SciBlogs

Legal Aid costs and forensic science: the cost of justice? Anna Sandiford May 04

1 Comment

NZ has spent NZ$1 billion dollars on Legal Aid in the last 12 years, since 2000.  So it is reported: The cost of justice: legal aid bill $1 billion .

The five most expensive cases involved individuals found not guilty or whose cases were discharged. Based on my experience, it costs money to investigate a criminal defence case thoroughly – at least three of those cases involved forensic science, which usually should be reviewed by a specialist witness if any of the facts and issues in dispute are based on science.

Had there not been a strong case to follow then the costs in these cases would not have reached these levels – something in those cases made the defence teams carry on.

Jonathan Temm of the Law Society said that although the defendants in those cases had some of the best lawyers in the business, such lawyers are moving away from legal aid because of frustration at recent changes in the way legal aid is being paid to lawyers.

I have to agree – fixed fees are contentious and don’t seem to cover the amount of time that lawyers actually have to spend on cases if the cases take a turn onto the Complicated Highway. On top of that, I have heard from several criminal defence lawyers that they have not applied for legal aid contracts because it just isn’t worth it. Some are changing careers altogether because there is a limit to the number of defendants facing criminal charges who can afford to pay their legal costs privately.

The problem with losing good criminal defence lawyers is that access to justice will be compromised, there will be more appeals and, potentially, miscarriages of justice. Aside from the effects that has on the people involved, the costs of dealing with criminal cases beyond the first trial creates more expense in the longer term. From a scientific review perspective, reviewing a case prior to a first trial is cheaper because there is less paperwork to consider; trials and appeals generate a lot of testimony that has to be taken into account in any case review. It is also far more appropriate, given how difficult it is to obtain a retrial or appeal. Do it as well as possible the first time round – having the best and most appropriately qualified team is critical.

I have my suspicions already that the changes in Legal Aid are affecting the criminal justice system. Independent forensic colleagues from across a range of expertise are commenting to me that the amount of work has dropped off noticeably. The number of issues to be considered in cases can’t be changing because crime isn’t dropping that much so, given that there are only so many people working in the independent forensic science sector, where has the work gone? Is this related to changes in how lawyers are being paid by Legal Aid, the changes in the criminal justice system and how lawyers are adjusting to their futures? I hope this is temporary turmoil but how will things be looking this time next year?

Print This Post Print This Post

ABC. Assume nothing. Believe nobody. Check everything. Anna Sandiford Apr 29

No Comments

ABC. Assume nothing. Believe nobody. Check everything.  This is the mantra of British crime scene manager John Cockram.  That is a truly excellent mantra and pretty much covers all you need to know about forensic science.  His commentary on crime scene examination is fabulous reading in The Guardian’s The real CSI: what happens at a crime scene?

Along with a recent episode produced by Frontline entitled The Real CSI: how reliable is the science behind forensics and you pretty much get a good idea of what’s going on – good and bad. For example, fingerprints are not infallible: the Madrid bombing case and in the Scottish case of HM Advocate v McKie are excellent examples of this issue. In fact, in the McKie case one of the main findings was:
“The Fingerprint Inquiry Report” December 2011
The subjective nature of fingerprint evidence
Recommendation 1 (Para 35.132)
Fingerprint evidence should be recognised as opinion evidence, not fact, and those involved in the criminal justice system need to assess it as such on its merits.

The England & Wales case of R v T is a controversial commentary in the world of forensic science of the method of interpretation of footwear mark findings. It all adds up to having to check what is being presented in court.

For any forensic science students, jurors, judges, lawyers, interested parties and, in fact, forensic scientists and police officers, these media productions are well worth the effort to read and watch.

Forensic science seems to be like the old rhyme: “There Was A Little Girl who had a little curl right in the middle of her forehead. When she was good, she was very, very good and when she was bad she was horrid.”

Print This Post Print This Post

Forensic science 360 degree crime scene mapping Anna Sandiford Apr 21

No Comments

Revolutionising crime scene investigation seems to be the net result of the 360-degree crime scene mapping developed and used by ESR Forensic, as seen on TV: TV3 News. I’ve seen this technology at work and it does seem to do a great job of recording the scene.

As with all new technologies though we need to know its limitations and understand what has to be considered. Digital experts will want to be able to track any modifications that are done to the raw data and we will also need to have a transparent history of who handled the data and made any amendments and the effects of those amendments. This will range from adjustments at the time the the data was being collected and stored right through to the time that additional information is added to the imaging sequence created. (Apologies if my terminology is inaccurate – I’m not a digital forensic expert).

Perhaps most significantly from a forensic scientist’s point of view will be the addition to the footage of the results of the scientific tests, e.g. the DNA results that can be ‘tagged’ onto the footage. This is a great idea, but only if the results are in no way in contention. If, for example, a blood stain is identified and the result is a mixture of two people, there may be provisos around the interpretation and who is (or is not) represented in that blood stain. These provisos should be represented in the tags on the footage so that they can be taken into account when the footage is viewed – visual representation is a very powerful medium and its impact on the triers of fact should not be underestimated.

Not only are lawyers going to need to check that the science in statements is correct, they are also going to need to check that the results tagged to the footage are correct before it gets shown in court. Otherwise, we could end up with footage that is potentially more prejudicial than probative.

Print This Post Print This Post

Tearing knickers and why it needs to be done Anna Sandiford Apr 10

No Comments

Those leaders in science blogging and the founders of the the Ig Nobel Prize at improbable.com blogged last week about new research from Otago University with a blog entitled A new twist in forensic knicker-testing. It’s a brief (no pun actually intended) post that states an NZ study “tested the tearing of knickers, and found that meaningful results are not easy to obtain if one examines only the fabric itself.” The research itself was actually about lab testing completed in order to test the tear behaviour of three knit fabrics, typical of those used to manufacture knickers, including the effect of laundering (Dann et al 2012. Tearing of knicker fabrics. For Sci Int doi).

Whilst this may seem strange to some, it is in actual fact one of those areas of research on which papers have already been published. Sexual assaults are a very common source of complaints to police. They are also amongst some of the most difficult to assess, particularly if the parties are known to each other; it’s often a he-says-she-says situation. The way fabric is damaged is often a key part of a police investigation and can assist with determining the credibility or otherwise of the accounts of the (usually) male and female involved in the incident.  Clothing fabrics evolve over time so it is important for there to be continuing research as new fabrics come onto the market.

The research findings were not necessarily  surprising: cotton and cotton-rich fabrics were more difficult to tear than modal-rich fabrics; addition of elastane increased the time for the tear to start because elastane allowed the fabric to stretch more before breaking. The materials behaved differently depending on which direction they were torn; fabric that had been washed needed less force to cause tearing than new. Overall, when examining torn clothing items the fibre content and age of the garment should be taken into consideration. However, there were limitations to the testing, including that only fabric was tested, not actual items of underwear.

In fact, if I didn’t know the significance of this research then I would probably be muttering about how research money should be spent on things that we don’t already know; surely all this research is doing is stating the obvious – of course older more worn and washed knickers will tear more easily than new ones and of course some materials are easier to tear than others and of course if they have elastic in them then they’ll stretch more before breaking because that’s the whole point of adding elastic.

However, the American National Academy of Sciences gave forensic science a massive hammering in 2009 – basically, everything apart from DNA needed a thorough review before being considered acceptable in a court of law and that we should regularly test the science. They were right. Which means we have to carry on researching and then testing and updating the original research.

What it means now is that there is a whole raft of research going on that should have been done years ago, before any of this sort of information was given as evidence in court. In accordance with numerous Codes of Ethics, criminal procedure rules and forensic requirements, scientists should state the basis of any opinion they give in court, including citing relevant, peer-reviewed scientific literature.

This new research paper doesn’t mean that if damage is seen to underwear a sexual assault necessarily occurred – it just means forensic scientists can cite another scientific paper regarding the mechanisms of tearing. Whether a sexual assault occurred will be for the court to decide and more than just underwear damage is usually required to make that decision.

Print This Post Print This Post

International Justice Conference – lessons learned? Probably not yet but it’s a start Anna Sandiford Apr 09

No Comments

I arrive in Perth in 40 degree heat with a fierce wind whipping across the Hertz car park and the promise that it’ll be 45 by Sunday. I’m well and truly heated through by the time I get to my tiny hire car. I have no idea what is ahead of me for the next four days and, with hindsight, I am not mentally prepared for what I see and hear.

Most of my conference attendances are about networking, meeting colleagues, learning about the newest advances in forensic science or changes in the law. Conference attendees are usually present because of their involvement in the criminal justice system but it’s very rare that we ever see or hear from the people whose lives we directly affect. And why would we? As forensic scientists, we are there to assist the court with areas of specialist knowledge. The personal touch is not something that is relevant to us – the police and the lawyers deal with the families, victims, complainants and defendants. Not our job.

This is the first conference I’ve ever attended where I haven’t looked at the programme, worked my socialising through it and considered the usual questions faced by many conference delegates: Which presentations do I want to attend and why do they clash?!  Do I have to be there for the opening welcome ceremony? Shall I go to session 18 or not?  Is it correct etiquette to sit through the whole session even if I only want to see the second presentation?

By contrast, there is nothing I don’t want to see at this conference. Even the icebreaker cocktail event is on my list of things to do because, let’s face it, there are some pretty famous people at this conference and I can learn something off all of them. It is hosted by Estelle Blackburn, an award-winning journalist who spent years chasing around the country looking for the real reason behind the deaths of Rosemary Anderson and Jillian Brewer (plus several other people). Which is odd really, when you consider that a serial murderer confessed to being their killer before being hanged in 1964, the last man to hang in Western Australia.  Some would say he only said it because he was about to be hanged and who would believe a condemned man? But, as with all these things, you have to know the whole story before being able to make comment. It’s easy enough to find the whole story now because after Estelle spent 13 years hunting down and compiling it, mostly because the Police hadn’t, she put it all in a book. As a result, two innocent men were exonerated, nearly 40 years after they were originally charged, sentenced and almost condemned to Death Row. Both served out their full jail terms.

The opening presentation of The International Justice Conference in Perth from 8 to 11 March was given by John Button. He played a snippet of the jury’s announcement at the end of his 1963 Perth trial for the Murder by Vehicle Impact of his girlfriend, who was the same Rosemary Anderson I mentioned earlier. The snippet featured the judge asking the jury foreman whether they found the accused, John Button, guilty or not guilty of murder. The answer was “not guilty”.  John Button thought his nightmare was over.

Then the audio account revealed the chairman of the jury apologising to the judge, saying he thought he had said the wrong words; he meant to say “guilty”.

BAM! Right there is the first impact of this conference. Not just for me but for pratically everyone in the room. Imagine that – an innocent man standing trial for murder, having faith in the system to find him not guilty and hearing the words ‘Not Guilty’. Only to have them ripped away and told he’s guilty of murder of a person he loved. Remember: it took 40 years for him to clear his name after it was proved that the murder was committed by someone else – the same someone who had confessed to it before being hanged for other crimes so many years ago.

It goes on from there. More harrowing accounts. They include:

  • The case of Kenny Waters, who spent 18 years in prison and whose story has been made into a Hollywood film (Conviction, starring Hilary Swank). Kenny’s sister, Betty Anne Waters, gave a dinner speech about how she trained in law so she could have her brother as a client. She did all that training and then found out that not only were items that could be tested for DNA sitting in a cardboard box, untested, but that her brother was cleared of involvement in the case within days of the murder for which he was convicted – his fingerprints didn’t match the ones found at the scene. Evidence was fabricated or altered by a police officer.  Sadly (and not in the film so I’m not ruining it), Kenny died six months after his sister helped secure his release from prison.
  • Less well-known in this part of the world but no less significant was the case of Chris Ochoa who was coerced into a false confession to murder and sexual assault – he gave three statements to the police, until he finally got the ‘facts’ right to the satisfaction of the police. He was later exonerated through DNA.
  • Lindy Chamberlain-Creighton whose 9-week-old baby was taken by a dingo is probably one of Australasia’s most well-known cases.  Part of her conviction was based on mis-identification of sound deadener spatter sprayed in a car at the time of manufacture as being blood. The forensic science was done badly yet the scientist apparently did not accept that to be the case.
  • A police crash investigator who examined John Button’s car said it hadn’t been in an impact with a human being, yet he didn’t say that at trial because he was told by the police he had to change his opinion if he still wanted a job.
  • In a recent case, an independent forensic scientist found DNA evidence that refuted the Crown’s contention that a defendant’s DNA was present in a crime scene sample. This struck a chord with me because there was a very similar case in NZ a couple of years ago. The difference was that the prosecution dropped the case on the day of the trial in the NZ example; in the Australian case the Crown’s expert had to be walked through the DNA results and even though they agreed with the individual DNA results presented by the independent expert, they refused to accept that the defendant could be excluded as a source of the DNA.
  • The case that had the most effect on me was that of Graham Stafford. It could have been because he was the last of the conference or it could have been watching the massive damaging impact his miscarriage of justice had on him – not only when in prison but after being released. I won’t go into it in detail because I felt like he gave an insight into something very personal that would not be appropriate for sharing – it’s his story and he should tell it. In 1992 he was convicted of the 1991 murder of his then-girlfriend’s younger sister, Leanne Holland, aged 12. After 14 years in prison, he was released (Supreme Court of Queensland’s 2009 judgment can be found here). It seems likely that Leanne was killed by a serial killer, not unlike the cases several decades before of John Button and Darryl Beamish who were both convicted of crimes perpetrated by a single, different man.

Of course David Bain and Joe Karam were there too, Mr Bain giving his first public presentation about his case. Other than some NZ media hype, David Bain was no different from any of the other people who gave presentations at the conference. The scientific problems in his case, with which I am very familiar having spent 9 months involved with the retrial, were also no different from the ones I heard at the conference: different case circumstances, same basic problems.

Although the emotional aspects of the cases are very cutting, it could be said that as a forensic scientist I have no place being affected by emotion. It’s a fair comment. Now I’ve had a chance to digest all of what I saw and heard, what actually had the biggest impact on me was the familiarity of many of the accounts of the personnel (mostly lawyers and scientists) in these cases. Particularly having to hear again and again how bad forensic science was a major contributor to many convictions, how unprepared or inexperienced lawyers did not test the science at trial, how bad investigative decisions had major knock-on effects leading to the final conviction, only to later be found wanting.  I’ve seen all of these in cases on which I have worked and on which I am still working.  NZ is no different from the rest of the world in this respect.

Lindy Chamberlain-Creighton’s lawyer Stuart Tipple described a tale of the constant fight within the justice system for disclosure of material and documents. This was echoed by Betty Anne Waters and others including Barry Scheck, Director of the Innocence Project. My own experiences are similar – in some cases (not all) it is nigh on impossible to obtain copies of the documentation to which we are entitled under the relevant legislation.

Forensic science has done a lot of excellent work.  In some ways, it has revolutionised criminal prosecutions.  We see regular presentations on how well the science has done in convicting the truly guilty – and there are examples aplenty of those, of which forensic science can justifiably be proud.  But it has also let a lot of people down and we can’t hide from that.  As well as showing off the good things that forensic science has achieved it’s just as important to remember how heavy a burden forensic scientists carry when they give evidence and how much the court relies on the expert witness being open enough to accept other possibilities, especially when new information becomes available.

To me this conference was not about revenge or finger-pointing or blame. It was about reality; the reality being that people were let down by the justice system and let down by science.  The key is to learn from those mistakes, make the reporting more transparent, keep the confidence of the criminal justice system.  Miscarriages of justice will still occur  – as a forensic scientist I have to work on the basis that if we fully, fairly, accurately and transparently report our findings as impartially as possible then maybe future miscarriages of justice won’t be the result of forensic science.

This is also the first conference I’ve attended for which advertising was banned in certain circles – the WA Law Society refused to allow advertising of it. Why? There didn’t seem to be a satisfactory answer to that from the representative on the legal panel discussion about Ethics.

Print This Post Print This Post

International Justice Conference: let’s see how it goes…. Anna Sandiford Mar 05

1 Comment

Many people will have watched 60 Minutes’ interview with David Bain on Sunday.  This weekend he gives his first public presentation at The International Justice Conference and I will be there to hear it and all the others.

Mr Bain will be amongst other people who have stories to tell about cases that have gone wrong. I will be very interested to see how the science is presented as many of these cases have elements of poor, inadequate or incomplete forensic science.

What I hope is that this conference will not only deal with the issues that people have to manage in cases such as these but what we can learn from them – that includes the science. I’ll keep you posted…

Print This Post Print This Post

Sexual assault prosecution: where’s the science fit in? Anna Sandiford Feb 19

3 Comments

The NZ Law Commission this week has opened consultation on Alternative Trial Processes including potential changes in the way sexual assault cases are prosecuted. In the introduction to the consultation paper it states:

The limitations of the adversarial system in general are particularly profound in cases of sexual violence. The adversarial trial model is ill-suited to dealing with cases involving allegations of sexual offending. This is evident in the high attrition rates applying at all stages of the criminal justice system with respect to such cases. The limitations of the system are also evident when dealing with other categories of cases, such as family violence and child abuse. It was these concerns that led to the Commission’s current reference.

The NZ Herald runs an interesting story about whether or not it is appropriate in such cases to alter the jury format from the current 12 lay members and a judge to a judge and two semi-professional jurors.

The scope of the Commission’s remit is broader than just that one area and includes other suggestions such as having only lawyers who are specially or additionally trained in dealing with these cases being able to prosecute/defend them.

The Commission states:

Lawyers appearing in cases that require particular specialisation (for example, because of the difficulties and dynamics of dealing with the sorts of witnesses involved or the complexities of the evidential rules) may generally appear without any additional training and without restriction or supervision. That may lead to the presentation of evidence in an inappropriate way; to unduly aggressive or oppressive cross-examination; and to outcomes that depend more on the performance of counsel than on the intrinsic merits of the case.

About judges it has this to say:

Unlike civil law jurisdictions, judges do not emerge through a judicial career path. They are appointed to the Bench after an extensive period in legal practice, usually as a lawyer in the private sector. They may have specialised in commercial, family, environmental or another specialist legal area, or they may have had a general practice with little criminal law. They therefore do not necessarily have an extensive background in criminal litigation. What training they do receive is generally “on the job” and through seminars arranged by the Institute of Judicial Studies.

Moreover, in the absence of any training or additional information, they may approach particular sorts of cases (notably sexual violence and family violence cases) with some of the array of myths and prejudices about such offending that jurors will bring to the task

I agree with the Commission that it would preferable for lawyers and judges in these cases to have additional training.  My reasons are, predictably, far more science-focussed.

The thing about sexual assault cases is that there can be several elements of science involved in them and the results are often critical in establishing the facts of the case. Many cases are “he-said-she-said” and come down to the credibility of the witnesses.  These cases therefore are helped by any independent information that can be tested before being accepted as evidence.  These could be anything from:

  • how any medical examination was undertaken, whether or not the examination was undertaken using the proper examination kit and whether there is any information in the examination notes that is important but hasn’t been fully considered in light of the case as it develops;
  • whether DNA could or should have been transferred from one party to another if the events occurred as described by each party and how significant is it if it was/wasn’t;
  • how to interpret DNA results if there has been social contact between the parties or the parties are blood related;
  • condom analysis for flavouring and/or lubricant and the significance when these are or aren’t found;
  • whether or not the analytical work completed was appropriate for the case or whether more could have been done and whether more can still be done;
  • if alcohol/drugs were involved, is it possible to indicate how these could have affected any of the parties and, indeed, any witnesses to the incident.
  • before we even get to the scientific examination and analysis, were items collected and stored in the correct manner so that we know they weren’t accidentally contaminated or the results compromised?  For example, making sure that wet swabs for DNA analysis are dried – warm, damp conditions can cause DNA to deteriorate, thus compromising what results could have been available.

To cover all these types of issues requires several different scientists (e.g. those who examine items and record findings, collect the samples, and select the samples for examination; those who conduct DNA analyses; forensic toxicologists who analyse body fluids for the presence of drugs and alcohol; specialists in condom analyses).

Being aware of all of this all requires some scientific knowledge on the parts of the courts and lawyers, particularly defence lawyers who do not have unlimited access to the Police’s contracted scientists.  Science changes with time so methods improve and what can be achieved with science changes.

It would be extremely helpful to train lawyers in the outline scientific issues that crop up in these cases.  It is many an occasion when I hear a lawyer say that they didn’t like science at school and don’t like it when they have to deal with scientific reports – in those cases, let the scientists help!  We love science and should be good at explaining complex issues in an easily understandable way to anyone who needs to know.

Science shouldn’t be a barrier to understanding the factual basis of a case: it should be the way to make the court’s job easier by getting rid of some of the smoke and mirrors that can go on.  All we have to do is make sure that the court has an awareness of when science can help – let’s hope this review can help with that.

Print This Post Print This Post

Dead man sued because his flying body parts hit a passer-by..and other stories (only in the USA) Anna Sandiford Jan 13

No Comments

No matter what is happening in the NZ legal system, we don’t have the same sorts of issues as the Americans seem to have.  This is from FindLaw.

5. Tourist Sues Hooker for Leaving ½ Hour Early

College student Hubert Blackman was in Las Vegas. He decided to party it up by ordering a “stripper” from Las Vegas Exclusive Personals. The stripper came, gave him a lap dance, and performed a sex act on Blackman. She also left a half an hour early. Blackman then sued the company for a $275 refund and $1.8 million for the “tragic events” that took place.

4. ‘Bad Mothering’ Lawsuit: Kids Sued Mom over Empty B-Day Card

Attorney Steven A. Miner helped his kids file a lawsuit against his ex-wife for being a “bad mother.” The kids said that they were subjected to empty birthday cards, clothing budgets, seat belts, and their mother’s “forgetfulness.”

3. Man Sues to Recreate Wedding Photos of Failed Marriage

New Yorker Todd Remis sued his wedding photographer for missing out on the last fifteen minutes of his nuptials. He sought damages to recreate his wedding. The kicker: he was already divorced. He also didn’t know where his ex lived.

2. Man Killed by Train is Sued: Flying Body Parts Injured Woman

Illinois woman Gayane Zokhrabov filed suit against the estate of a deceased man. The deceased 18-year-old had died after getting hit by a train. After he was hit, parts of his body went flying — injuring Zokhrabov. She sued over her injuries.

1. Kidnapper Sues Hostages for Breaching ‘Contract’ to Hide Him

The most outrageous and strangest lawsuit to come out of 2011 might be this one. A convicted kidnapper in Colorado sued his former hostages for breaching an oral contract to hide him when he was a fugitive. He sought damages to compensate him for injuries incurred during his arrest.

Print This Post Print This Post

New drug driving campaign Anna Sandiford Jan 12

1 Comment

After my spectacular unavailability to be able to appear on TV today about the new drug driving campaign, I thought I would add my general comments here.

There is no doubt that drug driving is a problem in New Zealand, as it is in other countries.

Alcohol is treated differently under the law because it is possible to relate the amount of alcohol in a driver’s blood with a degree of driving impairment. Alcohol is currently the only drug for which this is the case, which is why we have defined limits in the law: 400 in breath and 80 in blood for adults (zero tolerance for youth).

Ad campaign
As for the ad campaign, it seems to demonstrate very nicely the difference between the perceived “she’ll be right” attitude of drugged (and drink) drivers and the reality of people who are not affected by drugs (or drink). We don’t like the thought of drugged drivers on our roads any more than drink drivers because we are put in danger by them: the survival instinct kicks in and we don’t want to be put at risk by someone else’s actions.

If this campaign works then it will be great – but how will it stop people driving when they have taken drugs? Once someone has taken drugs, just like with alcohol, judgement becomes impaired and the driver cannot make a sensible decision about whether or not they should be driving.

It will take non-drug impaired people to stop those who are drug impaired from getting behind the wheel.

It will also need people to think about when they take drugs – if they decide to take them, do they have to drive afterwards or can they wait until the drugs wear off?

Many people get caught drink driving the morning after they have had a heavy, late night on the booze – they don’t realise how long it takes alcohol to be removed from their system. It’s the same with some drugs.

Educating people about drugs (including alcohol) in the body is a controversial area. How do we educate people about how long it takes for drugs to be removed from the system? Is it socially responsible to do that?

Effects of drugs
Different drugs affect different people in different ways and sometimes the same person different ways on different days – you just have to ask someone who has used cannabis with differing effects – the difference between a great high and a bad reaction (what is called a ‘whitey’ in England). Mix the drugs being taken and things become even more unpredictable. Cannabis usually depresses the central nervous system – I’ve had several cases where drivers have been stopped by the police because they were driving too slowly and too carefully: no high-speed car chases in those cases, for sure. Not such a danger you might think but what happens if they have to stop suddenly for a child running into the road?

Other drugs are a stimulant, such as methamphetamine – look at the case involving the courier driver who was accidentally shot by police on the motorway in Auckland when they were chasing a P addict. P addicts can be awake for several days and their driving would be expected to be erratic.

If someone is new to a prescription drug or has had their brand changed or their dose increased, the body takes time to adjust.

Revised NZ drug driving law
The revised drug driving law is relatively new in New Zealand – the amendments, including the use of compulsory impairment tests, came into effect in December 2010. This company does many drink driving cases each year but we have yet to be instructed in more than a handful of drug driving cases under the new legislation. Discussions with lawyers have shown that there is not yet any case law about this revised law.

The key to new legislation will be testing it in the courts and then, if for some reason cases are failing to proceed to successful prosecution (i.e. driver found guilty) then the law may have to be reviewed and tweaked, as it was in England and Wales.

Overall, there is no doubt that people in New Zealand are driving after having taken drugs. The key is to either stop them getting in their cars in the first place or correctly identifying those drivers whilst they are actually on the road.

Statistics
Just a note on the various statistics that are being quoted, e.g.:

31 per cent of drivers had used cannabis with or without alcohol or other drugs.
14 per cent had used drugs other than alcohol or cannabis.

These sorts of statistics need careful examination – I would assume that reference to “cannabis” means the active ingredient of cannabis (THC) was detected. Otherwise, detecting the inactive metabolites of cannabis doesn’t mean anything because they can be present in the body for days without causing someone to be ‘stoned’.

Also, the concentration of the drugs found is important – trace amounts may not cause impairment so would be a red herring when trying to indicate how drugs are problem when it comes to driving.

It took a long time to change the drink drive culture – and it’s still in progress. This series of adverts is a step to changing the drug driving culture too.

Print This Post Print This Post

Body on the Queen’s estate – actors comment on forensic science Anna Sandiford Jan 10

2 Comments

I have to admit to having been so desperate for something to watch on TV a couple of nights ago that I ended up watching Entertainment Tonight – you know, that American gossip programme about famous people, many of whom I have never heard or seen before (I accept that I am out of touch with American celebrity gossip….).

Anyway, the issue of the body found on the Queen’s Sandringham Estate arose, which in itself seemed strange as this is a real news story being discussed on a gossip programme.  Imagine my surprise when they started to interview the actors from American fictional crime programme NCIS about how the scene will be examined, what samples would be collected and how an identification would be made!  Since when have we come to consider opinions of actors for how a police investigation will progress?????  Needless to say I had to shout at the TV as they were saying things like “well, they’ll take a sample of blood and get a DNA profile and compare it to the DNA database.”  Really?!?!  The deceased was located in a rural location and had been there for some time, including some of the summer time.  The chances of obtaining a full DNA profile from a suitably preserved sample of blood are pretty slim.  Plus comparison with a DNA database is only fruitful if the individual in question is on the database – not the case for the entire population of England (or New Zealand or the USA, come to that).

So imagine the muttering I started when I read that the Police had to identify the deceased using details from her palm and that there had been problems with identification. 

I don’t want to be right about this sort of thing but it’s a matter of reality versus fiction.  It’s hard enough having to deal with an outdoor recovery scene and remains that have been present for some time; having actors comment on how a case ID might unfold is just unhelpful – at best people in the general public end up thinking that identification is quick and easy, which results in unrealistic expectations when a family has to deal with such an event in real life.

If in doubt, ask an expert, not an actor.

Print This Post Print This Post

« Older Entries