Search

Abstract: In 2010 the Australia New Zealand Policing Advisory Agency National Institute of Forensic Science (NIFS) established a project to set up a sustainable mechanism for the development and maintenance of standards, across a broad science and technology base that is relevant to general law enforcement, and the forensic science community. The project includes four core forensic standards covering the collection, analysis, interpretation and reporting of forensic evidence and discipline specific standards. One specific standard identified covers specifications regarding the manufacture of products used to collect biological material for forensic analysis. This is significant as contamination events caused by staff during the manufacturing process have resulted in investigations being hampered by non-case related DNA profiles obtained during case work analysis. The core standards continue to be developed as Australian Standards, however the contamination minimisation standard is being progressed through ISO. The development of the standards and potential impact is discussed. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

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]