The John Tonge Centre, DNA evidence and miscarriages of justice - Part 1

It was revealed in the Queensland media that Ms Belzer's report indicated guidelines had clearly been breached when she wrote:

A critical instrument in the DNA analysis procedure has not been validated and, further, proven to be inaccurate. I question if we are breaching the Justice Act when we sign statements which declare all information in the foregoing pages are accurate to the best of the scientists' knowledge …

Under the Queensland Evidence Act, a DNA analyst must produce an evidentiary certificate for any sample used in criminal proceedings. The certificate confirms that the records indicate all quality assurance procedures for the receipt, storage and testing of the evidence were followed. It also confirms the equipment used is taken to give accurate results.

Under existing legal sanctions forensic scientists at the JTC could be breaking Queensland laws by falsely declaring in evidentiary certificates that accurate results are being produced at the JTC and DNA testing equipment is reliable when, according to the leaked report, it is not.

Flawed DNA evidence used by prosecutors in Queensland criminal trials and the possibility of miscarried justice emanating from that flawed scientific evidence was first publicly ventilated at On Line Opinion on February 5, 2003.

My first feature article for On Line Opinion - "Marc Renton - another DNA mistake? Qld government must reopen the case" - explored the case of convicted bank robber, Marc Andre Renton, who was convicted and imprisoned on the basis of flawed DNA evidence emanating from Queensland’s John Tonge Centre in 1997.

The Renton Case

Queensland Police arrested Renton at Runaway Bay on June 16, 1996, while he was unlawfully at large after he had been released from Borallon Correctional Centre, where he was serving time for armed robbery. Renton failed to report to a parole officer upon his release and an apprehension warrant was issued for his return to prison. Renton was charged with three bank robberies that occurred at Morningside, Biggera Waters and Paradise Point while he was free.

Police claimed distinct similarities existed between the three bank robberies and was consistent with a proposition that one offender had been involved in all three robberies. They targeted Marc Renton as that offender. Detective Sergeant Peter Gray reinforced that proposition when he testified that he had not encountered a similar modus operandi of bandits breaking into a bank for the purpose of committing an armed robbery when the premises were closed to the public but had staff still inside.

Gray claimed he obtained the evidence from an inspection of armed robbery records contained on a police database dating back to April 1995.

The contention that distinct similarities existed between the three bank robberies fell short when Renton was acquitted for the Morningside robbery. The similar fact evidence linking the Biggera Waters and Paradise Point bank robberies fell into further disrepute with the arrest and conviction of the “Postcard Bandit”, Brenden James Abbott, who specialised in the same bank-robbing modus operandi as described by Detective Sergeant Gray.

Although not available at the time of Renton’s 1997 trial, Abbott provided a sworn affidavit on October 31, 2000, which disputes the similar fact evidence of Detective Sergeant Peter Gray used by the Crown to link the Biggera Waters and Paradise Point bank robberies:

I have been made aware of the circumstances of the District Court trial in relation to Mr Marc Renton. In particular I have been familiarised with the evidence relating to the alleged modus operandi of Mr Renton in the manner in which he conducted the robberies.