Scientist Alicia Quartermain raised concerns about DNA testing threshold

A scientist at Queensland’s forensics laboratory began testing crime scene samples below the state’s unusually high DNA threshold after twice raising concerns and being dismissed.

Alicia Quartermain grew suspicious that evidence from violent crimes was going undetecteded. Picture: John Gass

A scientist at Queensland’s ­forensics laboratory began routinely testing crime scene ­samples below the state’s unusually high DNA threshold after twice raising concerns and being dismissed.

An unprecedented DNA testing threshold was introduced in Queensland in early 2018, against the advice of some of the government-run lab’s senior scientists, who said evidence would be missed as a result.

The management decision meant samples with lower levels of DNA that could still help police solve murders and rapes were ignored for almost five years.

In 2019, Alicia Quartermain grew suspicious that crucial evidence from violent crimes was going undetected after she found DNA profiles when testing below the threshold.

She alleged the main drivers for introducing the new threshold were “financial considerations and laboratory turnaround times”.

A royal commission-style inquiry is investigating the lab following revelations by The Australian’s investigative podcast Shandee’s Story about the murder of Shandee Blackburn.

In a March 2019 email to senior scientists and managers at the lab, Ms Quartermain said the threshold should be reviewed.

She told the inquiry on Monday that she raised concerns about the threshold with team manager Justin Howes in early 2020 and again in April 2021.

“I feel reporting these samples as (insufficient for further testing) is technically incorrect,” she wrote in a 2021 email to Mr Howes. “I strongly feel that we should be processing a lot of these samples these days.”

Mr Howes responded to her 2021 email saying: “Happy for you to come and talk about this.

“It seems there are some things that require further clarification”.

Ms Quartermain said her concerns were not acted on and she began routinely testing below the threshold about 18 months ago, at her own ­discretion.

Her testing process, which did not require management approval, focused on swabs taken from rape kits and samples that were presumptive for blood.

“Sometimes there were sexual assault swabs where sperm had been seen under the microscope but returned a result of DNA insufficient for further processing,” Ms Quartermain said.

“That was a concern to me because if we had seen sperm under the microscope, there is male DNA present in that sample.

“I didn’t feel comfortable knowing that we had seen sperm under the microscope but were reporting the result as DNA insufficient for further processing.”

Ms Quartermain said there was division within the lab, which meant issues were not ­addressed.

“I take something to Justin, I don’t get his support, then why continue to take things to Justin?” she told the inquiry.

“I feel like things that should be taken very seriously aren’t taken as seriously as they should be and then I wonder what the motive for that is.

“Why isn’t he as concerned about this as I am?”

Asked by counsel assisting, Laura Reece, if she had been concerned that evidence that may have be useful in court was omitted, Ms Quartermain replied “Yes”.

She was one of at least four ­scientists who raised red flags about testing procedures with management between 2018 and 2022.

Her line manager, Kylie Rika, agitated multiple times for a ­review of the testing procedure and scientists Amanda Reeves and Emma Caunt also raised their concerns.

Ms Quartermain said managing scientist Cathie Allen had a “very high level of control over employees that makes it feel like we’re not trusted”.

She said stationery cupboards were locked at the lab, staff were ordered to call in sick at a specific time of the morning and had not been given flexible working ­arrangements.

“We’re here trying to do the best that we can for the community and police and for ourselves, knowing that we’re putting out the best scientific work that we can, but we’re not being trusted.”

Mr Howes and Ms Allen were both stood down from Queensland Health in September after scathing interim findings from Commissioner Walter Sofronoff cast doubt over potentially thousands of criminal cases.

Ms Quartermain said after the inquiry was ordered and before she was stood down, Ms Allen did not seem concerned about the probe into the lab.

“I heard Ms Allen tell another reporting scientist that she has not lost ‘a wink of sleep over this’,” Ms Quartermain said.

“It is my understanding that Ms Allen was referring to the fact that forensic DNA analysis was likely to have to undergo an external review.”

Under cross-examination from Ms Allen’s barrister, Matthew Hickey, Ms Quartermain said she thought the comment had been strange.

“I thought it was an odd thing to say for the managing scientist who is in charge of our department and we are a group of people who potentially are losing sleep over the thought of having to undergo an external review.”

The inquiry is due to hear from four other scientists this week, including Angelina Keller and Ms Caunt, with Mr Howes and Ms Allen expected to give evidence later this month.