Forensic science has emerged as a valuable tool in the fight against crime. This paper addresses the history and development of the discipline in Australia, with specific reference to the Azaria Chamberlain case. The advent of the ensuing Chamberlain Royal Commission of Inquiry was a significant watershed for forensic science in Australia. It focused the attention of the field on the need for quality assurance. These issues are discussed and the progress made by the forensic science community is evaluated with respect to the adoption of a total quality management philosophy.

(Cook et al., 2001)

This truism of legal history is no less relevant when looked at from the perspective of quality improvement. In essence, changes to the legal system have been influenced by society’s general awareness of and demand for elevated standards. Of particular interest is the way in which forensic science has been both instituted and subjected to reform as a result of the endeavour for higher standards of quality. Attention will be focused on Australian issues, with input from USA and UK experiences and publications, as their histories developed concurrently with that of Australia.

The broad definition of forensic science is the application of the knowledge and technology of science to aid in the definition and enforcement of the law. For the purposes of this paper, the term “forensic science” denotes the examination of physical evidence such as fingerprints from the crime scene. Although individuals have been developing the principles and techniques needed to identify or compare physical evidence for centuries, the establishment of forensic science as a coherent discipline has occurred only relatively recently. The general obscurity and esoteric nature of forensic science was largely responsible for initial resistance to its use (Curran and Shapiro, 1982).

Much of the credit for the adoption of forensic science by the courts can be attributed to the fictional character Sherlock Holmes, created by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (1859-1930). Although this may appear somewhat fanciful, the character raised the profile of forensic science, helping to publicise the idea that science and simple logic could assist in police matters (Walls, 1974). The use of scientific evidence to substantiate or contradict prosecution or defence theories was the first major step towards reducing reliance on subjective eyewitness testimony. This alone served to enhance the standards of the courts, despite the fact that this confidence was afforded to forensic science through fictional media.

In the nineteenth century, major developments occurred in forensic science. Pioneers such as Hans Gross, Professor R. A. Reiss, and Edmund Locard wrote the first book on forensic science, instituted the first academic curricula in forensic science, and established the first police crime laboratory respectively (Rudin, 2002). Many more scientists contributed to the pool of knowledge. The field grew from purely police-capable deductive reasoning into more technical and specialised aspects of the field that required trained scientists to manage. Faced with information no longer “elementary” to the common man, the courts became reliant on the word of the specialist in forensic science (Curran and Shapiro, 1982). Unfortunately, this opened the floodgates for any person claiming to have scientific knowledge to give evidence in court as an expert.

During the late 1980s and early 1990s, several convictions were reversed by appellate courts because of the misuse of forensic science (Kaye, 1995). The Azaria Chamberlain case, Chamberlain v R (No. 2) (1984), can be considered the epitome of scientific testing gone wrong. On 17^{th August 1980, while on a camping holiday near the foot of Ayers Rock in the Northern Territory, 13 week old Azaria Chamberlain went missing. Azaria’s mother, Alice “Lindy” Chamberlain, claimed that she had seen a dingo take her baby, and investigations centred on that theory until media stories began to depict Lindy herself as a possible suspect in Azaria’s disappearance. Pressure from external influences took its toll on the case, and Lindy was convicted of the murder of Azaria through convincing scientific evidence, with her husband Michael convicted of being an accessory after the fact. One piece of evidence that was particularly instrumental in convincing the jury that Lindy Chamberlain had killed her daughter in the car with a pair of scissors, and that she had therefore fabricated the story of a dingo taking her baby, was provided by the biologist on the case. The biologist inferred from several test results the presence of foetal blood at various locations in the Chamberlain car, a pair of scissors, on a chamois and its container, and camera bag. It was later determined that some of the stains tested may have been the remnants of a spilt caramel milkshake, residues from a sound-deadening barrier sprayed on the car, or copper from the red earth that is ubiquitous in the Chamberlain’s home town of Mount Isa (Brown and Wilson, 1992, Morling, 1987). Similar such problems with forensic testing were encountered in the UK and USA at around the same time (Kaye, 1995).}

Media hyperbole surrounding “high profile” cases like these focused attention on deficiencies within the forensic science field that previously had not been addressed. The courts began to realise that scientific evidence was very influential in the determinations of court cases, and that this significant responsibility should be shouldered by forensic practitioners. The standards of service at the time of the Chamberlain case were therefore deemed unacceptable by the courts. People’s lives are dependent on the outcome of a scientific investigation, and the ruined lives of Lindy and Michael Chamberlain are a sad testimony to that.

Because of the indiscretion of a few practitioners, a lack of rigour in their activities, or the misinterpretation of forensic evidence by the courts, the discipline suffered a severe decrease in credibility in the eyes of the legal system. Faced with such an upset, forensic science was forced to develop new modes of operation. Obligations, attitudes and scientific processes had to be rethought in order to satisfy the increasing demands for quality in the field. In retrospect, the Chamberlain Inquiry has become a watershed in the history of forensic science in Australia, instigating a paradigm shift towards a focus on quality management.

(Isaac Newton 1642-1727)

That facts and experiments can be disputed is the basis of our adversarial system. The very idea is that a statement of fact is presented to the court, and after the presentation of evidence and argument from both the prosecution and defence counsel, the veracity of that fact is determined by the court. The admissibility of the scientific evidence contributing to determining the truth of the matter is also debated (Cook et al., 2001).

Recent challenges to the admissibility of scientific evidence in the courtroom have centred around questioning the scientific nature of identification and testing procedures. For example, in the United States, 40 court challenges on the scientific validity of fingerprint identification have been heard and rejected. There has been no successful challenge because the identification process is scientific in nature, and was demonstrated to be so in these cases (Wertheim, 2003).

A more compelling argument would be to question the validity of specific tests carried out by the forensic scientist. This was achieved in the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Chamberlain Convictions (Morling, 1987), with the conviction of Lindy and Michael Chamberlain being overturned because of invalid testing. Analyses carried out by the biologist in this case were not accompanied by the appropriate control and confirmatory tests. These tests are necessary to ensure that results are not being influenced by extraneous interferences such as sample contamination and ineffective or malfunctioning reagents etc. Without the benefit of control and confirmatory tests, the biologist’s interpretation of results was skewed, allowing the misidentification of foetal haemoglobin. Omission of such tests renders the entire analysis invalid, and therefore the evidence should not have been presented in court.

Yet why was it accepted in court?

The problem is that, in court, scientific facts are disputed by lawyers, not scientists. They have insufficient understanding of the scientific principles behind the tests to adequately test the claims of an expert and make suitable objections. Therefore, the onus falls on the forensic scientist to ensure that their findings have been subjected to the appropriate level of scrutiny before reporting them. This brings the fallibility of the practitioner into question. The potential for ignorance, arrogance or incompetence to infiltrate the scientific field is then very real, and there must be safeguards in place to ensure that incidents of malpractice are either eradicated totally, or identified and nullified in court.

If the facts and experiments in the Chamberlain case had been adequately regulated, Lindy Chamberlain may have been spared a 6-year jail sentence, and the family would not have endured public persecution for the rest of their lives.

(Robert Browning 1812-1889)

There is certainly no excuse for ignorance, arrogance and incompetence when a person’s life is on the line. To deal with the minority of improvident practitioners and regain the confidence of the court, the adoption of an all-encompassing approach to quality improvement was necessary.

The contemporary approach to quality in industry is total quality management (TQM). The methodology integrates all functions and processes within an organisation with a view to customer satisfaction. The tools used to achieve this are participation and teamwork, continuous improvement and learning (Evans and Lindsay, 1999). While developed for industrial applications, the paradigm can be exploited to optimise the performance of the forensic science community.

Some of the major considerations of total quality management are depicted in Figure 1, along with specific actions that can be undertaken.

*All information adapted from Evans and Lindsay (1999) and Juran (1988)

The history of forensic science has been explored earlier, and the need for change in the approach to quality assurance established. Section 4.1 considers the court as the customer, and evaluates the complaints, suggestions and requirements made for improvement. The development of infrastructure in the forensic science community and the role of management is explored in Section 4.2. Standardisation and the need for accreditation is dealt with in Section 4.3, and Section 4.4 looks at continuous improvement and learning.

Forensic scientists are essentially service providers, and although they may be subpoenaed by either the defence or prosecution counsel, they must consider themselves impartial to both sides. In this way, the forensic scientist must consider themselves clients of the court as a whole, entrusted with presenting the truth of the matter at hand.

When determining how best to conform to the needs and expectations of the customer, it is necessary to analyse their primary requirements, any feedback and complaints, and their suggestions for improvement.

Ordinarily, it would be pertinent to turn to the court for guidance on the expected level of quality in forensic services. The problem with this is that the court does not have the specialised knowledge of the scientist, and thus does not necessarily know the difference between good and poor quality in the field. The court therefore places the obligation on the forensic science field to determine the reliability and applicability of evidence. In a US ruling in 1923, Frye v. United States, the court declared that a procedure, technique or principle will only be admitted into evidence if it has been sufficiently established to have gained a general acceptance in the particular field it belongs. Known as the “Frye standard”, Australian courts adopted a similar position.

In the 1993 case of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceutical Inc., the US Supreme Court gave a landmark ruling that returned responsibility to judges to determine the admissibility and reliability of the scientific evidence presented in their courts. This new “Daubert standard” suggests the following areas of inquiry:

Australian courts consider these US rulings when determining the admissibility of expert evidence. In general, the scientists are now required to demonstrate that their evidence can be relied upon, rather than the court accepting the word of the scientist in faith. Scientists are obligated to explain their findings in a manner that a layperson can comprehend, meaning that exemplary communication skills are a necessity .

Customer feedback can be viewed in the form of Commission of Inquiry reports. In the Chamberlain Royal Commission report (Morling, 1987), the commissioner highlighted some deficiencies in forensic science that contributed to the problems encountered in the Chamberlain case, and suggested remedies that would be beneficial in the future. A specific area of concern was a lack of communication between police, lawyers and experts that resulted in exaggerated importance being placed on expert evidence. In addition to this, the absence of uniform and reliable practices throughout Australia meant that the court could not be sure that only “reasonably certain” results were being depended upon. The commissioner attributed these problems to the lack of infrastructure within forensic science in Australia, and advocated the development of a national institute of forensic science that would unite experts within Australia, and connect them with experts from overseas. The institute would be responsible for establishing and maintaining standards, facilitating the exchange of information and research, and educating experts on appropriate court conduct. The commissioner stressed that the onus should be placed on the government to fund a national forensic science institute, finding economic benefit in lessening the expenditure of public money in calling experts from overseas to give evidence. Finding experts from Australia through such a facility would also diminish the risk of an injustice to an accused person to whom finding and hiring scientific witnesses of their own may not be financially viable, as in the Chamberlain case.

In summary, the development of a National Institute of Forensic Science was seen as a major step towards resolving many of the problems previously encountered, and restoring confidence in the forensic sciences. In addition to this, it can be inferred that a zero-defect level of quality is the only acceptable outcome when considering that people’s lives are affected by the scientific evidence produced.

The commissioner of inquiry in the Chamberlain case identified the development of a national body as an appropriate foundation for quality improvement. In fact, it would be virtually impossible to improve quality in the field without a principal entity to facilitate debate and pool resources to resolve issues facing the forensic science community.

As a result of the commission report, the National Institute of Forensic Science (NIFS) was established in 1991, funded by the Police Ministers in each of the states and territories, on the pro-rata of the size of the police forces. The core functions of NIFS are to:

NIFS also maintains sound working relationships with education providers and the international forensic science community (NIFS, 2001b).

As an adjunct to NIFS, the Senior Managers Australian and New Zealand Forensic Laboratories (SMANZFL) was formed. This organisation is headed by senior laboratory managers and operates on the premise that one of the most important elements in improving quality in an organisation is the influence of management. In this way, the leaders of forensic laboratories have seized responsibility for ensuring that a culture of quality assurance is inculcated in their working community. There are Specialist Advisory Groups (SAGs) that advise SMANZFL and influence discussions on technical systems, research and development, training, quality, legislative policy/framework, and communications/representation. These SAGs are comprised of specialists from each of the organisations represented by SMANZFL, in six different specialty areas within forensic science. Essentially, the role of SMANZFL is to promote leadership in the forensic sciences, employing a top-down approach to quality in their work environments. SMANZFL is funded by the participating laboratories and institutions (NIFS, 2001c).

These organisations collaborate with the Australian and New Zealand Forensic Science Society (ANZFSS), who provide formal and informal lectures, discussions and demonstrations regularly. The society holds an international symposium every 2 years, which provides an opportunity for Australian scientists to benefit from overseas research, and contribute to the global augmentation of forensic science knowledge. The function of the ANZFSS is to pool resources and further forensic science through education, and enhancing the interaction and communication between scientists, police, criminalists, pathologists, and members of the legal profession. The ANZFSS is funded by members and donations (NIFS, 2001a).

These three national bodies have achieved a significant increase in the quality of forensic services being provided in Australia over the last decade, through enhanced organisation and collaboration.

The next problem elucidated by the Commissioner in the Chamberlain inquiry was the lack of standardisation and regulation of test procedures in the forensic sciences. The National Association of Testing Authorities (NATA), Australia, now conduct assessments of forensic laboratories for both consultation and accreditation purposes. NATA is recognised by the Commonwealth Government as the sole national accreditation body for establishing competent laboratory practice (NATA, 2000).

Assessments of forensic laboratories are conducted according to the international standards ISO/IEC 17025 “General requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories” (1999), and the application document “Supplementary requirements for accreditation in the field of forensic science” (2002).

Included in these standards are the following remedies to the specific problems encountered in the Chamberlain case:

Accreditation is not only a method of demonstrating that an organisation is reliable, but is also a means of evaluating quality improvement. Planning for further improvement in a realistic manner is then possible.

At present, most forensic laboratories in Australia are either already accredited by NATA, or are in the process of seeking accreditation, which means that the quest for quality has become an integral part of the local forensic community.

In order for any organisation to progress, there must be education, research and development, and collaboration. These form an essential part of the continuous improvement initiative.

The lectures, workshops and symposia held by organisations such as NIFS, SMANZFL and ANZFSS are sources of continuous education for established forensic scientists. Books, journals, electronic websites and chat boards are excellent media for communicating contemporary research and facilitating discussions on forensic science.

The future of forensic science, however, will be dictated by the new wave of scientists entering the field. In 1995, the University of Technology, Sydney (UTS) instituted the first tertiary degree in forensic science in Australia: the Bachelor of Science in Applied Chemistry (Honours) - Forensic Science. Degrees such as this are able to teach sound scientific concepts relevant to the forensic scientist, and create a culture of ethical behaviours and quality mindset before the scientist enters the workforce.

Universities are also a major contributor to research and development. The University of Technology, Sydney, requires honours research to be conducted as a part of the undergraduate degree. There is much support also for forensic science students undertaking doctoral research, including assistance and sponsorship from various forensic science organisations.

The author is currently undertaking research as part of a Doctoral degree at the University of Technology, Sydney, in collaboration with and sponsorship from the Australian Federal Police. The initiative concerns the development and validation of a “standard fingerprint” for testing reagents before they are used to develop fingerprints in actual casework. Such a standard would eliminate variation in reagent response so that the forensic scientist can be sure that, when they apply the reagent, it is working at its optimum. It is envisaged that this research will benefit fingerprint specialists and scene of crime officers globally.

The quality of forensic science in Australia has improved considerably over the two decades since the Chamberlain Inquiry. It is now almost difficult to fathom the problems that arose during the trial because of the availability of facilities such as NIFS for consultation, and the culture of collaboration and quality assurance that now exists in the forensic community.

The future lies in active participation in continuous quality improvement strategies, and support for research and development initiatives. To conclude this report, these parting words:

(Tony Blair 1953-)

This paper was produced as a result of research conducted as part of a PhD initiative at the University of Technology, Sydney. My thanks to the patrons of the Helix Doctoral Scholarship in Science for their assistance.

Acknowledgements must go to:

Any query can be directed to:

NATA (2000) About NATA and accreditation