A manager at Queensland's state-run forensic lab has faced a tense grilling over his "complete failure" to respond to grave concerns about DNA testing, and for allowing police to be misled.
An inquiry into the state's forensic DNA testing system has also heard allegations that a lab report was kept secret from other members of senior management.
Team leader Justin Howes gave evidence for a second day at the commission of inquiry, which has been examining how Queensland Health's Forensic and Scientific Services lab failed to test thousands of samples deemed to have insufficient levels of DNA.
Mr Howes co-authored a paper that led to major changes to the screening of DNA in 2018.
It meant thousands of low-level samples went untested, with potential crimes unsolved.
The inquiry before Commissioner Walter Sofronoff KC heard Mr Howes was told as far back as 2019 that reporting "DNA insufficient for further processing" was false but failed to act.
It comes after reporting scientist Alicia Quartermain earlier told the inquiry she emailed Mr Howes with serious concerns over the testing of crime scene samples that she said "were not taken seriously".
Ms Quartermain said she had found a number of DNA samples with usable profiles that would otherwise be deemed "DNA insufficient for further processing".
"Our customers are not just QPS [Queensland Police Service], but the courts, the complainants, the defendants and the general community," a March 2019 email read.
"We sign our statements in good faith and they state that we could be liable for prosecution if we are stating anything we know is false. Saying 'DNA insufficient for further processing' when a quant value is near that … is false.
"We aren't serving the community or doing our best work if we don't make a change or at least have a team discussion here."
Ms Quartermain's email went on to say if the issue were to be raised in a court it could create reputational damage for the Queensland forensics lab.
"We could potentially come off not looking great," the email read.
"You, the scientists in the lab, you owe a duty or a responsibility to people acting in the criminal justice system and in the Queensland community," counsel assisting Michael Hodge told Mr Howes.
"Did you do anything about it?"
Mr Howes: "I don't think any of us did any data mining or anything."
Mr Hodge: "Isn't the answer to my question 'no, I did nothing about it'?"
Mr Howes: "I think in simple terms yes."
Mr Hodge: "Do you agree with me, given your responsibilities and your role in the lab that doing nothing in response to Ms Quartermain's email was a complete failure of your duty and responsibility?"
Mr Howes: "I think with everything that's happening since then … I certainly would take my part in that … it's regrettable."
Mr Hodge: "No, I need you to answer my question. Do you agree that it is a complete failure of your duty and responsibility in the position that you held?
Mr Howes: "I think at this stage, with the benefit of hindsight and the information I've been privy to, I would agree with you."
Report kept secret from senior lab staff
During the inquiry, counsel assisting also alleged lab boss Cathie Allen did not want an update report to be revealed to other members of senior management.
Mr Hodge put to Mr Howes that he understood he should keep the report a secret from other members of management – an assertion Mr Howes denied.
"I don't think it occurred to me in terms of keeping it secret," he said.
Counsel assisting proceeded to refer to an email where Mr Howes asked a colleague at the time, Allan McNevin, who was tasked with updating the report, to do so in two specific private rooms or from home.
"[It's] a place where nobody will be able to see what people are working on," Mr Sofronoff said.
"Wasn't the reason you wanted Mr McNevin away from the open plan office was so nobody else could see it?" counsel assisting said.
"No, I don't think so," Mr Howes said.
Howes accused of 'standing by' while police were misled
The inquiry also heard how Mr Howes allowed police to be misled about DNA testing, saying, in hindsight, he should have spoken up.
Mr Howes was questioned about an email exchange in November, 2018, in which he declined to speak up when misleading information about DNA testing processes was provided to police.
Counsel assisting Mr Hodge told the inquiry Ms Allen failed to answer Acting Police Inspector Gerard Simpfendorfer's questions or correct false information about testing protocols in an email.
The inquiry heard Ms Allen instead told police scientists were "bound by the code of conduct" and were "committed to ensuring the best outcome for the public".
Mr Hodge told the inquiry this was "in no sense an honest answer" but that at the time Mr Howes had commended Ms Allen on a "great email".
"It was great to show that scientists are doing the best they can," Mr Howes told the hearing.
"What about standing by while Ms Allen misled police?" Mr Hodge asked.
"I should've read the emails a little bit more carefully," Mr Howes replied.
The lab manager denied he was fearful of Ms Allen but gave no explanation as to why he did not speak up in the face of malpractice.
Mr Sofronoff pressed him for explanation.
Sofronoff: "Nobody challenged it. I would have thought at the time you knew better … but you obviously didn't even consider putting to her [Cathie Allen] that 'that's wrong'."
"I'm puzzled as to why… the technical part of Justin Howes didn't come to the fore and assert itself. Can you help me with that?"
Mr Howes: "I don't know if I can commissioner, I can't remember."
A final report will be handed down in December. The inquiry continues.
