Search

The National Institute of Forensic Science Australia (NIFS) was established in 1992 as a National Common Police Service, providing support to the whole forensic science community. In 2008, NIFS was incorporated into the Australia New Zealand Policing Advisory Agency and became known as ANZPAA NIFS. In this structure, ANZPAA NIFS is governed by the ANZPAA Board comprising the Police Commissioners of Australia and New Zealand. In 2013, the ANZPAA Board initiated an independent review of ANZPAA NIFS, conducted by the Honourable Frank Vincent AO QC; the report of which was released in 2014. Stemming from the Review, a new governance framework was developed, which allowed for participation in the funding and governance of ANZPAA NIFS by all forensic service providers of Australia and New Zealand and led to the creation of the Australia New Zealand Forensic Executive Committee. This created a new operating landscape for ANZPAA NIFS and led to numerous changes in how forensic science is advanced at the cross-jurisdictional level in Australia and New Zealand. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Species identification techniques commonly utilized in Australian Forensic Science laboratories are gel immunodifussion antigen antibody reactions and hair comparison analysis. Both of these techniques have significant limitations and should be considered indicative opinion based tests. The Barcode of Life Initiative aims to sequence a section of DNA (~648 base pairs) for the Cytochrome Oxidase I mitochondrial gene (COI) in all living species on Earth, with the data generated being uploaded to the Barcode of Life Database (BOLD) which can then be used for species identification. The COI gene therefore offers forensics scientists an opportunity to use the marker to analyze unknown samples and compare sequences generated in BOLD. Once sequences from enough species are on the database, it is anticipated that routine identification of an unknown species may be possible. However, most forensic laboratories are not yet suited to this type of analysis and do not have the expertise to fully interpret the implications of matches and non matches involving a poorly sampled taxa (for example where there are cryptic species) and in providing the required opinion evidence. Currently, the use of BOLD is limited by the number of relevant species held in the database and the quality assurance and regulation of sequences that are there. In this paper, the COI methodology and BOLD are tested on a selection of introduced and Australian mammals in a forensic environment as the first step necessary in the implementation of this approach in the Australian context. Our data indicates that the COI methodology performs well on distinct species but needs further exploration when identifying more closely related species. It is evident from our study that changes will be required to implement DNA based wildlife forensics using the BOLD approach for forensic applications and recommendations are made for the future adoption of this technology into forensic laboratories. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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]