Following growing concerns about DNA testing at the state forensic lab, the Queensland government announced a commission of inquiry yesterday.
This is a royal commission-style investigation with the power to call witnesses and hold public hearings.
It will be headed by one of the most esteemed retired judges in the state: former Court of Appeals President Walter Sofronoff.
The scope of the six-month investigation has not yet been decided, but what could be the consequences of the flow for the cases?
This is what we know.
What motivated this consultation?
For months, the Queensland government has been facing questions from the media and the opposition about possible errors in DNA testing at the state forensic lab.
A government review was ordered in the lab.
But Prime Minister Annastacia Palaszczuk said revelations last week about police concerns about DNA testing thresholds “changed everything”, prompting the need for a commission to complete research.
Retired Judge Walter Sofronoff will lead the investigation. (AAP: Dan Peled)
In a presentation to the Working Group on Women’s Safety and Justice, the Queensland Police Service said it had requested additional evidence on 47 samples related to sex offenses, which the lab had initially said they did not have enough DNA to process them.
Two-thirds of these samples returned a usable profile.
Police are now re-examining all cases of sexual assault dating back to 2018 that were initially deemed to lack sufficient DNA evidence for further prosecution.
What are the possible implications?
DNA testing is a crucial element in the criminal justice system.
The police presentation revealed that not all samples were being fully tested in the state forensic lab due to a “test threshold,” but the results may have been made possible by additional testing.
This threshold has now been removed.
Defense attorney Bill Potts, who has been practicing criminal law for 40 years, said that “the best possible evidence, or indeed all the evidence, may not be provided to jurors.”
“This is a two-edged sword,” he said.
“Not only is it something that could prove the guilt of an author, but it can also be used to effectively clarify someone who can be charged on the basis of evidence that excuses him.”
Bill Potts says DNA testing can help prove guilt or innocence. (AAP: Dan Peled)
Forensic biologist Kirsty Wright told ABC Radio National that the consequences are serious.
“We are talking about potentially false acquittals, wrongful convictions and really serious and violent criminals who have not been arrested when they should have been and may have a chance to commit a crime,” he said.
“Complete research is exactly what it takes to really understand what’s going on inside this lab and how long it’s been going on, but most of all, what needs to be done to fix it.”
Forensic biologist Dr. Kirsty Wright says the investigation is necessary to understand the extent of the problem. (ABC News: Steve Keen)
Dr. Wright, who led notably the efforts to identify the victims of the Boxing Day tsunami and ran the National Criminal Investigation DNA database, said “nothing compares” to the lab’s problems, which he called it the “great forensic disaster.”
“Nothing in the world is like that and on the scale of how many years these problems may have lasted,” he said.
When asked yesterday about the potential impact on any past or current proceedings, Health Minister Yvette D’Ath said “anything that comes out of that [inquiry] which may affect any of them, the commissioner [Mr Sofronoff] will deal properly “.
“What is important to understand is that the QPS of any DNA, whether it is insufficient DNA or not, already has and continues to exercise the right to request more detailed evidence and this process will continue,” he said.
Could the double danger play a role?
According to Queensland’s Dangerous Provisions, a person who has been charged with a felony, including murder, and is acquitted by a jury, may be charged a second time if new evidence appears that was not available to prosecutors at the time.
Potts said the law was designed to “reflect changes in science” and accepted that DNA testing could fall within it.
“Like most things in the law, things are rarely black and white, but all sorts of shades of gray,” he said.
“It would fall into a dispute in court and a decision based on both the law and the facts of any individual case as to whether a person should be tried again.”
Could the government be responsible?
Although it is still very early, Shine Lawyers national practice manager Leanne McDonald noted that the government could be held responsible if any findings are obtained against it.
“If mistakes have been made, when it is considered that people may have suffered more psychiatric injuries because of these mistakes, this is what we would look at to see if we could help,” he said.
Posted 59 minutes ago, 59 minutes ago, Tuesday, June 7, 2022 at 5:09 AM, updated 46 minutes ago, 46 minutes ago, Tuesday, June 7, 2022 at 5:21 AM