Forensic Flaws jail Innocent People !

A leading  Australian appeals judge has issued a warning that forensic evidence used to gain a conviction in many prosecutions lacks the reliability the technical experts claim.   This is particularly evident where it involves gunshot evidence, footprint analysis and bite mark comparison.  We are putting too much faith in these techniques in sending people to prison.

Justice Chris Maxwell. President of the Victorian Court of Appeal  cited two American reports that have found that DNA analysis is the only reliable forensic evidence that should be presented to juries. " There have been a string of wrongful convictions around the world," Judge Maxwell said.

These two critical American reports, published in 2009 and 2016 led to major changers in the US and British legal systems, but not in Australia.   With the exception of DNA, no other area of forensic science has been shown to reliably  connect a particular sample with a particular crime scene or perpetrator.

Now Daniel Gurvich QC, Chair of the Criminal  Bar Association of Victoria has called for the Victorian government to establish an enquiry into the accuracy of forensic evidence, calling it " a matter of great concern in the administration of justice ".

A 2016 Australian High Court ruling  found that judges can not stop evidence being shown to juries over concern for reliability.  Individual jurors must make up their own mind on the reliability of the evidence put before them.

People are called upon to give jury service by random selection from the voting rolls and consequently we have a cross section of our society empanelled.  As a consequence, many are probably patrons of such television shows as CSI and NCIS which rely heavily on forensic wizardry to embellish their story line. In the public mind, the reliability of forensic evidence becomes paramount.

Many Australian controversial convictions have relied heavily on forensic evidence.   In 1995 David Eastman was convicted by a jury of the murder of ACT police chief Colin Winchester because gunshot residue found in his car matched that found at the crime scene.

In 2014 an enquiry found the forensic evidence " lacked a proper scientific foundation " and recommended that the conviction be quashed.   By that time, Mr Eastman had spent nineteen years in prison.

It is clearly evident that much of the evidence used to convict people in Australia lacks the credibility that would be required in other countries.  Trial by comparison with television shows is not how " justice " should be decided  !