Doctors have been at risk of multiple jeopardy for years - from the civil and criminal courts and from their employers as well as the GMC. CRFP introduces another focus - but it is an important one. Forensic practice isn't a large feature of most doctors' work, and it is unrealistic to expect the GMC and others to devote specific attention to the subject. Their chief concern is with an individual's fitness to practise as a doctor.
We have signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the GMC setting out clearly the boundaries between our organisations' responsibilities and showing how we can work together.
Our special contribution will be to focus on the vital importance of standards in forensic work. In the courts, lives are made and broken and it is essential that the public can have confidence in the quality of the professional evidence the courts receive.
No practitioner who comes before us will be tried twice for the same offence. Often, a complaint will be of interest to either us or another body but not necessarily to both. If it is of interest to both of us, then the public may well be at serious risk from an incompetent or corrupt practitioner and it will be our duty to see to it that the public's interests are fully served.
In fact forensic pathologists have long been registered with the GMC (as doctors) and the Home Office (as forensic practitioners). Double jeopardy has never presented a problem in that context.

If you would like to be an assessor in your specialty, first get registered yourself. Then ask a senior colleague to recommend you to us. You also should write to us with your CV and tell us why you are interested and what makes you suitable to do this work. We invite people to come forward for training as we need to top up the pool.

We have started with those who work in the criminal and coroners' courts because that is where major problems first came to light. But a growing number of registered practitioners work in the civil courts, exercising the same professional skills as they do in criminal courts.
There are different issues with the civil law, where fewer practitioners are in full time, or mainstream, forensic practice. But justice is not divisible and we are now considering, with practitioners in the field, the contribution a definitive register would make to justice in the civil courts.

The register is about the quality of individuals, not of organisations. So we register individual practitioners but not their employers.

We assess every applicant individually, taking up references including their employer or a regular client. We check the information they give us, including claims to degrees and professional qualifications. Applicants have to declare any previous problems with their fitness for the job - these are not an automatic bar to registration but our assessors consider them carefully.
There is little incentive for someone to register who is not fully competent in their work. By registering they would expose themselves to a degree of scrutiny to which they have not been exposed before.

No. That has never been the intention. It is for other bodies to speak for the professions and represent their interests. We draw on professional advice but are not be driven by it. We take advice from all quarters. But we are aiming to boost public confidence and the public interest will always be paramount for us.

The great majority of forensic practitioners are highly skilled and thoroughly competent. CRFP underlines this and helps good practitioners to become better. Our task is to assure public confidence in their quality. If someone turns out not to be up to standard, we will not hesitate to deal with them, by taking their name off the register if necessary.

Those organisations do a good job as the voice of expert witnesses and in promoting standards. But they are professional associations, acting for their members. Our priority is public confidence. We can achieve that only by rigorously assessing the current competence of the forensic practitioners who want to come on our register. The register's credibility depends on the robustness of that process. If the information it contains is not fully validated it will not fulfil its purpose.

Not compulsory - we don't think there's any need. The forensic community wants this development, and is investing in its professional future. If we do our job properly, it will become the norm for forensic practitioners to be registered.

It's a definitive statement that you:

- are part of a coherent professional group
- subscribe to high professional values
- take all necessary steps to keep up to date
- have the confidence to have your fitness for the job reviewed by a peer before registration, or by a professional tribunal if a serious question arises later.

It carries the right to use the letters 'RFP' after your name, and to display an official CRFP registration certificate proving you have satisfied us of your current competence.

Registration is an expression of your professional standards and competence, a benchmark demonstrating your credentials to the courts, to those who use your services, and to the wider public. It shows the professional values you stand for and reinforces your commitment to continuing professional development.