Forensic lab needs in-depth probe

Queensland’s forensics lab scandal began with one unsolved murder – Shandee Blackburn’s – and numerous failings in the crucial domain of scientific evidence. These emerged during The Australian’s podcast, Shandee’s Story, with the expert contribution of Kirsty Wright, the former ­head of Australia’s National Criminal Investigation DNA Database. One such case is serious enough, but by late last year there was cause to fear systematic shortcomings in Queensland’s government forensics lab. Why had it struggled to find usable DNA in obvious places including blood stains? Why was the lab giving reasons that made no scientific sense when discouraging police expectations of DNA evidence from crime scenes? Back in November, Dr Wright said she believed hundreds of cases over several years might have been affected by forensics errors and lapses. It looks as if she was right.

As Lydia Lynch reported on Wednesday, Queensland police have begun an audit of all sexual assault cases, back to 2018, in which the forensics lab had declared there was “insufficient DNA for further processing”. There is good reason to expect many troubling stories to be added to Shandee’s. Police have revealed the forensics lab decided last year to do no further testing in 583 crime scenes. But police had asked for 47 of these to be tested anyway and 31 returned usable DNA profiles. The lab had claimed the success rate would be only 1.86 per cent; police found it to be as high as 66 per cent.

This is not some minor dispute about benchmarking. In several cases involving serious crime, it seems likely that justice has not been done. Victims of sexual assault may have had to come to terms with the fact their assailants had escaped punishment and perhaps had been emboldened to commit further crimes. In murder cases, the failure to bring the killer to justice can intensify grief and despair among family members. The police, who often pay an emotional price when investigating serious crime, can become demoralised if they are let down or, worse, misled by a forensics lab. The whole affair clearly has the potential to damage public confidence in the justice system.

But Queensland’s Palaszczuk government initially stonewalled, as if this were a routine political irritant – such as ministerial extravagance on an overseas fact-finding tour – to be ignored and outlasted. When this justice issue didn’t go away – how could it have? – the government ordered a narrow internal review. This is shaping up as a bureaucratic box-ticking exercise, examining the methods and processes of the lab while ignoring its outcomes and success rate in responding to police. Unlike a serious inquiry, this review cannot compel witnesses or hold public hearings. Most of all, it lacks arm’s-length independence from a government that so far has shown little sign of serious intent to get to the bottom of this forensics lab scandal and fix it. On Thursday, perhaps feeling pressure from the police audit, Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk rather cryptically left room for some “further inquiry”.

A key question for a proper inquiry would be why Queensland’s forensics lab set the bar for further testing at the equivalent of at least 22 cells, twice the number required for further processing in NSW. Another central issue is the accuracy and integrity of the lab’s communications with police. A common theme is the lab erring on the side of less to do in further processing of DNA, which may give the superficial appearance of cost efficiency. Hence the need for an independent inquiry able to scrutinise not only the management and culture of the lab but also the funding and performance expectations set by successive governments.