Search

Forensic science is increasingly used to help exonerate the innocent and establishing links between individuals and criminal activities. With increased reliance on scientific services provided by multi-disciplinary (police, medicine, law, forensic science), and multi-organisational in the private and government sectors (health, justice, legal, police) practitioners, the potential for miscommunication resulting unjust outcomes increases. The importance of identifying effective multi-organisational information sharing is to prevent the 'justice silo effect'; where practitioners from different organisations operate in isolation with minimal or no interaction. This paper presents the findings from the second part of the Interfaces Project, an Australia-wide study designed to assess the extent of the justice silos. We interviewed 121 police, forensic scientists, lawyers, judges, coroners, pathologists and forensic physicians. The first paper published in 2013 presented two key findings: first investigative meetings were rare in adult sexual assault cases; second many medical practitioners were semi-invisible in case decision-making with this low level of visibility being due to lawyers, forensic scientists or police not being aware of the role/expertise medical practitioners offer. These findings led to the development of a flowchart model for adult sexual assault that highlights the range of agencies and practitioners typically involved in sexual assault. The rationale for the flowchart is to produce a visual representation of a typical sexual assault investigative process highlighting where and who plays a role in order to minimise the risk of justice silos. This is the second paper in a series of two. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

DNA evidence can be extremely compelling. With ongoing scientific advances and applications of DNA evidence in the criminal justice system, it is increasingly important that police, lawyers, and judges recognise both the limitations of DNA evidence and the strength of the evidence in particular cases. Because most forensic sciences are formally communicated via expert reports, we analysed the readability of 68 such reports of DNA evidence from 6 of 8 Australian jurisdictions. We conducted content analyses using three categories: content and sequence, language, and format. Categories contained qualitative and quantitative items drawn from theory and past research. Report styles differed by jurisdiction and by main audience - police and the courts. Reports for police were brief and few links were made between sections in these reports. Reports for courts were less brief and used either legal or scientific styles. Common sections in reports for courts included: the scientist's specialised knowledge; laboratory accreditation information; item list; results; and notes on interpretation. Sections were often not in a logical sequence, due to the use of appendices. According to Flesch Reading Ease scores, reports for police had language that was fairly difficult, and reports for courts, difficult. Difficulty was compounded by the use of specialist terms. Reports for police and the appendices of reports for court often used very small font and single line spacing. Many reports for court contained tables that spanned several pages. Suggestions based on theory and past research are provided to assist scientists to enhance the readability of reports for non-scientists. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Forensic science is increasingly relied on by police and the courts to exonerate the innocent and to establish links to crime. With this increased reliance the potential for unjust outcomes increases, especially in serious matters for two reasons. The more serious the matter, the more likely that evidence mishandling can lead to wrongful imprisonment, and the more likely the personnel involved will be multi-disciplinary (police, medicine, law, forensic science), and multi-organisational (Health, Justice, private legal/medical, police). The importance of identifying effective multi-organisational interactions was highlighted in the recent wrongful imprisonment of an Australian male for a sexual assault he did not commit. One factor that led to this unjust outcome was the justice silo effect: where forensic practitioners from different agencies operate in isolation (rarely communicating or sharing information/knowledge). In this paper we discuss findings from the Interfaces Project designed to assess the extent of the justice silos within Australia. We interviewed 103 police, forensic scientists, lawyers, judges, coroners, pathologists and forensic physicians Australian-wide. Five main themes were identified in the data: the silo effect was only partial and in each jurisdiction some form of inter-agency communication was actively occurring; inter-agency meetings were more common in homicide than sexual assault cases; forensic physicians were semi-invisible; there had been considerable momentum over the past ten years for practice improvement groups, and; practitioners gain more benefits than pitfalls from inter-agency information-sharing. Based on these findings, five recommendations are made for improving practice., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)