❓ Question raises concerns about lack of coordination between investigative agencies and PathWest, leading to trial delays. Answer acknowledges the issue and outlines steps being taken to address it, including linking record systems and establishing priorities.
AnsweredQoN 141Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
PATHWEST AND INVESTIGATIVE AGENCIES - COMMON NUMBERING SYSTEM
I refer to an address given in December by the chief executive officer of PathWest to the criminal trial delay committee, of which the Attorney General has been informed, explaining why so many District Court trials were vacated last year because no forensic evidence was available. (1) Why has no common numbering system been developed between the investigative agencies and PathWest so that PathWest can match items to particular prosecutions? (2) Why are the investigative agencies not, in computer jargon, “talking to each other”? (3) When investigative agencies decide not to proceed with cases or when a case is finalised, why is PathWest not informed so that unnecessary examinations can be taken out of the long queue? (4) How many forensic scientists are being trained in PathWest’s two-year course, which is required to ensure that they can provide legally viable forensic opinion in court cases? Mr J.A. McGINTY
I refer to an address given in December by the chief executive officer of PathWest to the criminal trial delay committee, of which the Attorney General has been informed, explaining why so many District Court trials were vacated last year because no forensic evidence was available. (1) Why has no common numbering system been developed between the investigative agencies and PathWest so that PathWest can match items to particular prosecutions? (2) Why are the investigative agencies not, in computer jargon, “talking to each other”? (3) When investigative agencies decide not to proceed with cases or when a case is finalised, why is PathWest not informed so that unnecessary examinations can be taken out of the long queue? (4) How many forensic scientists are being trained in PathWest’s two-year course, which is required to ensure that they can provide legally viable forensic opinion in court cases? Mr J.A. McGINTY
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for Nedlands for the question. (1)-(4) The issue of linking the police, the Director of Public Prosecutions and PathWest records has been pursued particularly by the new Chief Justice, Wayne Martin, and has arisen out of a number of trials in which the lack of coordination and the presentation of DNA in particular, but also other forensic evidence, has been criticised. As a result of the Chief Justice raising this matter with me, I have had discussions with both the head of PathWest and the DPP about doing exactly what the member has proposed; that is, to link the recording system to the common numbering system between each of the agencies involved in the presentation of forensic evidence to the courts. It is important not only that they have a common numbering system, but also that priorities be clearly established. The police regularly provide samples for analysis by PathWest to determine whether charges will be laid. What we see regularly is the need for those to be prioritised. In the past there has been inadequate communication between the various agencies - the police, the DPP and PathWest - in the way in which people are told what is a priority. It came to focus most recently in an article on the front page of the Sunday Times and in criticism of the delays in the delivery of pathology services, which has featured fairly prominently in the media in the past few days. I will make a very brief comment about that case. I have now had the opportunity to be fully briefed by the DPP. What has not yet come out in the media, and which I think casts a different colour over that case, is that the accused, who was found not guilty at the trial, initially denied having any knowledge of the alleged rape victim; in fact, the alleged rapist had her DNA on his underpants. That evidence was ascertained by forensic procedures and was presented to the court. That casts a somewhat different aspect over that case from the way in which it was portrayed initially by the Sunday Times and subsequently by other media outlets. The Director of Public Prosecutions has advised me that in his view there was an extremely strong case for prosecuting that particular individual. That is the reason that he - and I support his decision - opted to continue with the prosecution. The fact that the jury was out for many hours deliberating on the conflicts flowing from the fact that initially the girl - the complainant - did not tell the full story, and the boy told lies to investigating officers, I think casts a somewhat different complexion over that case than that which has been portrayed publicly.
(1) Why has no common numbering system been developed between the investigative agencies and PathWest so that PathWest can match items to particular prosecutions? (2) Why are the investigative agencies not, in computer jargon, “talking to each other”? (3) When investigative agencies decide not to proceed with cases or when a case is finalised, why is PathWest not informed so that unnecessary examinations can be taken out of the long queue? (4) How many forensic scientists are being trained in PathWest’s two-year course, which is required to ensure that they can provide legally viable forensic opinion in court cases? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: I thank the member for Nedlands for the question. (1)-(4) The issue of linking the police, the Director of Public Prosecutions and PathWest records has been pursued particularly by the new Chief Justice, Wayne Martin, and has arisen out of a number of trials in which the lack of coordination and the presentation of DNA in particular, but also other forensic evidence, has been criticised. As a result of the Chief Justice raising this matter with me, I have had discussions with both the head of PathWest and the DPP about doing exactly what the member has proposed; that is, to link the recording system to the common numbering system between each of the agencies involved in the presentation of forensic evidence to the courts. It is important not only that they have a common numbering system, but also that priorities be clearly established. The police regularly provide samples for analysis by PathWest to determine whether charges will be laid. What we see regularly is the need for those to be prioritised. In the past there has been inadequate communication between the various agencies - the police, the DPP and PathWest - in the way in which people are told what is a priority. It came to focus most recently in an article on the front page of the Sunday Times and in criticism of the delays in the delivery of pathology services, which has featured fairly prominently in the media in the past few days. I will make a very brief comment about that case. I have now had the opportunity to be fully briefed by the DPP. What has not yet come out in the media, and which I think casts a different colour over that case, is that the accused, who was found not guilty at the trial, initially denied having any knowledge of the alleged rape victim; in fact, the alleged rapist had her DNA on his underpants. That evidence was ascertained by forensic procedures and was presented to the court. That casts a somewhat different aspect over that case from the way in which it was portrayed initially by the Sunday Times and subsequently by other media outlets. The Director of Public Prosecutions has advised me that in his view there was an extremely strong case for prosecuting that particular individual. That is the reason that he - and I support his decision - opted to continue with the prosecution. The fact that the jury was out for many hours deliberating on the conflicts flowing from the fact that initially the girl - the complainant - did not tell the full story, and the boy told lies to investigating officers, I think casts a somewhat different complexion over that case than that which has been portrayed publicly.
(2) Why are the investigative agencies not, in computer jargon, “talking to each other”? (3) When investigative agencies decide not to proceed with cases or when a case is finalised, why is PathWest not informed so that unnecessary examinations can be taken out of the long queue? (4) How many forensic scientists are being trained in PathWest’s two-year course, which is required to ensure that they can provide legally viable forensic opinion in court cases? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: I thank the member for Nedlands for the question. (1)-(4) The issue of linking the police, the Director of Public Prosecutions and PathWest records has been pursued particularly by the new Chief Justice, Wayne Martin, and has arisen out of a number of trials in which the lack of coordination and the presentation of DNA in particular, but also other forensic evidence, has been criticised. As a result of the Chief Justice raising this matter with me, I have had discussions with both the head of PathWest and the DPP about doing exactly what the member has proposed; that is, to link the recording system to the common numbering system between each of the agencies involved in the presentation of forensic evidence to the courts. It is important not only that they have a common numbering system, but also that priorities be clearly established. The police regularly provide samples for analysis by PathWest to determine whether charges will be laid. What we see regularly is the need for those to be prioritised. In the past there has been inadequate communication between the various agencies - the police, the DPP and PathWest - in the way in which people are told what is a priority. It came to focus most recently in an article on the front page of the Sunday Times and in criticism of the delays in the delivery of pathology services, which has featured fairly prominently in the media in the past few days. I will make a very brief comment about that case. I have now had the opportunity to be fully briefed by the DPP. What has not yet come out in the media, and which I think casts a different colour over that case, is that the accused, who was found not guilty at the trial, initially denied having any knowledge of the alleged rape victim; in fact, the alleged rapist had her DNA on his underpants. That evidence was ascertained by forensic procedures and was presented to the court. That casts a somewhat different aspect over that case from the way in which it was portrayed initially by the Sunday Times and subsequently by other media outlets. The Director of Public Prosecutions has advised me that in his view there was an extremely strong case for prosecuting that particular individual. That is the reason that he - and I support his decision - opted to continue with the prosecution. The fact that the jury was out for many hours deliberating on the conflicts flowing from the fact that initially the girl - the complainant - did not tell the full story, and the boy told lies to investigating officers, I think casts a somewhat different complexion over that case than that which has been portrayed publicly.
(3) When investigative agencies decide not to proceed with cases or when a case is finalised, why is PathWest not informed so that unnecessary examinations can be taken out of the long queue? (4) How many forensic scientists are being trained in PathWest’s two-year course, which is required to ensure that they can provide legally viable forensic opinion in court cases? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: I thank the member for Nedlands for the question. (1)-(4) The issue of linking the police, the Director of Public Prosecutions and PathWest records has been pursued particularly by the new Chief Justice, Wayne Martin, and has arisen out of a number of trials in which the lack of coordination and the presentation of DNA in particular, but also other forensic evidence, has been criticised. As a result of the Chief Justice raising this matter with me, I have had discussions with both the head of PathWest and the DPP about doing exactly what the member has proposed; that is, to link the recording system to the common numbering system between each of the agencies involved in the presentation of forensic evidence to the courts. It is important not only that they have a common numbering system, but also that priorities be clearly established. The police regularly provide samples for analysis by PathWest to determine whether charges will be laid. What we see regularly is the need for those to be prioritised. In the past there has been inadequate communication between the various agencies - the police, the DPP and PathWest - in the way in which people are told what is a priority. It came to focus most recently in an article on the front page of the Sunday Times and in criticism of the delays in the delivery of pathology services, which has featured fairly prominently in the media in the past few days. I will make a very brief comment about that case. I have now had the opportunity to be fully briefed by the DPP. What has not yet come out in the media, and which I think casts a different colour over that case, is that the accused, who was found not guilty at the trial, initially denied having any knowledge of the alleged rape victim; in fact, the alleged rapist had her DNA on his underpants. That evidence was ascertained by forensic procedures and was presented to the court. That casts a somewhat different aspect over that case from the way in which it was portrayed initially by the Sunday Times and subsequently by other media outlets. The Director of Public Prosecutions has advised me that in his view there was an extremely strong case for prosecuting that particular individual. That is the reason that he - and I support his decision - opted to continue with the prosecution. The fact that the jury was out for many hours deliberating on the conflicts flowing from the fact that initially the girl - the complainant - did not tell the full story, and the boy told lies to investigating officers, I think casts a somewhat different complexion over that case than that which has been portrayed publicly.
(4) How many forensic scientists are being trained in PathWest’s two-year course, which is required to ensure that they can provide legally viable forensic opinion in court cases? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: I thank the member for Nedlands for the question. (1)-(4) The issue of linking the police, the Director of Public Prosecutions and PathWest records has been pursued particularly by the new Chief Justice, Wayne Martin, and has arisen out of a number of trials in which the lack of coordination and the presentation of DNA in particular, but also other forensic evidence, has been criticised. As a result of the Chief Justice raising this matter with me, I have had discussions with both the head of PathWest and the DPP about doing exactly what the member has proposed; that is, to link the recording system to the common numbering system between each of the agencies involved in the presentation of forensic evidence to the courts. It is important not only that they have a common numbering system, but also that priorities be clearly established. The police regularly provide samples for analysis by PathWest to determine whether charges will be laid. What we see regularly is the need for those to be prioritised. In the past there has been inadequate communication between the various agencies - the police, the DPP and PathWest - in the way in which people are told what is a priority. It came to focus most recently in an article on the front page of the Sunday Times and in criticism of the delays in the delivery of pathology services, which has featured fairly prominently in the media in the past few days. I will make a very brief comment about that case. I have now had the opportunity to be fully briefed by the DPP. What has not yet come out in the media, and which I think casts a different colour over that case, is that the accused, who was found not guilty at the trial, initially denied having any knowledge of the alleged rape victim; in fact, the alleged rapist had her DNA on his underpants. That evidence was ascertained by forensic procedures and was presented to the court. That casts a somewhat different aspect over that case from the way in which it was portrayed initially by the Sunday Times and subsequently by other media outlets. The Director of Public Prosecutions has advised me that in his view there was an extremely strong case for prosecuting that particular individual. That is the reason that he - and I support his decision - opted to continue with the prosecution. The fact that the jury was out for many hours deliberating on the conflicts flowing from the fact that initially the girl - the complainant - did not tell the full story, and the boy told lies to investigating officers, I think casts a somewhat different complexion over that case than that which has been portrayed publicly.
Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: I thank the member for Nedlands for the question. (1)-(4) The issue of linking the police, the Director of Public Prosecutions and PathWest records has been pursued particularly by the new Chief Justice, Wayne Martin, and has arisen out of a number of trials in which the lack of coordination and the presentation of DNA in particular, but also other forensic evidence, has been criticised. As a result of the Chief Justice raising this matter with me, I have had discussions with both the head of PathWest and the DPP about doing exactly what the member has proposed; that is, to link the recording system to the common numbering system between each of the agencies involved in the presentation of forensic evidence to the courts. It is important not only that they have a common numbering system, but also that priorities be clearly established. The police regularly provide samples for analysis by PathWest to determine whether charges will be laid. What we see regularly is the need for those to be prioritised. In the past there has been inadequate communication between the various agencies - the police, the DPP and PathWest - in the way in which people are told what is a priority. It came to focus most recently in an article on the front page of the Sunday Times and in criticism of the delays in the delivery of pathology services, which has featured fairly prominently in the media in the past few days. I will make a very brief comment about that case. I have now had the opportunity to be fully briefed by the DPP. What has not yet come out in the media, and which I think casts a different colour over that case, is that the accused, who was found not guilty at the trial, initially denied having any knowledge of the alleged rape victim; in fact, the alleged rapist had her DNA on his underpants. That evidence was ascertained by forensic procedures and was presented to the court. That casts a somewhat different aspect over that case from the way in which it was portrayed initially by the Sunday Times and subsequently by other media outlets. The Director of Public Prosecutions has advised me that in his view there was an extremely strong case for prosecuting that particular individual. That is the reason that he - and I support his decision - opted to continue with the prosecution. The fact that the jury was out for many hours deliberating on the conflicts flowing from the fact that initially the girl - the complainant - did not tell the full story, and the boy told lies to investigating officers, I think casts a somewhat different complexion over that case than that which has been portrayed publicly.
I thank the member for Nedlands for the question. (1)-(4) The issue of linking the police, the Director of Public Prosecutions and PathWest records has been pursued particularly by the new Chief Justice, Wayne Martin, and has arisen out of a number of trials in which the lack of coordination and the presentation of DNA in particular, but also other forensic evidence, has been criticised. As a result of the Chief Justice raising this matter with me, I have had discussions with both the head of PathWest and the DPP about doing exactly what the member has proposed; that is, to link the recording system to the common numbering system between each of the agencies involved in the presentation of forensic evidence to the courts. It is important not only that they have a common numbering system, but also that priorities be clearly established. The police regularly provide samples for analysis by PathWest to determine whether charges will be laid. What we see regularly is the need for those to be prioritised. In the past there has been inadequate communication between the various agencies - the police, the DPP and PathWest - in the way in which people are told what is a priority. It came to focus most recently in an article on the front page of the Sunday Times and in criticism of the delays in the delivery of pathology services, which has featured fairly prominently in the media in the past few days. I will make a very brief comment about that case. I have now had the opportunity to be fully briefed by the DPP. What has not yet come out in the media, and which I think casts a different colour over that case, is that the accused, who was found not guilty at the trial, initially denied having any knowledge of the alleged rape victim; in fact, the alleged rapist had her DNA on his underpants. That evidence was ascertained by forensic procedures and was presented to the court. That casts a somewhat different aspect over that case from the way in which it was portrayed initially by the Sunday Times and subsequently by other media outlets. The Director of Public Prosecutions has advised me that in his view there was an extremely strong case for prosecuting that particular individual. That is the reason that he - and I support his decision - opted to continue with the prosecution. The fact that the jury was out for many hours deliberating on the conflicts flowing from the fact that initially the girl - the complainant - did not tell the full story, and the boy told lies to investigating officers, I think casts a somewhat different complexion over that case than that which has been portrayed publicly.
(1)-(4) The issue of linking the police, the Director of Public Prosecutions and PathWest records has been pursued particularly by the new Chief Justice, Wayne Martin, and has arisen out of a number of trials in which the lack of coordination and the presentation of DNA in particular, but also other forensic evidence, has been criticised. As a result of the Chief Justice raising this matter with me, I have had discussions with both the head of PathWest and the DPP about doing exactly what the member has proposed; that is, to link the recording system to the common numbering system between each of the agencies involved in the presentation of forensic evidence to the courts. It is important not only that they have a common numbering system, but also that priorities be clearly established. The police regularly provide samples for analysis by PathWest to determine whether charges will be laid. What we see regularly is the need for those to be prioritised. In the past there has been inadequate communication between the various agencies - the police, the DPP and PathWest - in the way in which people are told what is a priority. It came to focus most recently in an article on the front page of the Sunday Times and in criticism of the delays in the delivery of pathology services, which has featured fairly prominently in the media in the past few days. I will make a very brief comment about that case. I have now had the opportunity to be fully briefed by the DPP. What has not yet come out in the media, and which I think casts a different colour over that case, is that the accused, who was found not guilty at the trial, initially denied having any knowledge of the alleged rape victim; in fact, the alleged rapist had her DNA on his underpants. That evidence was ascertained by forensic procedures and was presented to the court. That casts a somewhat different aspect over that case from the way in which it was portrayed initially by the Sunday Times and subsequently by other media outlets. The Director of Public Prosecutions has advised me that in his view there was an extremely strong case for prosecuting that particular individual. That is the reason that he - and I support his decision - opted to continue with the prosecution. The fact that the jury was out for many hours deliberating on the conflicts flowing from the fact that initially the girl - the complainant - did not tell the full story, and the boy told lies to investigating officers, I think casts a somewhat different complexion over that case than that which has been portrayed publicly.
The Director of Public Prosecutions has advised me that in his view there was an extremely strong case for prosecuting that particular individual. That is the reason that he - and I support his decision - opted to continue with the prosecution. The fact that the jury was out for many hours deliberating on the conflicts flowing from the fact that initially the girl - the complainant - did not tell the full story, and the boy told lies to investigating officers, I think casts a somewhat different complexion over that case than that which has been portrayed publicly.
(1) Why has no common numbering system been developed between the investigative agencies and PathWest so that PathWest can match items to particular prosecutions? (2) Why are the investigative agencies not, in computer jargon, “talking to each other”? (3) When investigative agencies decide not to proceed with cases or when a case is finalised, why is PathWest not informed so that unnecessary examinations can be taken out of the long queue? (4) How many forensic scientists are being trained in PathWest’s two-year course, which is required to ensure that they can provide legally viable forensic opinion in court cases? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: I thank the member for Nedlands for the question. (1)-(4) The issue of linking the police, the Director of Public Prosecutions and PathWest records has been pursued particularly by the new Chief Justice, Wayne Martin, and has arisen out of a number of trials in which the lack of coordination and the presentation of DNA in particular, but also other forensic evidence, has been criticised. As a result of the Chief Justice raising this matter with me, I have had discussions with both the head of PathWest and the DPP about doing exactly what the member has proposed; that is, to link the recording system to the common numbering system between each of the agencies involved in the presentation of forensic evidence to the courts. It is important not only that they have a common numbering system, but also that priorities be clearly established. The police regularly provide samples for analysis by PathWest to determine whether charges will be laid. What we see regularly is the need for those to be prioritised. In the past there has been inadequate communication between the various agencies - the police, the DPP and PathWest - in the way in which people are told what is a priority. It came to focus most recently in an article on the front page of the Sunday Times and in criticism of the delays in the delivery of pathology services, which has featured fairly prominently in the media in the past few days. I will make a very brief comment about that case. I have now had the opportunity to be fully briefed by the DPP. What has not yet come out in the media, and which I think casts a different colour over that case, is that the accused, who was found not guilty at the trial, initially denied having any knowledge of the alleged rape victim; in fact, the alleged rapist had her DNA on his underpants. That evidence was ascertained by forensic procedures and was presented to the court. That casts a somewhat different aspect over that case from the way in which it was portrayed initially by the Sunday Times and subsequently by other media outlets. The Director of Public Prosecutions has advised me that in his view there was an extremely strong case for prosecuting that particular individual. That is the reason that he - and I support his decision - opted to continue with the prosecution. The fact that the jury was out for many hours deliberating on the conflicts flowing from the fact that initially the girl - the complainant - did not tell the full story, and the boy told lies to investigating officers, I think casts a somewhat different complexion over that case than that which has been portrayed publicly.
(2) Why are the investigative agencies not, in computer jargon, “talking to each other”? (3) When investigative agencies decide not to proceed with cases or when a case is finalised, why is PathWest not informed so that unnecessary examinations can be taken out of the long queue? (4) How many forensic scientists are being trained in PathWest’s two-year course, which is required to ensure that they can provide legally viable forensic opinion in court cases? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: I thank the member for Nedlands for the question. (1)-(4) The issue of linking the police, the Director of Public Prosecutions and PathWest records has been pursued particularly by the new Chief Justice, Wayne Martin, and has arisen out of a number of trials in which the lack of coordination and the presentation of DNA in particular, but also other forensic evidence, has been criticised. As a result of the Chief Justice raising this matter with me, I have had discussions with both the head of PathWest and the DPP about doing exactly what the member has proposed; that is, to link the recording system to the common numbering system between each of the agencies involved in the presentation of forensic evidence to the courts. It is important not only that they have a common numbering system, but also that priorities be clearly established. The police regularly provide samples for analysis by PathWest to determine whether charges will be laid. What we see regularly is the need for those to be prioritised. In the past there has been inadequate communication between the various agencies - the police, the DPP and PathWest - in the way in which people are told what is a priority. It came to focus most recently in an article on the front page of the Sunday Times and in criticism of the delays in the delivery of pathology services, which has featured fairly prominently in the media in the past few days. I will make a very brief comment about that case. I have now had the opportunity to be fully briefed by the DPP. What has not yet come out in the media, and which I think casts a different colour over that case, is that the accused, who was found not guilty at the trial, initially denied having any knowledge of the alleged rape victim; in fact, the alleged rapist had her DNA on his underpants. That evidence was ascertained by forensic procedures and was presented to the court. That casts a somewhat different aspect over that case from the way in which it was portrayed initially by the Sunday Times and subsequently by other media outlets. The Director of Public Prosecutions has advised me that in his view there was an extremely strong case for prosecuting that particular individual. That is the reason that he - and I support his decision - opted to continue with the prosecution. The fact that the jury was out for many hours deliberating on the conflicts flowing from the fact that initially the girl - the complainant - did not tell the full story, and the boy told lies to investigating officers, I think casts a somewhat different complexion over that case than that which has been portrayed publicly.
(3) When investigative agencies decide not to proceed with cases or when a case is finalised, why is PathWest not informed so that unnecessary examinations can be taken out of the long queue? (4) How many forensic scientists are being trained in PathWest’s two-year course, which is required to ensure that they can provide legally viable forensic opinion in court cases? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: I thank the member for Nedlands for the question. (1)-(4) The issue of linking the police, the Director of Public Prosecutions and PathWest records has been pursued particularly by the new Chief Justice, Wayne Martin, and has arisen out of a number of trials in which the lack of coordination and the presentation of DNA in particular, but also other forensic evidence, has been criticised. As a result of the Chief Justice raising this matter with me, I have had discussions with both the head of PathWest and the DPP about doing exactly what the member has proposed; that is, to link the recording system to the common numbering system between each of the agencies involved in the presentation of forensic evidence to the courts. It is important not only that they have a common numbering system, but also that priorities be clearly established. The police regularly provide samples for analysis by PathWest to determine whether charges will be laid. What we see regularly is the need for those to be prioritised. In the past there has been inadequate communication between the various agencies - the police, the DPP and PathWest - in the way in which people are told what is a priority. It came to focus most recently in an article on the front page of the Sunday Times and in criticism of the delays in the delivery of pathology services, which has featured fairly prominently in the media in the past few days. I will make a very brief comment about that case. I have now had the opportunity to be fully briefed by the DPP. What has not yet come out in the media, and which I think casts a different colour over that case, is that the accused, who was found not guilty at the trial, initially denied having any knowledge of the alleged rape victim; in fact, the alleged rapist had her DNA on his underpants. That evidence was ascertained by forensic procedures and was presented to the court. That casts a somewhat different aspect over that case from the way in which it was portrayed initially by the Sunday Times and subsequently by other media outlets. The Director of Public Prosecutions has advised me that in his view there was an extremely strong case for prosecuting that particular individual. That is the reason that he - and I support his decision - opted to continue with the prosecution. The fact that the jury was out for many hours deliberating on the conflicts flowing from the fact that initially the girl - the complainant - did not tell the full story, and the boy told lies to investigating officers, I think casts a somewhat different complexion over that case than that which has been portrayed publicly.
(4) How many forensic scientists are being trained in PathWest’s two-year course, which is required to ensure that they can provide legally viable forensic opinion in court cases? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: I thank the member for Nedlands for the question. (1)-(4) The issue of linking the police, the Director of Public Prosecutions and PathWest records has been pursued particularly by the new Chief Justice, Wayne Martin, and has arisen out of a number of trials in which the lack of coordination and the presentation of DNA in particular, but also other forensic evidence, has been criticised. As a result of the Chief Justice raising this matter with me, I have had discussions with both the head of PathWest and the DPP about doing exactly what the member has proposed; that is, to link the recording system to the common numbering system between each of the agencies involved in the presentation of forensic evidence to the courts. It is important not only that they have a common numbering system, but also that priorities be clearly established. The police regularly provide samples for analysis by PathWest to determine whether charges will be laid. What we see regularly is the need for those to be prioritised. In the past there has been inadequate communication between the various agencies - the police, the DPP and PathWest - in the way in which people are told what is a priority. It came to focus most recently in an article on the front page of the Sunday Times and in criticism of the delays in the delivery of pathology services, which has featured fairly prominently in the media in the past few days. I will make a very brief comment about that case. I have now had the opportunity to be fully briefed by the DPP. What has not yet come out in the media, and which I think casts a different colour over that case, is that the accused, who was found not guilty at the trial, initially denied having any knowledge of the alleged rape victim; in fact, the alleged rapist had her DNA on his underpants. That evidence was ascertained by forensic procedures and was presented to the court. That casts a somewhat different aspect over that case from the way in which it was portrayed initially by the Sunday Times and subsequently by other media outlets. The Director of Public Prosecutions has advised me that in his view there was an extremely strong case for prosecuting that particular individual. That is the reason that he - and I support his decision - opted to continue with the prosecution. The fact that the jury was out for many hours deliberating on the conflicts flowing from the fact that initially the girl - the complainant - did not tell the full story, and the boy told lies to investigating officers, I think casts a somewhat different complexion over that case than that which has been portrayed publicly.
Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: I thank the member for Nedlands for the question. (1)-(4) The issue of linking the police, the Director of Public Prosecutions and PathWest records has been pursued particularly by the new Chief Justice, Wayne Martin, and has arisen out of a number of trials in which the lack of coordination and the presentation of DNA in particular, but also other forensic evidence, has been criticised. As a result of the Chief Justice raising this matter with me, I have had discussions with both the head of PathWest and the DPP about doing exactly what the member has proposed; that is, to link the recording system to the common numbering system between each of the agencies involved in the presentation of forensic evidence to the courts. It is important not only that they have a common numbering system, but also that priorities be clearly established. The police regularly provide samples for analysis by PathWest to determine whether charges will be laid. What we see regularly is the need for those to be prioritised. In the past there has been inadequate communication between the various agencies - the police, the DPP and PathWest - in the way in which people are told what is a priority. It came to focus most recently in an article on the front page of the Sunday Times and in criticism of the delays in the delivery of pathology services, which has featured fairly prominently in the media in the past few days. I will make a very brief comment about that case. I have now had the opportunity to be fully briefed by the DPP. What has not yet come out in the media, and which I think casts a different colour over that case, is that the accused, who was found not guilty at the trial, initially denied having any knowledge of the alleged rape victim; in fact, the alleged rapist had her DNA on his underpants. That evidence was ascertained by forensic procedures and was presented to the court. That casts a somewhat different aspect over that case from the way in which it was portrayed initially by the Sunday Times and subsequently by other media outlets. The Director of Public Prosecutions has advised me that in his view there was an extremely strong case for prosecuting that particular individual. That is the reason that he - and I support his decision - opted to continue with the prosecution. The fact that the jury was out for many hours deliberating on the conflicts flowing from the fact that initially the girl - the complainant - did not tell the full story, and the boy told lies to investigating officers, I think casts a somewhat different complexion over that case than that which has been portrayed publicly.
I thank the member for Nedlands for the question. (1)-(4) The issue of linking the police, the Director of Public Prosecutions and PathWest records has been pursued particularly by the new Chief Justice, Wayne Martin, and has arisen out of a number of trials in which the lack of coordination and the presentation of DNA in particular, but also other forensic evidence, has been criticised. As a result of the Chief Justice raising this matter with me, I have had discussions with both the head of PathWest and the DPP about doing exactly what the member has proposed; that is, to link the recording system to the common numbering system between each of the agencies involved in the presentation of forensic evidence to the courts. It is important not only that they have a common numbering system, but also that priorities be clearly established. The police regularly provide samples for analysis by PathWest to determine whether charges will be laid. What we see regularly is the need for those to be prioritised. In the past there has been inadequate communication between the various agencies - the police, the DPP and PathWest - in the way in which people are told what is a priority. It came to focus most recently in an article on the front page of the Sunday Times and in criticism of the delays in the delivery of pathology services, which has featured fairly prominently in the media in the past few days. I will make a very brief comment about that case. I have now had the opportunity to be fully briefed by the DPP. What has not yet come out in the media, and which I think casts a different colour over that case, is that the accused, who was found not guilty at the trial, initially denied having any knowledge of the alleged rape victim; in fact, the alleged rapist had her DNA on his underpants. That evidence was ascertained by forensic procedures and was presented to the court. That casts a somewhat different aspect over that case from the way in which it was portrayed initially by the Sunday Times and subsequently by other media outlets. The Director of Public Prosecutions has advised me that in his view there was an extremely strong case for prosecuting that particular individual. That is the reason that he - and I support his decision - opted to continue with the prosecution. The fact that the jury was out for many hours deliberating on the conflicts flowing from the fact that initially the girl - the complainant - did not tell the full story, and the boy told lies to investigating officers, I think casts a somewhat different complexion over that case than that which has been portrayed publicly.
(1)-(4) The issue of linking the police, the Director of Public Prosecutions and PathWest records has been pursued particularly by the new Chief Justice, Wayne Martin, and has arisen out of a number of trials in which the lack of coordination and the presentation of DNA in particular, but also other forensic evidence, has been criticised. As a result of the Chief Justice raising this matter with me, I have had discussions with both the head of PathWest and the DPP about doing exactly what the member has proposed; that is, to link the recording system to the common numbering system between each of the agencies involved in the presentation of forensic evidence to the courts. It is important not only that they have a common numbering system, but also that priorities be clearly established. The police regularly provide samples for analysis by PathWest to determine whether charges will be laid. What we see regularly is the need for those to be prioritised. In the past there has been inadequate communication between the various agencies - the police, the DPP and PathWest - in the way in which people are told what is a priority. It came to focus most recently in an article on the front page of the Sunday Times and in criticism of the delays in the delivery of pathology services, which has featured fairly prominently in the media in the past few days. I will make a very brief comment about that case. I have now had the opportunity to be fully briefed by the DPP. What has not yet come out in the media, and which I think casts a different colour over that case, is that the accused, who was found not guilty at the trial, initially denied having any knowledge of the alleged rape victim; in fact, the alleged rapist had her DNA on his underpants. That evidence was ascertained by forensic procedures and was presented to the court. That casts a somewhat different aspect over that case from the way in which it was portrayed initially by the Sunday Times and subsequently by other media outlets. The Director of Public Prosecutions has advised me that in his view there was an extremely strong case for prosecuting that particular individual. That is the reason that he - and I support his decision - opted to continue with the prosecution. The fact that the jury was out for many hours deliberating on the conflicts flowing from the fact that initially the girl - the complainant - did not tell the full story, and the boy told lies to investigating officers, I think casts a somewhat different complexion over that case than that which has been portrayed publicly.
The Director of Public Prosecutions has advised me that in his view there was an extremely strong case for prosecuting that particular individual. That is the reason that he - and I support his decision - opted to continue with the prosecution. The fact that the jury was out for many hours deliberating on the conflicts flowing from the fact that initially the girl - the complainant - did not tell the full story, and the boy told lies to investigating officers, I think casts a somewhat different complexion over that case than that which has been portrayed publicly.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.