31 May 2006
DELAYS IN OBTAINING FORENSIC EVIDENCE ADVERSELY AFFECTING JUSTICE
SYSTEM, SAYS WA AUDITOR GENERAL
A report from WA Auditor General Des Pearson into the provision
of forensic services has confirmed a 37,000 backlog of exhibits awaiting
DNA analysis and found that hold-ups in obtaining forensic evidence are
resulting in delayed prosecutions and court adjournments.
Tabled in Parliament today, Mr Pearson’s report concludes that
though many aspects of forensic services are working well, WA Police,
PathWest, and the WA Chemistry Centre are not working successfully together
to provide forensic services in a timely and effective manner to meet
the needs of the justice system, particularly in relation to the analysis
of illicit drugs and DNA.
Consultation with the judiciary, prosecutors, and defence counsel indicated
that one of the main causes of late indictments were delays in the testing
of illicit drugs – a recent examination of indictments relating
to the Misuse of Drugs Act for March 2005 to February 2006 shows that
27% of indictments were submitted late due to due to delays in obtaining
forensic evidence.
Similarly, late DNA evidence could also delay the commencement of trials,
and discussions with the courts, prosecutors, and defence counsel suggested
that DNA evidence is one of the most significant areas of delay in the
justice system.
In reviewing the large and increasing 37,309 backlog of exhibits waiting
for DNA analysis at PathWest, Mr Pearson found that a lack of integrated
decision-making in allocating resources has resulted in bottlenecks and
that opportunity existed to make better use of resources.
Currently, without clear priorities from clients, PathWest prioritised
requests for analysis for major crime cases as “urgent” or “routine”,
with urgent cases analysed first and routine cases are analysed when
all urgent work is completed.
However, PathWest rarely undertakes the routine major crime cases (for
example, serious crimes where the offender has not been charged with
the offence and is at large in the community) due to the volume of urgent
cases and, similarly, rarely analyses volume crime (such as burglary
and stealing, and priority offences with high evidentiary value exhibits)
that has a lower priority.
In examining how agencies manage forensic exhibits, the report found
that the security and reliability of forensic exhibits is put at risk by
the absence of a single, reliable State exhibits register that records
exhibit details and tracks movement within and between agencies.
Currently, WA Police, PathWest, and the WA Chemistry Centre each have
their own electronic information systems for forensic exhibits and there
is no single register (or a set of linked registers) of the complete
set of forensic exhibits for any one case – meaning that the complete
set of forensic exhibits for a case, their status, and their location
cannot be readily identified or effectively managed.
The use of a number of different forensic exhibit registers and databases
within WA Police also complicates the issue and creates security risks.
Further, the current methods for tracking forensic exhibits as they
are passed between agencies are out-moded and risk the reliable identification
of exhibits and analyses.
Under the present system a forensic exhibit can be allocated at least
three different identifying numbers during investigation and analysis.
By not using a single, automatically generated unique identifier
or multiple linked identifiers, forensic service providers create a risk
of exhibits being incorrectly recorded as they are passed between agencies
and analytical results being attributed to the wrong exhibit.
The storage of exhibits was also found to be wanting, with current storage
arrangements not providing adequate security or occupational health and
safety protection.
“It is of considerable concern that we have not found the required
degree of clarity, process alignment and communication to ensure that
the justice system is well served,” Mr Pearson comments.
And the entire situation is not likely to improve without effective
whole-of-service planning and coordination, he says.
“I believe there is a strong case for government to revisit how
it manages, oversights, and is accountable for the delivery of critical
services that involve more than one agency – in the case of forensic
services, this may require a reconsideration of the most effective way
of delivering quality government services and more integrated approaches
should be considered.”
Ends/.
Media Contact: Peter Villiers,
Manager Reporting and Communications
Tel: (08) 9222 7558. Mobile:
0417 936 171 Fax: (08) 9322 5664
4th Floor Dumas House 2 Havelock
Street West Perth
|
