A woman overseeing quality management at Queensland's forensic laboratories was never asked for her advice over a controversial change in DNA testing protocols that may have prevented crimes from being solved, an inquiry has been told.
Helen Gregg, the quality manager at Queensland Health's Forensic and Scientific Services since 2006, said she only became aware of the change this year – more than four years after it was implemented in early 2018.
Ms Gregg told the inquiry into forensic DNA testing she was not asked for her input on the protocol change and so "didn't provide it".
The inquiry before Walter Sofronoff KC has been probing a decision not to process crime scene samples that contained extremely small amounts of DNA.
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 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 "insufficient DNA for analysis".
This was despite the possibility of obtaining an "interpretable profile".
Processing of all samples 'would have cost less than $1m'
Queensland Health's acting director-general Shaun Drummond said had he been leading the department at that time, and been aware of the proposed protocol change, he would not have agreed to it going ahead.
Mr Drummond said it would have cost the department less than $1 million a year – out of an almost $24 billion budget — to ensure the samples in question were all processed.
"It is absolutely important that we are providing the best strength in the science that we do … to actually make sure that nobody's convicted incorrectly," he said, adding it was vital to ensure justice for victims.
"We have a community obligation."
The inquiry continues before Mr Sofronoff, a former president of Queensland's Court of Appeal.
Acting director-general uneasy with process
Mr Drummond said problems within the government-run forensic laboratory were an issue from when he became acting director-general in March.
He told of being repeatedly misinformed in briefings that only one per cent of samples that fell below the testing threshold would produce a usable profile if they were further analysed, when the real figure was much higher than that.
The inquiry has heard previous evidence that a Queensland Police Service review of samples initially labelled as "DNA insufficient for further processing" found about 30 per cent produced a profile when they underwent more testing.
Mr Drummond said he was told in meetings that because the Forensic and Scientific Services' laboratory was accredited by the National Association of Testing Authorities (NATA), this amounted to external validation of its systems and processes.
Instead, media claims of improper processes within the DNA laboratory were written off as coming from a "disaffected employee".
Mr Drummond said he left a meeting in March feeling uneasy that the issue may be more significant than being presented.
"NATA accreditation is about the scientific process but the issue we were being challenged on was not that. It was about whether we were applying it in the circumstances that we should," Mr Drummond said.
He said the advice being given to Health Minister Yvette D'Ath at the time was the laboratory's scientific processes were being continuously validated through NATA accreditation, and the change in testing protocols in 2018 only meant a very small amount of samples would benefit from any additional process.
