Digital evidence · court reports written in Nottingham
What a report is bought for is what it can withstand. Somebody on the other side is paid to find the loose thread, and a document written to please whoever instructed it will not see out the morning. Part 35 fixes the order of loyalty before anyone begins: the court first, above client, solicitor and fee note alike. Criminal instructions run instead to Part 19 of the 2025 Criminal Procedure Rules. Both open in the same shape — method written out, exhibit history, two declarations, and the accreditation position at the top instead of waiting to be discovered. There is no UKAS schedule here and no ISO/IEC 17025 certificate. On civil, family, employment and insurance instructions nothing in the rules asks for either, because the Regulator's statutory Code stops at the criminal justice system in England and Wales: the detection and investigation of crime, and criminal proceedings. Solicitors and insurers across Nottinghamshire receive the same document, at a figure fixed first, from £800 + VAT.
An engineer will talk it through, in confidence
0115 8220606
| Which document | What it is used for | What goes inside it |
|---|---|---|
| A findings report, standing alone | Early advice, HR decisions, questions at board level | What was on the machine, how that was established, and what it comes to — in plain words |
| A report on an insurance claim | Where cause, extent or liability is disputed | The findings, the exhibits, and the cause of loss |
| An expert report under CPR Part 35 | Civil matters in England and Wales | The duty at the head, the instructions in substance, the method entire, and both signed statements — truth and compliance |
| An expert report under CrimPR Part 19 | Matters bound for a criminal court | Qualifications, the material by which a bench weighs reliability, and credibility declared — the criminal shape |
| A single joint expert's report | Both parties instructing the same examiner | One report, served on both sides at the same moment, the duty running past each of them to the court |
Forensic instructions begin at £800 + VAT, and where yours sits depends on scope — which is exactly what the first call settles: the events and dates at issue, the machines and accounts involved, and what precisely has to be proved. That call is free, and nothing chargeable starts before the figure is with you in writing.
CPR 35.10 requires the substance of the instructions to appear in the report, and privilege does not cover that summary. Beside it goes anything bearing on credibility, beginning with the plainest item there is: an independent laboratory holding no accreditation at all. Much better read at the top of page one than prised out of a witness in the box.
Every step is carried out, and written down, as though an expert opposite were already hunting for the weak point — which is precisely their instruction. The conclusions do not lean toward whoever settles the invoice.
Format follows forum. A civil instruction is built to CPR Part 35 with PD35; a criminal one to Part 19 of the 2025 Criminal Procedure Rules, which revoked the 2020 set. What does not vary: the method in writing, the exhibits themselves, custody and dates recorded without a gap, and the two declarations. The conclusions go at the front; technical detail is annexed.
Give the other side a finding they cannot check for themselves and you have given them an argument. So the bundle carries all of it: exhibit numbers, hashes, dated handovers signed at both ends, which image every conclusion came off, and the notes typed at the bench as the job ran. Run the same steps again and the answer is the same.
A question worth putting to every expert on your shortlist: Part 19 requires an expert to declare whatever a court could fairly count against their credibility, and CPS guidance says an accreditation not held is such a thing. Stay quiet about it and it becomes the client's problem at the worst possible moment. Ours appears on page one of everything issued here, and the method it rests on runs directly beneath.
One shared folder, two firms, and a set of accounts that existed in two versions nobody could reconcile. Imaging both machines forensically showed which edit had been made where, and in what order — and the order was the answer. Within the month the dispute was settled.
A findings report settles two things: what the machine held, and the route by which that was shown. A court report carries both, then adds what the rules demand of it — the expert's duty to the court, the substance of your instructions, method and exhibit history from receipt through to return, the two statements that must be signed, and whatever the other side might raise about the expert.
The court. What anybody paid is beside the point. The obligation sits above whatever is owed to the party giving instructions, and it is that ordering which gives the document any value in front of a judge.
Yes. One report, one set of conclusions, both parties served in the same moment. No draft reaches either of them beforehand, and neither gets to shift the wording.
Declaring it is a requirement, so the declaration goes at the head of page one and not into small print. A courtroom gives weight for method, and method is where the work goes. The reports that come apart are the ones claiming more than their evidence could carry; a certificate would not have saved them.
Cut the power to the DVR before anything else — while it runs it keeps writing, and the oldest footage goes first. Then post it in. The first look is free, CCTV and DVR work is £400 + VAT quoted in writing before anything starts, and what is on that disk goes no further than the bench.