Crimes (Forensic Procedures) Act 2000 - NSW Ombudsman - NSW ...

Table 04: Person samples rejected between 1 June 2003 and 30 November 2004.
Reason for rejection
Number
The sample failed to amplify as there was insufficient DNA in the sample. 107
The bag was sealed incorrectly or the contents were accessible. 8
The sample information form was absent, was stapled to the outside of the bag, or had not
been filled in.
4
The FTA card appeared damaged or was not sealed inside the FTA envelope. 3
There was no barcode on the sample information form. 2
The sample took over 3 months to reach the laboratory. 2
A hair sample contained insufficient hairs for DNA analysis. 2
The sample was submitted in a plain plastic sleeve. 1
The officer who took the sample advised of procedure errors. 1
Source: DAL advice received 28 February 2005 in response to investigation notice. The reasons for rejection exceed the total
number of samples rejected as some samples were rejected for more than one reason.
We checked the details of these procedures and found that 60 of these samples were from suspects and volunteers
(the rest being from convicted offenders or victims). 913 Over this period, DAL received 5,040 samples from suspects
and volunteers. 914 These figures suggest that DAL rejected 1.2 per cent of the DNA samples it received from suspects
and volunteers. While this is only small, in our view it is still a significant issue, especially since some police officers
we interviewed advised that where a suspect sample is rejected, they would rarely follow the matter up by seeking
a further sample. Perhaps FPIT could include in its training, that the most common reason for DNA samples to be
rejected is that there is insufficient material on the FTA card.
Recommendation 57
Training for forensic procedures include information that the primary reason for rejecting DNA person samples
is that there is insufficient material on the FTA card and therefore reinforce the need to obtain sufficient forensic
material when taking a DNA sample by buccal swab.
NSW Police supports this recommendation. 915
10.3.5. Samples classified by police as ‘other’
During the review period, DAL received 868 person samples which were categorised as ‘other’ – rather than, for
example, as having come from a ‘suspect’, ‘volunteer’ or ‘convicted offender’. 916 DAL advised that these are often
samples taken from suspects by court order, or from police officers for elimination purposes, and have been
erroneously classified as ‘other’.
DAL routinely sends lists of samples classified as ‘other’ to FPIT, who determines the true status of the person who
provided the sample. DAL would like the ‘other’ category to be removed from the sample information form so that the
person completing the form does not have this option.
DAL still accepts samples marked as ‘other’. To minimise delays, DAL obtains the DNA profile from the sample and
puts the profile on the database. However, person samples marked ‘other’ are not matched against any of the indexes
on the database until NSW Police advises DAL of the correct status of the sample. 917
186
NSW Ombudsman
DNA sampling and other forensic procedures conducted on suspects and volunteers under the Crimes (Forensic Procedures) Act 2000