Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 9 Hansard (7 September) . . Page.. 3100 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

The amendments also change the language of the clauses to ensure that jurors are not misled about the power of forensic samples; in other words, tending to confirm or disprove the offence may give the forensic sample a credence that it does not deserve.

An issue that has been discussed at length in much of the literature and much of the debate that has occurred in relation to this new technology is that it always needs to be remembered that, in and of itself, a forensic sample or a DNA sample does not prove that a particular person committed an offence. It may, however, prove that a particular person was at a particular spot.

Supported by other evidence, the DNA sample may have certain probity value, but in much of the reading and discussion on the application of the DNA technology there is a concern, which I share, that it needs to be made particularly clear that the sample, in and of itself, is not absolutely infallible or proof of anything. It simply may have probity value on some things.

MS TUCKER (11.39): We will be supporting this amendment, too, particularly in light of the fact that the notion of "serious" in this legislation is considerably less rigorous than it is across much of Australia. I would be reassured if I knew that suspects could be tested only if they were detained under suspicion of serious offences.

Amendment negatived.

MR STANHOPE (Leader of the Opposition) (11.40): I move:

Mr Speaker, this amendment and amendments 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 13, et cetera, change the language of this range of clauses to ensure that jurors are not misled about the power of forensic samples, similar to the issues I raised in relation to the previous amendment. The words "tending to confirm or disprove" the offence may give the forensic sample a credence that it does not deserve. As I said, the evidence of itself should not be taken as proof of anything. It is very important that this new technology be used appropriately and that it not be sold, particularly to juries, as some whizzbang, certain proof that an offence had occurred.

MS TUCKER (11.41): We will be supporting this amendment as well. I made reference in my speech earlier to the gloss of new technology and overdependence on forensic science information in court decisions. The case of Azaria Chamberlain and the spilt paint that was "proved" to be a baby's blood rather demonstrates the problems that can be there. It has been said that the chance of an accidental match with DNA testing is a one in a million event. However, the real figures and the real accuracy rate are often much lower-perhaps one in 30. Clearly, it is important in this legislation not to give privilege to this form of evidence over other forms.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 23 agreed to.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .