statements. Once completed, the application and references are returned to the CRFP office where they are checked and then sent to the lead assessor for that discipline. The lead assessor assigns a specialty assessor to that individual and the application is forwarded (Figure 1). The specialty assessor will contact the applicant and request copies of selected case reports. It is largely on the basis of the competence of the practitioner's case reports that registration will either be recommended or rejected. If the assessor considers that the applicant is suitable for registration, they inform the lead assessor who duly informs the CRFP office that this applicant is deemed suitable (Figure 2). If however the assessor considers that the applicant is not suitable for registration perhaps because of lack of experience or inaccuracies or inconsistencies in their standard of reporting, the lead assessor will appoint a second specialty assessor who will not be informed that the application has already been deemed unsuitable. The second assessor will then contact the applicant to review specific cases that might differ from those selected by the first assessor. Should the second assessor agree with the first assessor then the lead assessor will recommend to the CRFP office that registration is withheld (Figure 2). Should the second assessor disagree with the first assessment, then the lead assessor must adjudicate and helshe will pass a final decision to the CRFP office. In the case of a negative outcome, the applicant has the right of appeal which is heard by the relevant Sector Assessment Panel. The entire assessment process is subject to both internal and external verification at all times and should take no longer than 15 weeks from receipt of the completed application to final registration. From 1 November 2003, the annual registration fee is £130. Registration is initially for a period of four years when the

science&justice Volume 43 ~ o . (2003) 4 187 - 192

SM Black Forensic Anthropology - regulation in the United Kingdom

Figure 1 The CRFP Application Process for Forensic Anthropologists.

Figure 2 The CRFP Practitioner Assessment Process for Forensic Anthropologists. Staae 2

Staae 1 Application Process

i. t CRFP Office Application pack s ~ n by

Assessment Process

t

Specialty assessor reviews application and list of cases

+

Application completed and Qentto CRFP with references

v.

CRFP checks over the applicat~onand if all in order sends it to the lead assessor

C

Specialty assessor requests further information on particular cases or clarification on other matters pertinent to the application

Lead assessor identifies specialty assessor and forwards the application Specialty assessor carries out assessment

applicant must seek revalidation to ensure that they have maintained their level of competence, have continued to develop within their subject and are still deemed competent to practise. Disciplinary Procedures Registration is about defining, sustaining and raising standards and to have credibility in this regard it must operate disciplinary regulations [12]. A disciplinary panel reports directly to the Governing Council and its size, composition and frequency of meetings is dictated by need. When the behaviour or competence of a practitioner is brought into question the appropriate response will be considered. CRFP requires that its registered practitioners abide by a very simple 15 point code of conduct which is based on the Nolan principles on standards in public life [13]. Whilst registration with CRFP is voluntary, it does carry privileges and responsibilities as the public and the courts will accept registration as proof of competence. It is the responsibility of the practitioner to ensure that they adhere to the code of conduct which must be accepted by the registrant when they choose to register with the CRFP. These codes of standard require among other things that - the practitioner act with honesty, integrity, objectivity and impartiality; they must not discriminate on the grounds of race, beliefs, gender, language, sexual orientation, social status, age, lifestyle or political persuasion; they must remain within the limits of their professional competence; they should take all reasonable steps to maintain and develop professional competence; preserve confidentiality and above all recognise that their overriding duty is to the court and to the administration of justice. These are the basic tenets under which all practitioners should operate but until now there are many disciplines, anthropology included, where no such code has been written and the practitioner must agree to abide by these before they are accepted for registration. A fair Code of Conduct is essential to the regulatory process of any body and forms the basis of the drive that governs the disciplinary procedures. Consultative Forum This forum provides a means of communication between the CRFP and a wider constituency and is an important mechanism

science&justice Volume 43 ~ o . (2003) 4 I87 - I 92

Specialty assessor recommends registration

Specialty assessor does not recommend registration

Lead assessbr informs CRFP and applicant recommended for registration

Lead asiessor appoints 2 and specialty assess;; this assessor examines the case not being informed of the first opinion

4

Specialty a sessor 2 recommends registration

SpeciaIty assessor 2 does not recommend registration

Lead assessor reviews assessments from both assessors and makes a final decision on recommendation for registration

Lead .&-sessorinforms CRFP and applicant is not recommended

All assessments are subject to internal and external verification

with regard to accountability. Any organisation or individual with a legitimate interest can be included and the terms of reference for this forum is to provide a vehicle for two-way communication between the CRFP and its major stakeholders. What then does registration offer to the practitioner, the judiciary and the general public? Most importantly, it offers credible evidence of the competence of a registered forensic practitioner.

Page 191

SM Black Forensic Anthropology - regulation in the United Kingdom

This is important to the practitioner regarding hislher standing within their working community and is a clear statement of their professionalism within their chosen speciality. Revalidation is also important to ensure that the standards are maintained and developed. For the courts, registration offers an objective, peer based assessment of the credentials of those whose evidence is to be heard. To the public, it is an indication of a fair and effective professional system that demonstrates competency and fosters confidence in the operation of justice. As the register approaches its first critical threshold of 1000 members, the CRFP will begin to advise judges, coroners, barristers and solicitors about the registration process as the intention of the register has always been to provide a powerful tool for the courts and justice. Eventually it will become the norm for practitioners to be questioned regarding their registration status and in fact this has already occurred [ll]. Although the courts will of course remain free to hear evidence from whoever they choose, registration will be seen as a definitive indicator of competence and registered practitioners will be asked to explain why they have preferred not to apply for the independent accreditation that the CRFP offers - given that their discipline has been accepted onto the register. Before long the police and investigative forces will come to rely on only credible practitioners who can evidence their suitability to assist in criminal investigations.

As was stated boldly in the House of Lords Select Committee Report on Science and Technology [14] - 'thefield is wide open for the plausible quack ...science for the defence has a regrettable history of incompetence and charlatanism' and unfortunately the field of forensic anthropology was not exempt from those harsh words. The discipline has a duty to the courts, justice, the reassurance of the public, itself, its credible practitioners and its novitiates, to ensure that the integrity of the subject is upheld offering proficiency in this increasingly important discipline. For those practitioners who choose not to register - they will ultimately be asked 'Why?' and the courts, the police and the public have the right to ask that question. As Dr Angela Gallop, Director of Forensic Alliance so eloquently expressed - 'For too long forensic science has been beset by so called experts talking in jargon and hiding behind a faqade of apparent scientific precision and accuracy. The more powerful forensic science becomes, the more confidence society needs in its practitioners. Currently any Tom, Dick or Harriet can purport to be a forensic expert by providing advice which is unhelpful at best, and positively misleading at worst'. Acknowledgement With thanks to Kate Home, Corporate Affairs Manager of CRFP for her contribution to the content of this communication. References 1

In the words of Chairman Professor Evelyn Ebsworth 'now that we have the register as a basis for defining and assuring competence, the courts must be in a position to make effective use of it'. The register is available to view on-line and so is immediately accessible to the courts, investigators, the public and the media [ 121.

Payne-James J and Busuttil A. H~storyand deveiopment of forensic med~clneand pathology In: Payne-James J, Busutt~lA and Smock W, edltors. Forensic medicine, cllnlcal and pathological aspects. Greenwlch Medlcal Med~a,2003; 3-12.

2

Thomas DF. Milestones In Forenslc Science. Journal of Forens~cSciences 1974; l(9): 241-248.

3

Hempel C. W s Whodunit Effect. Boston Globe onllne at ww.boston.com 2003.

4

ABFA

website.

American

Board

of

Forenslc

Anthropology

Inc.

ww.csuch~co.edu/anth/ABFA~

With the register firmly established in the forensic world, and other countries looking to adopt its procedures, there is now an influence coming to bear on the development of new diplomas and qualifications which can relate to registration requirements [ll]. Diploma and even degree courses that are directly aligned with registration requirements will be encouraged to develop offering a professional qualification that can count towards successful registration. Similarly it is likely that training and academic teaching posts could require evidence of registration from applicants for vacant posts or promotion, to ensure that credible professionals are placed in the responsible position of education of their subject. The 'cash cow' phase is at last coming to a close.

5

Black SM. Forenslc Osteology In the UK In: Cox M and Mays S, editors. Human Osteology In Archaeology and Forenslc Sclence. Greenwlch Medical Media, 2000; 491-503.

6

Plckerlng RE and Bachman DC. The Use of Forensic Anthropology CRC Press,

7

Reichs KJ. Distribution of forenslc anthropology cases by Board Certlfted forenslc

1996.

anthropologists 1964-1989. In: Cho H. Falsetti AB. Mcllwaine J, Roberts C, Sledrlk PS and Wilcox AW, editors. Handbook of the forenslc anthropology course of the Department of Archaeological Sciences, University of Bradford and NMHM/AFIP, Washington DC. 1996. 8

Thompson TJU. The quality and appropriateness of forensic anthropology education In the UK. In press.

9

Home Offlce Revlew of Home m i c e Pathology services in England and Wales.

www homeoffice.gov.uk 2003

The future for CRFP is assured within the UK and there is little doubt that it is already a major influence on the professional development and standing of forensic services within the UK and fortunately, forensic anthropology falls within that category. Until now, the discipline has been largely unregulated allowing virtually anyone the opportunity to portray themselves as experts, with the courts having no credible means of refuting such claims. Forensic anthropology now has an ally that demands a code of practice from its practitioners and regulates and encourages the development of the competence of its professionals.

Page 192

10

BAHlD website. British Association for Human Identification. www.bah1d.org

11

CRFP Newsletters. Available to download from w . c r f p . o r g . u k or by post from CRFP, Tavlstock House, Tavistock Square, London WCIH 9HX.

12

CRFP Webslte. Council for the

Reg~stration of

Forenslc Practltloners

w.crfp,org.uk. 13

HMSO Nolan report - Flrst report of the Committee on Standards in Public Llfe 1995 Vol. 1. CM2850-1, HMSO.

14

HMSO House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology - Report 6. HMSO 2000.

science&.justiceVolume 43 No.4 (2003) 187 - 192