A scientist wrote to her team leader as far back as 2020 with serious concerns she had with the testing of crime scene DNA samples in Queensland, but they "were not taken seriously", an inquiry has heard.
Reporting scientist Alicia Quartermain told an inquiry into the state's forensic DNA testing laboratory she first became worried about high thresholds for DNA processing in 2019, particularly in sexual assault cases.
"Sometimes there were sexual assault swabs that sperm had been seen under the microscope and had returned a result of DNA insufficient for further processing, and that was a concern to me," Ms Quartermain said.
"If we've seen sperm under the microscope, there's male DNA present in that sample.
"I didn't feel comfortable knowing that we'd seen sperm under the microscope, but we were reporting DNA insufficient for further processing."
Ms Quartermain said that about 18 months ago she started to rework samples judged as having "DNA insufficient for further processing" – otherwise known as DIFP samples – as "a matter of routine", particularly in sexual assault cases.
She found she had "gotten good, usable DNA profiles" from some samples.
The forensic scientist told inquiry commissioner Walter Sofronoff KC, a former Queensland Court of Appeal president, that she had emailed her team leader Justin Howes in early 2020 raising her concerns about Queensland's high threshold for DNA testing of crime scene samples.
Ms Quartermain said she offered to "do some extra work" on the samples but she was never authorised to do that work.
Insufficient DNA reporting 'technically incorrect'
An interim report by Mr Sofronoff found that between early 2018 and June this year, laboratory scientists gave "untrue" or "misleading" witness statements about the detection of DNA in some crime scene samples.
Mr Sofronoff found that under an agreement between Queensland Health and the Queensland Police Service, crime scene samples that did not contain quantities of DNA above a certain threshold were not processed further and were reported in witness statements as having "no DNA recorded" or having "insufficient DNA for further processing".
He said this was despite the possibility of obtaining "an interpretable profile".
Ms Quartermain told the inquiry on Monday she wrote to Mr Howes again in April 2021 regarding the processing of crime scene DNA samples below the DNA threshold set in early 2018.
"I feel that reporting these samples as DIFP [DNA insufficient for further processing] is technically incorrect," the email said, noting the introduction of new, more sensitive testing equipment.
"I strongly feel that we should be processing a lot of these samples these days."
Mr Howes replied in a return email: "Hi, happy for you to come and talk about this. It seems there are some things that require further clarification."
Division within state forensic lab
Counsel assisting the inquiry Laura Reece told Mr Sofronoff the hearings this week would focus on the culture within the laboratory and how that impacted on the scientific work it produced.
Ms Quartermain said division within the laboratory impacted on how cohesively staff worked together.
She said when she approached Mr Howes about the issues regarding the DNA threshold, that was where it stopped.
"Even though it's something that is important and scientifically should be important to everybody in the laboratory, [it] appears to not be so important to him," Ms Quartermain said.
"I feel like things that should be taken very seriously aren't taken as seriously as they should be and then I wonder what the motive for that is.
"Why isn't he as concerned about this as I am?
"We want to try and get the best DNA profiles that we can for the community, for police, and for some reason, I'm not allowed to do what I want to do with these samples.
"The flow on of that is that if I take something to Justin, I don't get his support, then why continue to take things to Justin?"
Ms Quartermain said although she loved her job, she felt she was not trusted.
"There is control exerted in areas that I don't think is necessary," she said.
"Our stationery cupboards are locked. I need a science degree and a police check to get my job. I need a pass to access campus.
"Then I need to approach an administrative assistant to unlock a cupboard for me to access stationery. It's just that feeling of not being trusted.
"We're here trying to do the best that we can for the community and police and for ourselves, knowing that we're putting out the best scientific work that we can, but we're not being trusted."
The commission of inquiry is due to hand down its final report in December.
The hearing continues.
