For guidance to make an impact, it needs to be adopted widely, and in a considered manner. It’s not about box-ticking or simply about compliance, but about really improving the quality of forensic science interpretation. And to do that, we need to foster collaboration and understanding between academics, practitioners, regulators and end users, in this case lawyers and judges."
Gillian Tully, Professor of Practice for Forensic Science Policy and Regulation at King’s
23 April 2026
Forensic experts, lawyers and police convene to discuss new standards in forensic science
A recent seminar brought together leading forensic scientists, legal professionals and police to explore and seek clarity on new guidance on the interpretation of forensic evidence – a topic with significant implications for both scientific practice and the justice system.
The event, co-hosted by King’s and the University of Lausanne in Switzerland, focused on the new standards governing how forensic evidence is evaluated from the crime scene through to the courtroom. With more than 70 attendees, the seminar attracted a broad range of individuals, including forensic practitioners, police representatives, legal experts and academics, reflecting the cross-disciplinary nature of the field.
A key focus was the newly issued statutory guidance from the Forensic Science Regulator. This was created by the Forensic Science Regulator's Interpretation Specialist Group, which is chaired by Gillian Tully, Professor of Practice for Forensic Science Policy and Regulation at King’s. The guidance sets out a more structured and transparent approach to interpreting evidence, emphasising the need for clarity, scientific rigour and consistency.
An important aspect of this is the move away from categorical statements – such as definitive claims that a fingerprint or trace came from a specific individual – towards probabilistic reasoning. This approach encourages experts to present findings in terms of likelihoods, bringing forensic reporting closer to scientific principles and reducing the risk of overstatement in court.
Dr Marc Bailey, the current Forensic Science Regulator for England and Wales gave a presentation at the event about the new guidelines. He was also on hand for any follow up questions. Professor Gillian Tully, the former Forensic Science Regulator, gave opening and closing remarks, as well as moderated a panel discussion.
Another theme of the seminar was the concept of “calibrating expertise.” Discussions explored how practitioners and organisations can objectively assess and demonstrate their interpretative abilities. Proposed methods ranged from blind proficiency testing - considered the gold standard but not yet widely implemented - to inter-laboratory comparisons, internal competency assessments and peer review processes. These measures play an important role in establishing the credibility of expert evidence in court.
The event also highlighted the importance of bridging the gap between science and law. Contributions from senior legal figures, including a former Supreme Court judge, practising barristers and legal academics, provided valuable insight into how forensic evidence is received and scrutinised in court. They emphasised the need for clarity, transparency and demonstrable reliability, offering practitioners a clearer understanding of what courts require when assessing expert testimony.
"The seminar brought all those people together and enabled challenging and constructive debate. We value the collaboration with the University of Lausanne, which is world leading in research into forensic science interpretation."
The event received strong engagement and positive feedback from those who attended.
In this story
Professor of Practice for Forensic Science Policy and Regulation
Lecturer in Forensic Chemistry