In March, I published an article in the prestigious law journal AUCI (SCOPUS) in which I interpret the broader meaning of the structural concept of reviewability of expert reports. The codification of the expert’s procedure (Article 52 of Decree 503/2020) and the requisites of an expert report (Article 41 of Decree 503/2020) was based on my study published in 2017.
New legal regulation of expert performance
The previous legal regulation of expert performance did not provide sufficient conditions for the expert report assessment. Based on the assignment of the Ministry of Justice of the Czech Republic, a study proposing a structure-based expert procedure was formulated by a member of our institute Dr. Jiří Závora and published in 2017. On the basis of this study, Decree No. 503/2020 Coll. modified the mandatory procedure of the expert. The IFSP prepares professional workshops and creates didactic materials on the structure-based expert procedure for lawyers and experts.
Record of training course: The expert´s procedure
An experimental probe of the quality of document authentication in the Czech Republic
Document authentication is a public administration service confirming the existence of an original document. The authentication officer is legally obliged to recognize the original document through an authentication element (Act No. 21/2006 Coll. and Article 73 of Act No. 358/1992 Coll., Notarial Code) and to recognize an obvious forgery (Supreme Court of the Czech Republic 30 Cdo 1966/2013). To test the functionality of authentication, we conducted an experiment in which we managed to obtain an obviously dubious document authenticated in 77 % cases. Since the authenticated copy contains a clause of authenticity, it is difficult to prove a forgery. The surprising results of the experiment were published in the journal “Státní zastupitelství” but also presented in the interview “Výzva Jiřího Kubíka”. The experiment attracted widespread media attention.
Interview: Výzva Jiřího Kubíka
Addressed conclusion of expert´s opinion
If the name of the writer is mentioned in the conclusion of the expert’s report, the expert must state in the data production section (§ 41 (2) Regulation No. 503/2020 SB) that he personally carried out a handwriting experiment in which he saw the writer in question write. At the same time, in the data processing section, the expert must state that he has carried out a thorough validation (§ 55(2)) of the entire comparative sample, i.e. both the collected and requested handwriting samples. Otherwise, the expert can only formulate a conclusion (§ 58) that is non-addressed, i.e. signed/unsigned by the writer of the comparative samples.
Podcast: Forensic handwriting identification part I.
Podcast: Forensic handwriting identification part II.
Podcast: Forensic handwriting identification part III.