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

• NSW Police reiterated its reasons for not implementing Recommendation 14 when responding to
Recommendation 15. As an alternative to amending SOPs for NSW Police, DCS and DJJ, NSW Police propose
an alternative solution, that it is more appropriate for serious indictable offenders to be informed at the time of
sentencing that in due course they will be asked to provide a DNA sample. NSW Police state that this would
provide “more than adequate time to speak to [a] legal adviser or the legal advice hotline”. 1334
• Recommendation 16 is linked to Recommendation 15 and NSW Police reiterated that it does not believe it is
necessary to inform other agencies of policies relating to the amount of notice provided to serious indictable
offenders before sampling takes place. NSW Police stated that inmates and detainees are provided with
information about contacting a legal practitioner when they are “prepped”.
• Recommendation 17 related to ongoing liaison between NSW Police, DCS and DJJ with interpreting and
signing service providers. NSW Police did not consider this to be necessary and argued that the subsequent
change to the Act to allow for telephone interpreters has addressed many of the problems identified in our Part
7 report.
• Recommendation 26 was not supported by NSW Police and related to the identification of incapable inmates.
NSW Police advised that there are no hard facts to support the proposition that Inmate Testing Teams are not
identifying all incapable inmates. In light of this, NSW Police does not consider it is necessary to consult with
the Guardianship Tribunal about ways to improve identification of incapable inmates and is of the view that no
changes to current procedures are warranted.
• NSW Police declined to amend its SOPs as suggested in Recommendation 39 to require officers to consider
alternatives to the use of force and to document their consideration of alternatives. NSW Police believes that
the use of force has been extremely low and “that all force used by the Inmate Testing Teams to date has been
appropriate.” 1335
Department of Corrective Services
Our Part 7 review included 17 recommendations relevant to the Department of Corrective Services (DCS). In June
2006, we received advice from DCS about its implementation of these recommendations. 1336
DCS accepted the majority of our recommendations, and had already implemented 11 of them. These relate to
sampling education programs (Recommendations 6, 7 and 13), access to the legislation (Recommendation 8),
ensuring information prepared by NSW Police is provided to inmates (Recommendation 10), providing information
about DNA sampling to inmate development committees (Recommendation 12), giving inmates adequate notice prior
to DNA sampling (Recommendation 15), reviewing and recording any forensic procedures requiring the use of force
(Recommendations 39 to 41) and requiring DCS to identify and explain the role of each person present when a DNA
sample is taken (Recommendation 43).
DCS accepted a further two recommendations, and advised they are in the process of being implemented.
These both relate to the finalisation of a DNA sampling agreement between NSW Police and DCS (Recommendations
4 and 44).
The only recommendation DCS disagreed with, Recommendation 9, was that DCS provide Correctional Centre
Liaison Officers with regularly updated lists of serious indictable offences for use during the DNA sampling education
program and pre test interviews. DCS argued this would be impractical, “given the size, complexity and dynamic
nature of the list.” Rather, the DNA Coordinator generates lists of inmates who are serious indictable offenders, and if
an inmate wishes to check whether he or she is eligible for DNA sampling, this can be determined on a case by case
basis.
DCS argued that the remaining three recommendations were the responsibility of NSW Police rather than DCS. These
relate to the information about DNA sampling which is provided to inmates (Recommendations 11 and 16) and the
provision of interpreters (Recommendation 17).
Department of Juvenile Justice
Our Part 7 report included 14 recommendations relevant to the Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ). In March 2006,
we received advice from DJJ detailing the current status of each of these recommendations. 1337
DJJ has already implemented five recommendations – these are Recommendations 7, 11, 13, 17, and 41.
Recommendation 7 required DJJ to continue to provide education programs to detainees. In response to this, DJJ
included information for its staff in the ‘Procedures for Juvenile Justice Centres’ and provides training at induction and
NSW Ombudsman
DNA sampling and other forensic procedures conducted on suspects and volunteers under the Crimes (Forensic Procedures) Act 2000 291