"Confusion among officers over when they are legally allowed to take samples exposes them to risk of physical retribution and court action, according to a report by the Police Complaints Authority an independent statutory body that investigates complaints against police and answers directly to Parliament.
Police can legally demand samples from suspects accused of "serious offences", but are also taking samples from people believed responsible for minor crimes such as urinating in public, the report states."
REPORTERS DANIEL WILLS AND DOUG ROBERTSON; THE ADVERTISER. (ADELAIDE);
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"THE police watchdog is demanding an overhaul of the state's DNA-testing laws amid revelations that officers are committing an assault on suspects by taking samples without having full authority," the Advertiser story by reporters Daniel Wills and Doug Robertson begins, under the heading, South Australian police face assault claims over DNA testing."
"Confusion among officers over when they are legally allowed to take samples exposes them to risk of physical retribution and court action, according to a report by the Police Complaints Authority an independent statutory body that investigates complaints against police and answers directly to Parliament," the story continues.
"Police can legally demand samples from suspects accused of "serious offences", but are also taking samples from people believed responsible for minor crimes such as urinating in public, the report states.
It warns that victims of wrongful testing may also be legally entitled to fight back against police if they are accused of a crime not deemed a serious offence. The PCA report also found that, as a result of the confusion, some police were avoiding taking DNA samples in cases in which they had full legal authority.
The PCA has written to Attorney-General John Rau demanding a clearer list of "serious offences" be written into law to safeguard police.
"Strictly speaking, the officer is committing assault and the suspect would arguably be entitled to defend him or herself against it, using force," the letter states.
"The application of force by a police officer without lawful authority places SAPOL at risk of potential civil liability. It is submitted this situation is unchanged regardless of whether the police officer is aware, unsure or mistaken that the offence suspected is non-compliant." SA Police Association president Mark Carroll urged the State Government to take immediate action and protect officers on the beat.
"That clarification must provide police with the necessary protection to do their job," he said yesterday.
An audit of DNA samples taken between December 28 and January 22 reveals a "disproportionate" number obtained from suspects accused of "non-compliant offences".
Police collected 1394 samples a rate of one every 30 minutes and rejected 11 per cent. A third of rejected samples were from people whom police did not have authority to test.
Others were destroyed because of botched paperwork or cross-contamination.
SA Council for Civil Liberties chair Claire O'Connor said individuals subjected to wrongful testing should be informed and she called for the prosecution of police who knowingly breached DNA regulations.
"In granting any power there has to be a balance between rights of the individual and rights of the state. It is only with legislative checks can we be assured the balance is achieved," she said.
"Where the police have exceeded their authority, the SACCL calls on the Attorney-General and Police Minister to insist on strict compliance from now on, for all affected by unlawful conduct to be told and for destruction of unlawfully obtained material."
The officer in charge of the Forensic Services Branch, Superintendent Peter Anderson, said officers were thoroughly trained in DNA laws and given regular "refresher" courses.
"In the case of some specific offences, however, it is not always immediately evident to officers where that offence becomes a 'serious' offence under the Act," he said.
"SAPOL has circulated to all members a list of the most common 'serious' offences for their information. This information is also available online on the Forensic Services Branch intranet site."
The State Government yesterday said it would review the report but refused to commit to reforming the state's DNA testing system.
The legitimacy of DNA evidence has been challenged in at least six Victorian cases, including the rape conviction of 22-year-old Farah Jama.
Mr Jama spent 15 months in jail before it was discovered his sample had been corrupted.
The PCA has also demanded all its future reports be kept secret to prevent their use as evidence in court proceedings."
The story can be found at:
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/south-australian-police-face-assault-claims-over-dna-testing/story-e6frea83-1225890491931
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be accessed at:
http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith
For a breakdown of some of the cases, issues and controversies this Blog is currently following, please turn to:
http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2010/07/new-feature-cases-issues-and.html
Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog; hlevy15@gmail.com;
Is The Age of Progressive Prosecutors Over?
10 hours ago
