CRIMES (FORENSIC PROCEDURES) AMENDMENT BILL 2007

Thursday 29^th November 2007

Rev Fred Nile, Leader of the Christian Democratic Party, has supported the ‘Crimes (Forensic Procedures) Amendment Bill 2007’ in NSW Legislative Council.

”The Christian Democratic Party supports the Crimes (Forensic Procedures) Amendment Bill 2007. We congratulate the Government for bringing forward this bill tonight. It includes matters that were announced by the Premier prior to the election, so it is the fulfilment of an election promise. The bill will amend the Crimes (Forensic Procedures) Act 2000 to extend the circumstances in which a person suspected of a crime may be requested or required to undergo a non-intimate forensic procedure involving the taking of a sample of the suspect's hair or carrying out of a self-administered buccal swab, and to make it clear that a forensic procedure may be ordered in relation to the suspect for the purpose of obtaining evidence tending to confirm or disprove that the suspect has committed an offence only if there are reasonable grounds to believe the suspect has committed that offence”, stated Rev Fred Nile.

“The range of offences that now give rise to DNA testing and for which DNA samples can be taken without a person's consent will be expanded. Previously police could take DNA samples only from people accused of indictable offences, such as murder, sexual assault and robbery, unless they consented to the forensic procedure. This change, through this legislation, will expand the scope to include all offences, including non-indictable offences such as loitering by a convicted child sex offender, and minor drug offences. The bill will also make it clear that there are legal tests the police have to take into account. Firstly, the police officer must reasonably suspect that the person committed an offence and, secondly, there must be reasonable grounds to believe that the DNA sample might produce evidence tending to confirm or disprove that the suspect committed that offence. Obviously, police will not take DNA samples from suspects just for the sake of it. Also, police will not be able to compel a person to provide a DNA sample if there is no information indicating that DNA material is taken from or available at the crime scene against which the intended suspect samples can be compared.

The legislation also contains a requirement that a suspect's forensic material must be destroyed if he or she is acquitted of an offence or no criminal proceedings are commenced within a 12-month period. However, there are some exceptions. The Government should give consideration—I know that this would be condemned by the Greens—to maintaining a permanent DNA database, as is occurring in some other countries, to identify bodies and solve crimes. In recent murders the victims' bodies were deliberately cut up and their hands and heads were removed in an attempt to prevent police identifying them. A permanent DNA databank could be checked to identify murder victims.

Identification of drivers and passengers who suffer severe injuries is often difficult. A tragic car accident occurred near Gerringong where I live. The car exploded, the lady in the car was incinerated and it was almost impossible to identify her. A DNA databank would assist such identification. I do not believe that a DNA databank would be an attack on our human rights, and I do not have any objection to a fingerprint database. Because of terrorism threats more and more countries are using these measures and certainly fingerprints are being scanned more widely. I understand that China and other countries have introduced a fingerprint check at airports. I believe that the use of DNA and fingerprint databases should be expanded. The Christian Democratic Party is pleased to support the bill”, Rev Nile said.