An inquiry into Queensland's forensic DNA lab will hand down its findings today, after months of public hearings that revealed a "toxic" workplace, "divided allegiances" and "complete failure" of responsibility.
As we wait for the findings to be released, here's what the inquiry revealed.
Why did we have an inquiry?
It all started when Queensland police requested further testing on some samples where the Queensland Health Forensic and Scientific Services lab (QHFSS) had reported "insufficient DNA for further processing".
Problems with the lab were revealed in a podcast series about the investigation of murdered Mackay woman Shandee Blackburn in 2013.
After samples were further tested, there was a 30 per cent success rate on DNA across all crime classes and a 66 per cent success for DNA in sex offences cases.
The results prompted Queensland police to re-examine cases dating back to the start of 2018, when the lab stopped testing DNA samples below a certain threshold and labelled them as having "insufficient DNA".
An internal government review was announced in May, which was slammed by one forensic expert as "manifestly inadequate".
By June, Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk announced the independent Commission of Inquiry into Forensic DNA Testing in Queensland.
What the inquiry examined
Led by one of the state's most esteemed retired judges — former president of the Court of Appeal, Walter Sofronoff — the commission received submissions and held public hearings.
The commission was to examine whether the methods, systems and processes used by police and forensic services:
- Were reliable;
- Whether they were carried out according to best international practice;
- Whether they resulted in accurate reporting of the presence of DNA in samples submitted for testing;
- Had been accurate in matching DNA samples;
- If the methods, systems or processes hadn't been reliable or conducted with best practice, the reason why.
The interim report sent shock waves across government
Mr Sofronoff's interim report, found forensic scientists' statements to police, the prosecution and the defence in criminal cases were "untrue" or "misleading" if samples were listed as "DNA insufficient for further processing".
That was because, although the sample might have contained a low level of measurable DNA, there was also a possibility that further testing could have shown partial or full DNA profiles.
Earlier this month it was revealed about 1,200 court cases required an updated statement.
Health Minister Yvette D'Ath told parliament that work was underway to replace or issue new statements.
"There has been work done with the scientists and counsel working with the commission of inquiry to ensure that what we are doing satisfies the recommendations out of that [interim] report," she said.
"Statements will start being replaced or issued quite shortly. That work has been done. We are getting on with that."
The report detailed how, before 2018, all samples in major crime cases were fully tested by the lab "unless they returned a quant under 0.001 nano grams per micro litre".
In January of that year, the lab presented the Queensland Police Service (QPS) with an "options paper" that suggested processing major crime samples with quants between 0.001 ng/µL and 0.0088 ng/µL wasn't a sufficient use of resources.
The report said:
"It was pointed out that there were advantages to abandoning such testing: the ability to potentially reallocate staff time currently allocated to processing, interpreting and reporting 'auto-microcon' samples, to samples with higher DNA yield, thus improving the turnaround time for results on these samples."
QPS agreed these samples were no longer to be processed unless QPS asked for it to be done – marking a new practice.
The threshold was only removed when the commission of inquiry was called this year.
The key revelations from the public hearings
From day one, the inquiry heard evidence of incompetence and failures.
Here's a breakdown of the key moments:
A 'negative culture'
Two independent scientists from Victoria and New Zealand were tasked with doing a "deep dive" inspection of the lab.
Victoria Police Forensic Service Department executive director Rebecca Kogios and Heidi Baker from New Zealand's Crown Research Institute found that despite management's attempts to improve work culture by hiring external consultants, there was a "negative culture" and "fragmented work group".
The pair said staff were "highly skilled, articulate and intelligent across all levels of work", but the culture was not "conducive to best practice science" because it "inhibits free discussion and continual improvement".
Senior scientist at the lab, Kylie Rika, told the inquiry she had a "sickening feeling" while working there and that she'd raised concerns as far back as 2018, but was ignored in a "toxic" work environment.
'Complete failure' of responsibility
Reporting scientist Alicia Quartermain told the inquiry when she raised concerns with team leader Justin Howes about testing crime scene samples, they "were not taken seriously".
Ms Quartermain said she found a number of DNA samples with usable profiles that would otherwise be deemed "DNA insufficient for further processing".
Mr Howes admitted to the inquiry he didn't do anything about Ms Quartermain's concerns.
Questioner: "I need you to answer my question. Do you agree that it is a complete failure of your duty and responsibility in the position that you held?
Mr Howes: "I think at this stage, with the benefit of hindsight and the information I've been privy to, I would agree with you."
'Bin-gate' and document shredding
The lab's managing scientist Cathie Allen retrieved shredded confidential documents from a bin.
They had been discarded by a senior scientist on her last day, and potentially up four others.
The inquiry heard the documents should have only been destroyed if they met scheduling requirements.
While Ms Allen wanted to, no disciplinary action was taken against the group in relation to "bin-gate" because it wasn't clear "who had thrown what confidential document in the bin".
The lab's former human resources adviser said if the documents didn't meet scheduling requirements, it would be a breach of policy, and possibly even the law.
Accusations of a cover-up
Ms Allen, who managed the lab since 2008, was accused of amending presented documents ahead of the commission.
She denied any wrongdoing, saying she meant to submit an original and amended document to Queensland Health's legal team, and that the amended version had corrected a "mistake".
What happens now?
Mr Sofronoff's final report from the commission of inquiry will be handed to the government today.
The results could have implications for Queensland's double jeopardy provisions.
Under those provisions, a person who has been charged with a serious criminal offence — including murder — and is acquitted by a jury, can be charged a second time if new evidence emerges that was not available to prosecutors at the time.
Defence lawyer Bill Potts said the law was designed to "reflect changes in science" and agreed DNA evidence could potentially fall within it.
Shine Lawyers national practice manager Leanne McDonald has previously flagged the government may be liable if any findings are made against it.
"If there has been mistakes made, when you consider that people may have suffered further psychiatric injury because of those mistakes, that's what we'd look to see if we could help there," she said.
