Our position · standards and regulation, Reading
Two activities have sat inside the statutory Code of the Forensic Science Regulator since it came into force on 2 October 2023: device forensics, and CCTV recovery. Version 2 of that Code has applied since 2 October 2025. ISO/IEC 17025 is the standard set there. We do not hold it, and no UKAS schedule carries this laboratory's name. What most labs never explain is how far that Code actually reaches. The Act behind it anchors the regime to criminal investigation here in England and Wales, and to evidence for a criminal court. Beyond that boundary lie insurance work, employment matters, family cases and civil claims — most of what comes through this room. The first call settles which side yours is on, and it costs nothing. Instructions here start at £800 + VAT, fixed in writing before anything begins.
Talk it through in confidence
0800 6890668
| The question to put | Why it counts | How we answer |
|---|---|---|
| Accredited — and for exactly what? | Accreditation always attaches to a named scope, so it is the scope that matters, not the word | No. There is no UKAS schedule in this laboratory's name, for any activity |
| Is it criminal or civil? | Inside the statutory Code is the criminal side, and nothing else | We tell you which, and we tell you when to instruct somebody else |
| Who carries out the work, and who signs the report? | The civil rules require the report to name whoever carried out the examination | One named examiner, and the same person signs |
| Will the limits be in writing? | Any limit left out of the report is one the other side will find on your behalf | They go into the report itself, not a covering email |
| What was the method, and can it be repeated? | An examination nobody wrote down is an examination nobody can check | The method in writing, the hash values, and notes taken at the bench |
The scoping call costs nothing, and nothing chargeable starts until you have a price in writing. What the call fixes is the ground it covers: the events, the machines and accounts in play, and precisely what the evidence must establish. Forensic instructions start at £800 + VAT, and the scope decides where yours lands.
A hardware blocker sits in line before anything is opened, and the sector-by-sector image comes off behind it, so not a byte of the original moves. That is the first point a court tests, and it is the one point that can be demonstrated rather than asserted.
MD5 and SHA-256 come off while the image is made, then off the finished file as well. Each item carries an exhibit reference of its own. The notes go down at the bench during the work, rather than being reconstructed a fortnight afterwards.
The steps are set out in order, with each tool named and its version recorded, so that a second examiner can put the whole thing through again. Where the material gives no answer, or gives one only with a qualification on it, that is written down as well.
Hand the other side a finding they cannot test and you have handed them an argument. So it all goes in the bundle: exhibit numbers, the image each conclusion came off, dated handovers, the hashes, and the working notes typed as the job ran. The examiner on the other side can run the whole thing again and reach the same answer.
How small the regulated field really is: the Regulator's 2024–25 count for DIG 300 — the activity that covers recovering footage from CCTV and video systems — came to 33 organisations. Police forces account for twenty-nine of them, a government body for one. Three commercial providers make up the rest, and indicative compliance across the whole group was 59%. DIG 301 is the specialist analysis: speed, distance, identification. There the count was 43 organisations, compliance stood at 19%, and no organisation at all is accredited for the specialist analysis sub-activities. Three companies in England and Wales, then. When a competitor tells you it is accredited, ask which schedule, and for what.
An employment matter. The report opened with the accreditation position, set above the method rather than dropped into a footnote. The other side's solicitor read it, raised two points about the imaging, and then left it alone. Nobody was arguing about when the files had moved by the time of the hearing.
No. No ISO/IEC 17025 here, and no UKAS schedule against this laboratory's name for any activity at all. The first page of each report we issue carries that. It does not bar us from the work, and what we write is still read by a court. The other side has a right to know, though, so the statement goes at the front instead of being waited for.
Not on that ground by itself. Under the Forensic Science Regulator Act 2021, not following the Code does not by itself make anybody liable in proceedings of either sort. What the Act does say is that the Code can be put in evidence, and that a court is free to weigh the failure. So the argument is about weight, and weight is won on method — which is why ours is published.
The regime is anchored by section 11 of the 2021 Act on the Forensic Science Regulator, and the anchor points are two: crime detected or investigated here in England and Wales, and evidence for criminal proceedings. Employment tribunals lie beyond it. So do family cases, civil claims and insurance matters. Most of what arrives at this bench is beyond it. Which side yours is on gets established on the first call.
No. In the policing framework for video evidence there is a line: on one side, footage viewed as part of an investigation; on the other, images analysed — speed, distance, height, one face or vehicle set against another — and that second side is for specialists working under ISO/IEC 17025. Our part is the recovery, the conversion, and the handover with a continuity record attached. What a measurement would show is not something we opine on.
If the matter is criminal and needs accredited work, we will say so on the first call and name a laboratory that holds it. Everything else is set out in writing before anything starts, and the first look costs nothing.