Why DNA testing inquiry’s interim report paints such a terrible picture

The interim report into forensic DNA testing in Queensland paints a terrible picture, writes Kate Kyriacou.

Four years ago, Queensland Health’s forensic and scientific services made a recommendation to police that samples with low levels of DNA should not be further tested because the chance of obtaining a meaningful result was low.

In fact, the scientists said, in cases where there was no suspect, and a DNA profile would need to be tested against the Australian database, the chances of a meaningful result was less than 2 per cent.

In cases where police had made an arrest, and a scientist needed to provide a statement for the brief of evidence, the report would simply say something like: “No DNA detected” or “DNA insufficient for further processing”.

Much was made of that wording in the interim report produced by the Commission of Inquiry into Forensic DNA Testing in Queensland – but more about that later.

More recently, police began requesting further analysis of some low-level samples, the “no DNA detected” samples.

Investigators selected 205 samples where they thought there was a chance of success. Of those, 49 came back with a full or partial DNA profile.

Yesterday’s interim report paints a terrible picture.

A police task force has been set up to scour potentially thousands of cases where further DNA testing could have led to an arrest, further investigation or even ruled out a suspect.

Will we ever know how many jurors did not believe a victim because they were waiting on a DNA smoking gun? Will we ever know how many murderers, rapists and other violent offenders went on to commit further crimes when they could have been safely behind bars?

Heading the inquiry is Walter Sofronoff. Pictures: Jack Tran

Commissioner of the Inquiry, Walter Sofronoff, was scathing of the wording scientists used in their witness statements. No DNA did not mean no DNA, he said. It simply meant they’d not found DNA in the testing they undertook.

He recommended Forensic and Science Services redo all of their affected witness statements – something they did not want to do. In fact, one senior scientist told the inquiry the work would be so voluminous that it would outweigh the “rare benefit” of solving a crime.

Mr Sofronoff’s response: So what? And rightly so. That rare benefit could be a killer off the streets. A rapist brought to justice. Another terrible act of violence prevented because a criminal is off the streets.