DNA inquiry: State-run lab refused to test DNA linked to murder case

A state-run laboratory initially refused to test a number of possible samples from Queensland murder and sexual assault cases that later returned ‘full profiles’, a senior police officer has told a commission of inquiry.

A police inspector in charge of managing DNA has revealed the state-run laboratory initially refused to test DNA evidence of a murder case late last year.

Inspector David Neville’s team at the Queensland Police Service received a result from the Queensland Health forensic lab that said 33 DNA samples had returned with a result of “insufficient for further processing”.

The Forensic Scientific Services had implemented a new procedure to only test samples above a certain measurement, double the number of cells required compared to NSW, which has become the subject of a commission of inquiry led by ex-Court of Appeals president Walter Sofronoff.

In late 2021, the Inspector told the inquiry that QPS nevertheless requested the laboratory to test the samples, and 10 of those returned with a full profile.

He said one particular piece of evidence, taken from the calf of the murder victim, returned a match to a suspect which allowed the homicide investigation to be advanced.

Queensland Police Inspector David Neville outside the commission of inquiry into DNA testing. Picture: NCA NewsWire / Dan Peled

Inspector Neville said he was disturbed by the process and again questioned the procedures at FSS.

He then emailed the lab and said “I think this threshold needs to be reviewed”.

The Inspector detailed a call between him and managing scientist at the lab, Catherine Allen, who was last week stood down by Queensland Health.

“Cathie advised me that Queensland Health had done repeated testing that revealed it is highly unlikely to get profiles below a particular point,” Inspector Neville told the hearing on Wednesday morning.

“I reiterated that approximately 30 per cent of the samples in this case (returned) a user profile after work was requested.”

The Inspector said Ms Allen’s response to the anomalies he had discovered were “outliers”.

Earlier this year, concerns raised by Inspector Neville continued to be ignored.

He emailed the senior managers at FSS with an extended collection of data that disturbed him and, again, asked for clarification.

At the end of May, he said 393 samples that fell below the threshold from January 2021 that were requested by QPS to be tested, found 33 per cent returned a usable profile, while the success rate for evidence collected for sexual offences was 66 per cent.

Of the DNA collected for sexual assault cases, Inspector Neville said this was “disturbingly high and raises the risk that we may be missing evidence that could identify an offender”.

Inspector Neville also revealed results from an unidentified rape complaint in November 2021 in the state’s north.

In the investigation, nine samples submitted to FSS returned as “insufficient” for further testing, but all of those samples were sent back by QPS and all nine returned a usable profile that matched the suspected offender.

The Inspector said this forensic evidence was critical in corroborating the statement from the victim, which would have otherwise been ignored under Queensland’s high threshold for testing forensic evidence.

On Tuesday, Inspector Neville had described how an investigation into another murder case in late 2018 set off “two alarms” about the operational procedures at FSS.

The senior cop told the commission of inquiry yesterday that up until that crime, he believed the lab only applied its threshold for testing DNA to less serious crimes.

On Wednesday Inspector Neville said he grew increasingly concerned by the processes at the state-run lab and asked Ms Allen if the applied threshold was still relevant.

After the 2021 murder case he emailed the managing scientist at FSS: “Given the result of the recent cases where continued testing was successful, might it be timely to review the practice.”

He told the hearing that he then suspected the 2018 and 2021 murder cases were not isolated events where critical evidence was ignored.

“I was forming the suspicion that we were missing out potentially on profiles or evidence,” the Inspector said.

“I wanted to resolve it.”

Inspector Neville said his concerns directed to Queensland Health’s managers in the lab went unanswered.

He then followed up with another urgent email on February 21 this year, nearly three months after the anomalies surfaced from a murder investigation.

“To date, I have not received any feedback or explanation as to the difference between the predicted (less than 2 per cent) and observed success rate (30 per cent) for samples reportedly contained a low concentration,” according to the email shown to the inquiry sent to Ms Allen.

However, the only response he received from FSS was a link to a report, referred to as the options paper, that guided the decision to implement the low threshold.

This report was, however, beginning to be questioned by QPS in late 2021 and the labs’ own senior scientists years earlier.

Ms Allen told the Inspector he was “cherry picking” data to support his claim, and continued to reject his urgent concerns, according to the Inspector.

Inspector Neville began collecting data for the success rate of DNA samples that fell below the threshold for testing.

Of the 155 samples that were categorised “insufficient for further testing” between October 1, 2021 and March 15, 2022, 43 of those returned with usable profiles.

He began to instruct staff to be cautious of tests returning from Queensland Health and request further tests in samples that fall under the threshold.

If you think your case has been impacted by the DNA bungle contact [e-mail]