FKINP Choose between Forensic Access and QD Examiners by matching instructing eligibility, examination scope and the required expert-report role.[2][3]
Forensic Access vs QD Examiners
Neither provider accepts instructions directly from private individuals.[2][3]
Forensic Access
- Who may instruct: A barrister or solicitor.[2]
- Published examination scope: Handwriting and signature comparison, alterations and erasures, printed or photocopied-document analysis, indented-writing recovery, torn or shredded-document reconstruction and report review.[2]
- Stated expert-report role: Expert reports, conferences, joint discussions and court attendance.[2]
QD Examiners
- Who may instruct: An instructed law firm or corporate insurer.[3]
- Published examination scope: Handwriting and signature comparison, alteration, addition and erasure detection, ink and writing-instrument examination, ESDA, and assessment of copies and digital reproductions.[3]
- Stated expert-report role: Part 35 and CrimPR reports for civil, criminal and arbitration matters.[3]
QD Examiners may suit a corporate insurer or work involving ink, writing instruments or digital reproductions; it also offers legal professionals an initial material-suitability review.[3] Forensic Access may suit instructions requiring document reconstruction, report review or the litigation-support services it lists.[2] These are provider descriptions, not independently measured assessments of quality or accuracy.
Check the forum before specifying the report
Practice Direction 35 applies to expert evidence in civil proceedings in England and Wales; it is not a UK-wide procedural rule.[1]
For Scotland, Northern Ireland, criminal or family proceedings, tribunals and arbitration, check the authoritative rules for the intended forum. QD Examiners says it provides Part 35 and CrimPR reports for civil, criminal and arbitration matters, but that statement does not establish the procedural requirements for a particular case.[3]
Send the examiner all applicable directions and orders. Where a court order requires or affects an act by an expert, the instructing party must serve it on the expert; for a single joint expert, the claimant must do so.[1]
Turn the dispute into answerable questions
Replace a broad question such as whether an entire document is genuine with neutral questions about identifiable features. These may ask:
- whether specified handwriting or a signature was written by a named person;
- whether writing appears natural, disguised or simulated;
- whether material was added, deleted, erased, obliterated or otherwise altered;
- whether the sequence of entries can be assessed; or
- whether indentations can be recovered, torn material reconstructed or printing and photocopying marks examined.[2][3]
Provide the relevant background, every questioned item, available comparison writing, key exchange or hearing dates and the intended expert role.[3] Ask the examiner to confirm that each question falls within their expertise and can be addressed using the available material. Under PD35, an expert must identify matters outside their expertise and state when insufficient information prevents a definite opinion.[1]
Forensic handwriting comparison examines evidence within documents. It is distinct from graphology, which seeks to infer personality traits from handwriting.[4]
Supply originals and comparable samples
Provide the original questioned document where possible. Originals permit assessment of pen pressure, line quality, ink flow, stroke sequence, indentations and physical indications of alteration.[3]
If an original is unavailable, provide the best available high-quality, uncompressed scan or a first-generation photocopy, and require copy-related limitations to be recorded in the report.[3][5] Copying can remove intermediate tones, while later-generation copies may lose enough detail to become unusable.[5]
Separate comparison material into:
- Informal standards: previously executed documents whose handwriting or signatures are accepted as genuine.[5]
- Formal standards: writing samples requested specifically for the examination.[5]
Comparison material should be genuine and undisputed. Where possible, match it to the questioned material by date, document type, wording or letter forms, writing style, substrate and writing instrument—for example, ink with ink, handprinting with handprinting and cheque with cheque.[5]
Tell the examiner about age, illness, stroke, medication, trauma or substance misuse that may have affected the writer’s hand.[5] Informal samples may reflect habitual writing better than requested samples, which can be affected by self-consciousness or attempted disguise, although requested writing may be needed when suitable informal material is unavailable.[5]
Do not prescribe a universal sample quantity. One known signature can sometimes suffice in limited circumstances, but variable or simplified signatures and questions seeking exclusion may require more material.[5] Repeated identical signatures may indicate tracing, scanning, cut-and-paste or simulation, although legitimate signature stamps and autopens must also be considered.[5]
Before commissioning the full examination, send an inventory of the originals, copies and standards and obtain a case-specific view on whether they are suitable for the proposed questions.[3][5]
Agree handling and testing permissions
The cited provider pages do not state complete terms for chain of custody, transport, storage, return of originals, insurance or responsibility for loss and damage.[2][3] Agree these points before sending an irreplaceable document:
- who will send and receive each item;
- the transport method and packaging requirements;
- how condition, receipt and transfers will be recorded;
- where the material will be stored and who may access it;
- when and how each item will be returned; and
- responsibility, insurance and contractual liability for loss or damage.
Set a separate written approval process for destructive or consumptive testing, chemical sampling, document disassembly, restoration or referral to another laboratory. The approval should identify the proposed test, its purpose, likely effect, material to be consumed, alternatives, third parties and arrangements for remnants.
Record the examination’s evidential limits
Ask for a preliminary view covering material suitability, missing items and foreseeable limitations. QD Examiners advertises an initial material-suitability review for solicitors and legal professionals, while Forensic Access lists advice on document integrity, provenance and limitations.[2][3]
The examiner should record whether copies, poor resolution, insufficient genuine standards, weak comparability or selective disclosure restrict the opinion.[2][3][5] PD35 also requires the expert to consider material facts that may detract from the opinion.[1]
The conclusion should be presented as an expert opinion based on the material examined and its recorded limitations, not as a promise of certainty.
Specify the report and expert role
Define the required deliverable: preliminary advice, a standalone expert report, single-joint-expert evidence, report review, a conference, an expert discussion or court attendance. Forensic Access lists report review, expert reports, conferences, joint discussions and attendance; QD Examiners asks instructing parties to identify whether a standalone Part 35 expert or single joint expert is required.[2][3]
For an England and Wales civil report, require the report to be addressed to the court. It must state the expert’s qualifications, instructions and material facts, materials relied upon, which facts are within personal knowledge, responsibility for examinations or tests, any range of opinion, reasons, conclusions and qualifications affecting the opinion.[1]
The report must also contain the prescribed declarations concerning the expert’s duty to the court and compliance with CPR Part 35, PD35 and the Guidance for the Instruction of Experts in Civil Claims 2014, together with the required statement of truth.[1]
The expert must provide independent, objective and unbiased assistance to the court rather than act as an advocate.[1] Agree arrangements for supplementary work, changes of opinion, written questions, expert discussions, joint statements and attendance. A material change of view must be communicated without delay, while written questions under CPR 35.6 must be copied simultaneously to the other parties.[1]
What to confirm with each provider
The cited pages do not publish turnaround times, actual prices or cancellation rules.[2][3]
- fees, quote scope, supplementary-work charges and payment terms;
- turnaround times, deadlines and cancellation terms;
- geographic coverage and arrangements for court attendance;
- accreditation, proficiency-testing evidence and independently measured accuracy;
- contractual terms, insurance and liability for originals;
- chain-of-custody, storage, access and return procedures; and
- consent for destructive, consumptive or third-party testing.
Record the agreed questions, material inventory, forum, expert role, limitations, handling terms, permissions, fees and deadlines in the written instruction before releasing originals or authorising chargeable work.
References
- PRACTICE DIRECTION 35 – EXPERTS AND ASSESSORS – Civil Procedure Rules – Justice UK (justice.gov.uk)
- Forensic Document Examiner & Handwriting Expert Witnesses | Forensic Access (forensic-access.co.uk)
- Instructing a Forensic Document Examiner: Ensuring Part 35 Compliance in Document Disputes (qdexaminers.co.uk)
- Questioned document examination – Wikipedia (wikipedia.org)
- Solicitors Guide – Paul Craddock Consultancy (handwritingexpert.org.uk)
