Latest / The Front / Why rapists and murderers should be sweating

Transcript

Why rapists and murderers should be sweating · The Front

• 0:05
  Speaker 1: From The Australian. Here's what's on the front. I'm Claire Harvey.
• 0:08
  Speaker 1: It's Monday, June fifteenth, twenty twenty six. Labour's big scheme
• 0:15
  Speaker 1: to grow green power has delivered just one operational renewable
• 0:19
  Speaker 1: energy project, a small solar farm in Victoria, producing forty
• 0:23
  Speaker 1: six megawatts of power, despite ninety four projects being announced
• 0:28
  Speaker 1: and funded. That story is live now at the Australian
• 0:32
  Speaker 1: dot com dot a U. A man who was acquitted
• 0:37
  Speaker 1: for rape is facing another trial as prosecutors seek leave
• 0:41
  Speaker 1: to invoke Queensland's new double jeopardy laws. In a huge
• 0:45
  Speaker 1: development arising from The Australian's podcast Shandy story, it could
• 0:49
  Speaker 1: be followed by one hundreds or thousands more cases where
• 0:52
  Speaker 1: DNA evidence can now be used to prove previously unsolved crimes.
• 0:58
  Speaker 1: National Chief Correspondent Headly Thomas is here in just a moment.
• 1:09
  Speaker 2: If you know that you're a guilty person, you should
• 1:12
  Speaker 2: be very concerned. We're talking real tip of the iceberg
• 1:15
  Speaker 2: stuff here.
• 1:18
  Speaker 1: This is Headley Thomas, the Australian's National Chief correspondent and
• 1:22
  Speaker 1: one of the world's foremost investigative podcasters. In twenty twenty
• 1:27
  Speaker 1: one and twenty twenty two, Headley's podcast Shandy Story revealed
• 1:32
  Speaker 1: shocking failures in our justice system. A twenty three year
• 1:36
  Speaker 1: old Queensland woman named Shandy Blackburn had been stabbed to
• 1:39
  Speaker 1: death just meters from her home late at night while
• 1:43
  Speaker 1: walking home from work. Nobody was convicted for the crime,
• 1:47
  Speaker 1: and part of the reason is that although police carefully
• 1:50
  Speaker 1: gathered forends examples including a pool of blood from a
• 1:54
  Speaker 1: gutter at the scene, tape lifts from Shandy's arm, and
• 1:58
  Speaker 1: from a suspect's car, scientists in Queensland's DNA lab were
• 2:02
  Speaker 1: unable to find a positive link to a killer in
• 2:05
  Speaker 1: those samples. In the podcast, Hedley and his collaborator, forensic
• 2:10
  Speaker 1: scientist Kirsty Wright, blew open a massive story. The DNA
• 2:15
  Speaker 1: failure wasn't just in Shandy's case. Abject failings at the
• 2:19
  Speaker 1: lab processing all major crimes in Queensland meant potentially hundreds,
• 2:24
  Speaker 1: even thousands of murderers and rapists had got away with
• 2:28
  Speaker 1: their crimes. Now that's changing. The lab has been through
• 2:32
  Speaker 1: a huge overhaul and samples in old crimes have been
• 2:36
  Speaker 1: retested to try and positively identify perpetrators.
• 2:44
  Speaker 2: Double jeopardy is the rule whereby once you've been charged
• 2:49
  Speaker 2: and then acquitted of an offense, you can't be represented
• 2:53
  Speaker 2: with that same offense, and that is a long standing
• 2:56
  Speaker 2: rule that multiple jurisdictions are buying by. However, in Queensland,
• 3:00
  Speaker 2: because of the DNA disaster that we experienced here that
• 3:05
  Speaker 2: was exposed during the Shandy Story podcast that I did
• 3:08
  Speaker 2: with doctor Kirsty Wright, the most amazing forensic biologist, we
• 3:14
  Speaker 2: have a situation where there are many hundreds, if not thousands,
• 3:18
  Speaker 2: of cases where victims of crime have been possibly denied
• 3:23
  Speaker 2: justice because the DNA, the incriminating DNA of alleged defenders,
• 3:29
  Speaker 2: wasn't detected during the original testing. Now, with all of
• 3:32
  Speaker 2: those cases being retested, those results are starting to show
• 3:39
  Speaker 2: great promise and causing prosecutors and police to work out
• 3:44
  Speaker 2: which ones can be taken before the courts. But because
• 3:47
  Speaker 2: in some of these cases the offenders have already been acquitted,
• 3:52
  Speaker 2: probably in part because there was no DNA detected according
• 3:57
  Speaker 2: to the lab at the time, when we know that
• 4:00
  Speaker 2: always was DNA, they just weren't looking competently for it.
• 4:03
  Speaker 2: There is a double jeopardy issue. And to get over
• 4:07
  Speaker 2: that double jeopardy issue, the DPP Todd Fuller needs to
• 4:12
  Speaker 2: go to the Court of Appeal and argue that there
• 4:16
  Speaker 2: is fresh and compelling evidence in these cases. And we
• 4:21
  Speaker 2: have now the first one since the DNA results have
• 4:25
  Speaker 2: been retested, that's ready for legal challenge. And it's a
• 4:30
  Speaker 2: case of a woman who was raped. The case was
• 4:33
  Speaker 2: heard in Townsville. The alleged defender was acquitted in twenty
• 4:38
  Speaker 2: twenty two, four years ago. So it's interesting the timing
• 4:43
  Speaker 2: that case must have been unfolding during the podcast series
• 4:48
  Speaker 2: in twenty twenty two, when the episode is revealing so
• 4:52
  Speaker 2: much of what was going wrong in the Queensland government
• 4:55
  Speaker 2: run DNA lab was being revealed. The offender was acquitted,
• 5:00
  Speaker 2: as I say, and that was the end of it
• 5:03
  Speaker 2: until the retesting now has shown that potentially incriminating DNA
• 5:09
  Speaker 2: was there all the time, and that will be used
• 5:12
  Speaker 2: as the argument for the fresh and compelling evidence to
• 5:14
  Speaker 2: satisfy a legal test about the DNA and why the
• 5:20
  Speaker 2: case and the same charge should be re prosecuted, notwithstanding
• 5:25
  Speaker 2: the original finding that the accused was acquitted.
• 5:30
  Speaker 1: Yeah, that rule about double jeopardy is one of the
• 5:33
  Speaker 1: ancient principles of our legal system and it's designed to
• 5:36
  Speaker 1: stop prosecuting authorities from harassing accused people. Various jurisdictions have
• 5:42
  Speaker 1: amended those laws over the past few decades. New South
• 5:45
  Speaker 1: Wales did it in two thousand and six to include
• 5:48
  Speaker 1: this new principle of fresh and compelling evidence. In Queensland,
• 5:52
  Speaker 1: I believe it already existed in very limited cases of murder,
• 5:55
  Speaker 1: that the prosecutor could have another goal if fresh and
• 5:57
  Speaker 1: compelling evidence arose. Deb Frecklington, the Attorney General, reformed the
• 6:02
  Speaker 1: law in response to your investigative work heavily.
• 6:07
  Speaker 3: Queensland's DNA inquiries shook the foundations of the justice system,
• 6:12
  Speaker 3: uncovering failings and triggering a review of up to one
• 6:15
  Speaker 3: hundred and three thousand samples. Now the government is proposing
• 6:19
  Speaker 3: law changes in case new DNA evidence comes to light.
• 6:24
  Speaker 1: What does it mean now? If you are someone who
• 6:28
  Speaker 1: has been acquitted of a sexual crime or a crime
• 6:30
  Speaker 1: of violence in Queensland, what should you be thinking about
• 6:34
  Speaker 1: the prospect that your case might come up again.
• 6:38
  Speaker 2: Well, if you know that you're a guilty person and
• 6:41
  Speaker 2: that DNA evidence didn't harm your case, in fact may
• 6:47
  Speaker 2: have helped you because the forensic lab was unable to
• 6:52
  Speaker 2: make a link between you and a victim of crime.
• 6:56
  Speaker 2: And now you're in this situation where you're aware, because
• 6:59
  Speaker 2: it's a matter of public record that thousands of samples
• 7:03
  Speaker 2: are being retested. You should be very concerned. And I
• 7:08
  Speaker 2: hope and I know that police and Deb Frecklington and
• 7:13
  Speaker 2: the lab scientists who are working really hard on these
• 7:15
  Speaker 2: samples are going to queue up many, many more of
• 7:20
  Speaker 2: these cases. This is just the first one. We're talking
• 7:23
  Speaker 2: real tip of the iceberg stuff here. There could be
• 7:26
  Speaker 2: hundreds of cases amongst those that have either failed to
• 7:33
  Speaker 2: lead to conviction after being prosecuted or not even being
• 7:38
  Speaker 2: run as cases because the police were not able to
• 7:42
  Speaker 2: satisfy prosecutors that there was sufficient evidence to meet the
• 7:46
  Speaker 2: test for a prosecution. There could be so many of
• 7:51
  Speaker 2: these cases in fact, where confident there are that the
• 7:56
  Speaker 2: course will be hearing these cases that just fell through
• 7:59
  Speaker 2: the crack that denied victims justice for many years. What
• 8:04
  Speaker 2: we're talking about, in the words of doctor Kirsey Wright,
• 8:08
  Speaker 2: is probably the greatest forensic lab disaster in relation to
• 8:12
  Speaker 2: DNA in the world, certainly in Australia by a very
• 8:15
  Speaker 2: very large margin, but it would be difficult to find
• 8:20
  Speaker 2: globally a worst case of justice denied for victims of crime,
• 8:26
  Speaker 2: going back some twenty years, not just a few years,
• 8:31
  Speaker 2: not just at the time poor Shandy Blackburn was murdered
• 8:34
  Speaker 2: in twenty thirteen in Mackay, going back all the way
• 8:38
  Speaker 2: to the early two thousands.
• 8:41
  Speaker 1: Yeah, it seemed from what Kirsty Wright and you discovered
• 8:44
  Speaker 1: in your work on the podcast that there had been
• 8:47
  Speaker 1: numerous failings in that DNA lab the introduction of new
• 8:51
  Speaker 1: equipment that wasn't properly, introduced processes and systems and people
• 8:55
  Speaker 1: within that laboratory that weren't doing things properly. And it's
• 8:59
  Speaker 1: been a long road to actually get to the point
• 9:01
  Speaker 1: where we are seeing things change. Though headly I mean
• 9:04
  Speaker 1: that the laboratory has been through several rounds of attempted
• 9:08
  Speaker 1: reform since then that kind of haven't stuck. Do you
• 9:11
  Speaker 1: have faith now that the laboratory is doing what it's
• 9:14
  Speaker 1: supposed to be doing in crimes that are being committed now?
• 9:18
  Speaker 2: Well, it certainly appears to be heading in the right direction, Claire.
• 9:23
  Speaker 2: They have been able to get through what looked like
• 9:26
  Speaker 2: an insurmountable mountain a backlog of cases, and they did
• 9:31
  Speaker 2: that by sending thousands of cases to the United States
• 9:36
  Speaker 2: for testing in a lab in Washington, DC. Now that's
• 9:41
  Speaker 2: a big call. Under the leadership of Meg Fuller, who
• 9:45
  Speaker 2: was the former New South Wales Police commissioner, you know,
• 9:48
  Speaker 2: a number of scientists have been forced to leave the
• 9:52
  Speaker 2: lab and a number of scientists who are seen as
• 9:56
  Speaker 2: the future of the lab have been hired.
• 10:00
  Speaker 1: Mick Fuller spoke with Headley in twenty twenty five about
• 10:03
  Speaker 1: his new role at the lab.
• 10:06
  Speaker 4: Taking risks is part of being the boss. I mean
• 10:09
  Speaker 4: they should be calculated risks, they should be well brought out.
• 10:13
  Speaker 4: I think in life there are gambles in the terms
• 10:16
  Speaker 4: of the risks that you do take, but I felt
• 10:19
  Speaker 4: in this case it was a worthwhile one.
• 10:22
  Speaker 2: Deb Reckington has a powerful and i'm sure very sincere
• 10:28
  Speaker 2: commitment to ensuring that the mistakes of the former government
• 10:33
  Speaker 2: aren't repeated under her watch.
• 10:36
  Speaker 5: My office has a keen view over what is happening
• 10:39
  Speaker 5: at our lab. I will not be an Attorney General
• 10:44
  Speaker 5: who says I can't put a press release out. I've
• 10:46
  Speaker 5: done a stand up, answered some questions and then forget
• 10:48
  Speaker 5: about it. More from your hands.
• 10:52
  Speaker 2: So there's a lot going on. The police are deeply committed.
• 10:56
  Speaker 2: Now that'll be no doubt looking back through their case
• 11:01
  Speaker 2: files triaging matters, and the DPP will be doing the
• 11:06
  Speaker 2: same looking at the cases that were not leading to
• 11:10
  Speaker 2: convictions that they believe should have where a swing factor
• 11:13
  Speaker 2: was forensic evidence. And we need to wait to see
• 11:18
  Speaker 2: how this application proceeds. Defense lawyers will want to pick
• 11:24
  Speaker 2: apart these applications, possibly test them all the way to
• 11:28
  Speaker 2: the High Court because this is a potential disaster for hundreds,
• 11:33
  Speaker 2: hundreds and hundreds of potential future defendants, and I can
• 11:39
  Speaker 2: see it being contested. But if the law and the
• 11:43
  Speaker 2: changes that have been introduced by Deb Brecklington to ensure
• 11:48
  Speaker 2: that the incompetence the malfeasance of scientists in the former
• 11:54
  Speaker 2: lab is not a barrier to the notion that the
• 12:01
  Speaker 2: DNA that is now being recovered is fresh and compelling,
• 12:05
  Speaker 2: then these matters should proceed and will be seeing a
• 12:09
  Speaker 2: lot more action over coming months and years in the
• 12:13
  Speaker 2: Supreme Court and the District Court.
• 12:16
  Speaker 1: We often see very loud public campaigns for people to
• 12:20
  Speaker 1: be freed from jail when there's a feeling that there's
• 12:22
  Speaker 1: been a miscarriage of justice of some kind that have been
• 12:24
  Speaker 1: celebrated cases in Australia, where people who have been convicted
• 12:27
  Speaker 1: of offenses are subsequently freed. However, many people who make
• 12:32
  Speaker 1: an accusation about sexual assault leave that experience feeling as
• 12:36
  Speaker 1: though the accused has more rights than they do, that
• 12:39
  Speaker 1: they are looked after better by the criminal justice system
• 12:42
  Speaker 1: than the victim. Is what's your sense heavily of that
• 12:44
  Speaker 1: balance in these matters.
• 12:46
  Speaker 2: Well, I think that the balance is hopefully going to
• 12:49
  Speaker 2: be more evenly weighted so that the victims of crime
• 12:53
  Speaker 2: have a fighting chance, and that the accused persons who
• 12:59
  Speaker 2: have been able to literally get away with very serious
• 13:04
  Speaker 2: cases from murder down, they're going to have a big shock.
• 13:09
  Speaker 2: They're going to be arrested and charged again, and they'll
• 13:15
  Speaker 2: bleed and whine about how perhaps they've already been through
• 13:18
  Speaker 2: this process they were already acquitted. Well, yeah, too bad.
• 13:21
  Speaker 2: You were acquitted because there was an abject failure in
• 13:26
  Speaker 2: a forensic laboratory that the police and the victims of
• 13:31
  Speaker 2: crime couldn't have known about it at the time. It
• 13:35
  Speaker 2: took an extraordinary forensic biologist in Kirsty Right. It took
• 13:42
  Speaker 2: her pouring over hundreds of documents that I had been
• 13:46
  Speaker 2: able to collect for the Shandy story investigation, and then
• 13:51
  Speaker 2: Kirsty to identify the most fundamental failures in that lab
• 13:57
  Speaker 2: which led to them knowingly, it seems, compromising the quality
• 14:04
  Speaker 2: and the control of testing, so changing parameters that led
• 14:09
  Speaker 2: to the failure of DNA to be detected, and somehow
• 14:15
  Speaker 2: weirdly being prepared to claim that they were performing better
• 14:20
  Speaker 2: because they were getting through more samples, even though they
• 14:23
  Speaker 2: were achieving what they were designed really tasked with doing,
• 14:27
  Speaker 2: which was fine the evidence hellly.
• 14:29
  Speaker 1: Just finally, a man was charged with murdering Shandy, John Perros,
• 14:33
  Speaker 1: who always denied any wrongdoing. He was acquitted. A coroner
• 14:37
  Speaker 1: subsequently found that he was responsible for Shandy's murder. Again,
• 14:40
  Speaker 1: he's always denied that. He's suing the Australian for defamation
• 14:44
  Speaker 1: in a matter that we are very strongly defending. Is
• 14:47
  Speaker 1: there any hope do you think that in Shandy's own case,
• 14:50
  Speaker 1: which of course triggered this whole thing, there might be
• 14:54
  Speaker 1: fresh charges laid or a killer might be caught.
• 14:58
  Speaker 2: There's always hope, Claire, and I wish I had a
• 15:02
  Speaker 2: bird's eye view of what's going on in that case.
• 15:05
  Speaker 2: The Central Coroner for Queensland has reopened his inquest as
• 15:12
  Speaker 2: a result of the disclosures in the Shandy Story podcast
• 15:16
  Speaker 2: and the subsequent commissions of inquiry which found so much
• 15:21
  Speaker 2: more that was wrong in the forensic lab. There is
• 15:26
  Speaker 2: undoubtedly a lot of very sophisticated work that is ongoing
• 15:32
  Speaker 2: and still to be done to try to determine whether
• 15:36
  Speaker 2: an offender can be identified in Shandy's case. It may
• 15:41
  Speaker 2: be though that case will never be fully or properly
• 15:47
  Speaker 2: solved to the satisfaction of Shandy's mum, Vicki, and Shandy's
• 15:52
  Speaker 2: sister Shunner, and her other family and friends. But Shandy's
• 15:58
  Speaker 2: legacy is what's happening now.
• 16:02
  Speaker 1: Here's Shandy's mom, Vicki Blackburn.
• 16:05
  Speaker 6: We've advocated for these changes for a while now, and
• 16:10
  Speaker 6: honestly I was which if we were ever going to
• 16:13
  Speaker 6: see them come to fruition, but very very pleased and
• 16:18
  Speaker 6: to see that this has happened today. It's going to
• 16:20
  Speaker 6: be life changing for so many of those victims.
• 16:24
  Speaker 2: We wouldn't be in this place with the double jeopardy
• 16:28
  Speaker 2: cases being now going through the courts, and other victims
• 16:33
  Speaker 2: of crime who never knew Shandy potentially having another chance
• 16:37
  Speaker 2: at their justice.
• 16:40
  Speaker 1: It's quite remarkable. Thank you very much.
• 16:44
  Speaker 2: Thank you.
• 16:44
  Speaker 1: Claire Headley Thomas is The Australian's national Chief correspondent. You
• 16:50
  Speaker 1: can listen to Shandy's story right now wherever you're hearing
• 16:53
  Speaker 1: this episode of the Front and read all the best
• 16:56
  Speaker 1: in news, sports, business and politics at the Australian dot
• 17:00
  Speaker 1: com dot at you