By EUGENE BINGHAM
A string of criminal cases are likely to be appealed after two reports on DNA botch-ups released yesterday.
The two high-powered probes into DNA evidence have raised questions about facilities in forensic science laboratories and the disclosure of information to defence lawyers.
Leading criminal lawyer Judith Ablett-Kerr, QC, said last night that the findings would prompt her and others to look closely at cases.
"I think there will be ones out there - I can think of one of my own where issues are raised as a consequence of these two reports."
The inquiries began after revelations of difficulties with two criminal cases - one involving an innocent man implicated in two murders, and the other a case in which a sex offender was freed on rape charges.
Ministry of Justice officials who investigated the 1996 rape case found that DNA testing methods used at the time excluded Peter Robert Howse as the suspect in the rape of a teenager.
When new tests were used last year, Howse was found to be three thousand million times more likely to be the offender than anyone else. He had attacked three women in the meantime.
In the other case, a former Chief Justice, Sir Thomas Eichelbaum, and Royal Society president Sir John Scott concluded that accidental contamination was the likely cause of mistakes which led to DNA samples from the victim of an attack being mixed up with samples gathered from the scene of two Wellington murders.
The unidentified man was in Christchurch at the time and could not have been involved in the 1998 murders.
Sir Thomas and Sir John were unable to narrow down how the contamination happened other than to say it occurred during early stages of processing in the Institute of Environmental Science and Research (ESR) biology laboratory at Mt Albert.
While saying the mix-up "ought not to be regarded as casting doubt on the efficacy of DNA testing," they identified problems at Mt Albert, including ventilation.
"Unless attention is given to such physical features [ventilation], the possibilities for embarrassing episodes of contamination will at least continue if not increase."
Mrs Ablett-Kerr, convener of the Law Society's criminal law committee, said she was amazed the laboratory had been a cause for concern. She expected lawyers would review cases they had been involved in.
Justice Minister Phil Goff said the reports were a reminder that DNA was a valuable tool but one which should be used carefully.
Asked whether mistakes might have been made in other cases, he said: "Conceivably it might have, although the point is made that this was the exception not the norm."
In most cases, DNA evidence would be cross-checked against other evidence.
"What worried me was that, okay, this was a very clear-cut case where the man couldn't have committed the crimes. Had he been a gang member and lived in Wellington then that might have pointed the finger at the wrong person."
Dr Keith Bedford, of the ESR forensics unit, said that while the institute complied with international standards, it had started to follow the recommendations.
"We have a very high-quality laboratory already but it's not optimally designed for molecular biology work and we are certainly assessing the need to redevelop or extend the facilities on this site."
Appeals loom after DNA test blunders
AdvertisementAdvertise with NZME.