Child abusers given free pass by DNA lab

A fiery day of evidence hears child-sex offenders could have evaded justice due to a call to stop testing certain samples.

Queensland Health forensic scientist Paula Brisotto was told by inquiry commissioner Walter Sofronoff: `Don’t waste my time with empty answers.’ Picture: NCA NewsWire / Dan Peled

Child-sex offenders could have been allowed to get away with their crimes because of a decision to stop testing samples with low DNA levels, an inquiry has heard in a fiery day of evidence.

At the commission of inquiry into failings at Queensland’s DNA lab – which was sparked by The Australian’s investigation, Shandee’s Story – team leader Paula Brisotto sat through a ­grilling by commissioner Walter Sofronoff KC and counsel assisting Michael Hodge KC.

In 2018, the lab ceased testing low-DNA samples supplied by police from crimes, including swabs from victims of sexual ­assault and murder.

Ms Brisotto said she believed police understood they could request such samples to be tested, but Mr Sofronoff asked if she was seeking to explain away an unjustifiable decision.

Inquiry commissioner Walter Sofronoff KC asked scientist Paula Brisotto: “Is this the kind of science you do?” Photographer: Liam Kidston

“This is major crime we’re talking about,” Mr Sofronoff said.

“It might be a case in which the only sample is a low (DNA) sample, in a child sex offender’s case where the child can’t give evidence about what happened because the child’s too young, say two years old.

“Maybe everything will ­depend upon that sample. And … the default position is we’re not even going to test that sample?”

Mr Brisotto responded: “That would be a critical sample that we would expect to be either selected by the scientists to microcon (the next step of testing) or selected by the Queensland police to further process.”

A visibly frustrated Mr Sofronoff at one point sternly said to Ms Brisotto: “Don’t waste my time with empty answers, please.”

The inquiry has heard from senior police that they did not understand the ramifications of agreeing to the lab’s suggestion, presented in an “options paper”, that low-DNA samples would not progress to profiling.

Ms Brisotto said her understanding was that anecdotal evidence indicated only 10 per cent of low-DNA samples would end up yielding a usable DNA profile if fully tested.

Mr Sofronoff intervened: “Is this the kind of science you do? We only get 10 per cent and therefore we just won’t bother doing them except when asked by police? Is this the standard that you do in the lab, that you’re satisfied with, Ms Brisotto, as a professional scientist?”

Ms Brisotto replied: “No, I can see this could have been done a lot better.”

When Ms Brisotto denied the lab was trying to shift blame to police, the commissioner intervened again.

Mr Sofronoff: “Come, come, Ms Brisotto. The whole sequence of events … was all to do with ensuring that if any blame fell for anything … that any responsibility would lie with QPS (Queensland Police Service) not FSS (Forensic and Scientific Services). That’s what it’s all about. It’s obvious, isn’t it?”

Ms Brisotto: “I think it’s a shared responsibility. I think the options paper at the time, as I’ve stated before, didn’t provide suitable information.”

It also emerged the lab’s scientists do not even look at crime scene photographs – including suspected pools of blood or smears of semen.

“You and your staff don’t look at photos, isn’t that right?” Mr Sofronoff asked Ms Brisotto.

“Yes,” she said.

Barrister Jeff Hunter KC, appearing for police, told Ms Brisotto that trials were already being adjourned as a result of the revelations at the inquiry.

Mr Hunter: “Did you lose sight of the true importance of your work?”

Ms Brisotto: “I don’t think so.”

The inquiry continues.