Instructing a forensic provider is a professional-conduct decision as much as a procurement decision. The examiner's name is going on a report you may rely on in front of a tribunal, and their methodology is going to be scrutinised by whichever side did not commission it. The questions below are the ones instructing solicitors we work with have learned to ask; the accompanying answers describe what a defensible response looks like.
The questions that actually separate providers
| Question | What a defensible answer looks like |
|---|---|
| Which of your examiners will do the work? | A named individual, their qualifications, their court experience, and their availability for cross-examination on the trial dates. |
| What accreditation does the laboratory hold, and to what scope? | ISO/IEC 17025 with a defined scope covering the extraction and analysis types in scope — plus a willingness to share the scope schedule. |
| How is chain of custody documented in practice? | Sealed evidence bags, contemporaneous handling log, hash values at every stage, and working copies never analysed on the original. |
| Do you follow the ACPO Good Practice Guide? | Yes, with a written methodology cross-referenced to the four ACPO principles, available on request. |
| Can I speak to a solicitor who has instructed you on a comparable matter? | One or two named referees you can call directly, subject to their client's consent. |
| What is your position when the evidence does not support the instructing party's case? | The report says so. The examiner's duty is to the court; that is stated on the face of the report and in the engagement letter. |
Accreditations, in plain terms
- ISO/IEC 17025 — the international standard for testing and calibration laboratories, adopted by UK forensic providers under UKAS. What matters is the scope, not merely the certificate.
- FSR Codes of Practice — the Forensic Science Regulator's expectations for forensic units used by UK criminal justice; increasingly cited in civil work too.
- Cyber Essentials Plus — a floor for the provider's own information security, not a substitute for forensic accreditation.
- Individual certifications (EnCE, CCE, CCPA, GCFE, etc.) — useful indicators of examiner competence; not a substitute for laboratory accreditation.
Warning signs at intake
- Guaranteed unlock or guaranteed recovery, without seeing the device.
- Reluctance to name the individual examiner, or to confirm their court experience.
- No written methodology, or a methodology that reads as marketing copy.
- Unwillingness to state, in the engagement letter, that the report will follow the evidence.
- Fee estimates given without a written scope of work.
The single most useful question to ask a prospective provider is: 'What have you told a client, in writing, that they did not want to hear?' A good examiner has an answer. A weak one does not.
What a good engagement looks like
- 01Scoping call. Thirty minutes with the named examiner, not a sales lead, focused on the questions the tribunal needs answered.
- 02Written engagement letter. Issues, sources, standard, deadline, fee estimate with a ceiling, and the examiner's declaration of duties.
- 03Preservation, before analysis. Sealed, hashed acquisition of every source in scope, documented as it happens.
- 04Interim update. A short written note after triage, so the analysis budget is not committed blind.
- 05Report and, if needed, testimony. A Part 35-compliant report signed by the examiner named at engagement — no substitutions.
Frequently asked questions
Yes. It signals that the laboratory's methodology has been assessed by an independent body against an international standard. In criminal work it is increasingly expected; in civil work it is a meaningful differentiator when the report is challenged.
Ask what independent quality assurance they operate against, and what their peer-review process is. A small unaccredited laboratory with a rigorous internal QA process can still produce defensible work; a large unaccredited provider without one is a harder sell to the court.
For a first instruction, yes — but compare on scope and methodology, not headline price. The cheapest quote is often the one that has not read the pleadings.
Preservation and scoping, yes. Analysis is estimated with a written ceiling and any variation approved before it is incurred. Fixed-fee analysis on an open scope is a warning sign, not a benefit.
That is what an independent expert is for. A good provider will have flagged the risk at scoping and at interim update, so nothing in the final report is a surprise on the day of service.