DNA lab chief Justin Howes admits ‘complete failure of duty’

A senior manager at Queensland’s troubled DNA lab has ­admitted he completely failed in his duty when he ignored staff concerns about a disastrous new testing threshold.

Team leader Justin Howes in Brisbane on Wednesday after giving evidence about the DNA lab failures. Picture: Dan Peled

A senior manager at Queensland’s troubled DNA lab has ­admitted he completely failed in his duty when he ignored staff concerns about a disastrous new testing threshold.

Team leader Justin Howes said a damning interim report from a $6m public inquiry into the lab, which led to him being stood down, made him realise his ­mistakes.

Thousands of samples from crimes including murders and rapes went untested as a result of the threshold, adopted in the lab in February 2018 after Mr Howes and managing scientist Cathie Allen put the option to police.

Senior police say they were grossly misled about the impact of the threshold, which the inquiry has been told was introduced to save the lab time and money.

The threshold was scrapped by the state government when the inquiry was launched in June as a result of The Australian’s podcast Shandee’s Story.

During intense questioning at the inquiry, counsel assisting ­Michael Hodge KC asked Mr Howes about his failure to ­address serious concerns about the threshold, raised by scientist Alicia Quartermain by email in March 2019.

Mr Hodge: “Do you agree with me, given your responsibilities and your role in the lab, that doing nothing in response to Ms Quartermain’s email was a complete failure of your duty and responsibility?”

Mr Howes: “With everything that has happened since then, and the interim report from the ­commissioner, I certainly would take my part in that. It’s regrettable.”

Mr Hodge: “No. I need you to answer my question. Do you agree that it is a complete failure of your duty and responsibility?”

Mr Howes: “At this stage, benefit of hindsight, and with the ­information that I’m privy to, I’d agree with you.”

Ms Quartermain warned in her email that the lab’s scientists were providing false information to courts and were not serving the community when they claimed samples contained “DNA insufficient for further processing”. The samples did actually contain DNA that could produce profiles if tested, Ms Quartermain wrote.

Commissioner Walter Sofronoff KC also asked Mr Howes to explain why he hadn’t responded to concerns raised by another scientist, Emma Caunt, the month the threshold was introduced. Ms Caunt’s email cited a rape case in which the only forensic evidence to substantiate the victim’s claim would have been missed if the threshold had been in place at the time.

Mr Sofronoff: “What was your frame of mind that meant that you didn’t do anything? I just think that’s strange.”

Mr Howes: “I don’t think I was particularly well at that point.”

Previously, Mr Howes told the inquiry he was stressed from conflict between scientists at the lab, and that he had “sought some help for that”.

Mr Sofronoff found in his ­interim report, before public hearings began, that all witness statements issued by the lab since 2018 describing samples as “DNA insufficient for further processing” or “No DNA detected” were ­misleading.

Mr Howes also faced questions about whether the lab sabotaged testing after the inquiry was ­announced in an attempted cover-up. After being ordered by the head of the health department to revert to pre-threshold methods, the lab started testing all samples but cut out the crucial concentration step. Mr Hodge suggested the step may have been left out on purpose, so the lab would not find usable DNA profiles when testing below the threshold.

Mr Howes accepted it was not best practice and that it was ­immediately obvious to him scientists would be far less likely to obtain a DNA profile as a result.

Mr Howes also admitted the lab should not have stopped testing crucial “Priority 1” samples, reserved for cases with the greatest threat to public safety.

Mr Howes told the inquiry the “P1” samples were never meant to be included in the threshold when he brought the idea to police with Ms Allen. Subsequently, Ms Allen informed the lab’s management team that senior police had told her the threshold should also be applied to P1 samples. Mr Howes said he ­assumed it was decided in discussions with police that he was not a part of.

He agreed it was “unacceptable” that P1 samples below the threshold weren’t tested. “These are the most crucial samples in the laboratory,” he said.