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