Doubts on DNA evidence let convicted rapist walk free

A convicted rapist has been cleared after it emerged forensic officers bungled

EVEN at his lowest point, when he was locked in his cell at Victoria's Loddon Prison, trying to take his mind off the next six years he would be spending there, Farah Jama always believed the truth would clear his name.

The then 21-year-old had gone from finishing his Year 12 exams at a school in the northern suburbs of Melbourne to being charged, convicted and sentenced, solely on DNA evidence, for the rape of a 40-year-old woman found unconscious at a nightclub.

"I knew that the truth always will come out one day, everybody will see that I am innocent," he said yesterday after being freed on bail two weeks ago. "I used to work out, . . . trying to keep my mind busy but sometimes, you know, you always going to think I haven't done this, why I am here."

Yesterday the Court of Appeal quashed his rape conviction, after he spent 18 months in jail, after prosecutors admitted forensic officers had bungled his DNA sample and they could not "exclude the possibility" of contamination.

This case is the latest in a string of examples where DNA testing by authorities has been proven to be flawed, leading to chief crown prosecutor Jeremy Rapke last month ordering all criminal cases involving DNA in the last five years to be re-examined.

The Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine yesterday announced it had launched a investigation into the case, hiring retired Supreme Court judge Frank Vincent, but still maintained "the contribution of any particular factor to the wrongful conviction is a matter of speculation at this point".

The "substantial miscarriage of justice", as described by prosecutors, comes days before an expected damning Ombudsman's report is to be tabled in state parliament about the state of Victoria Police's internal forensic services. Opposition police spokesman Peter Ryan described Mr Jama's case as a "stain" on the criminal justice system. "By any standards, this is an appalling state of affairs," he said.

The Court of Appeal yesterday heard Mr Jama had always denied being at the eastern suburbs nightclub on the night of the 2006 rape, saying he was at home with his critically ill father.

The only evidence police had against Mr Jama was his DNA sample -- as the alleged victim had no memory of the event -- which was coincidently taken 24 hours before the alleged crime when he was investigated over another unrelated matter.

Prosecutors told the court it had since been discovered that the same forensic medical officer who took the first DNA sample of Mr Jama had taken the DNA sample from the 40-year-old alleged rape victim 24 hours later. They said it had emerged the officer had not adhered to procedure when taking the sample and therefore they could not "exclude the possibility" of contamination.

"In light of the possible contamination of the forensic sample, and there being no other inculpatory evidence . . . the conviction should be quashed on the basis of a substantial miscarriage of justice," said prosecutor Brett Sonnet.