Drug tests for courts a waste of time says forensic scientist
Labs spend hours on preliminary testing which is pointless as defendants later plead guilty
So-called presumptive tests “basically” confirm a substance is a controlled drug. Photograph: Eric Luke
Drug tests required by the courts are wasting significant resources in the Forensic Laboratory because defendants later plead guilty, a senior scientist has warned.
Fewer such preliminary tests could leave more resources “available so that we can focus . . . on more serious cases”, said Dr Hannigan, who will address up to 260 of the State’s prosecuting lawyers at a conference in Dublin Castle.
Dr Hannigan highlighted presumptive drug-testing rules which lead to forensic scientists spending significant hours on tests that are later not needed because the defendant pleads guilty.
“It’s not really working as well as we would wish . . . Typically what happens is defence solicitors will demand a certificate of analysis from the laboratory as a means of getting an adjournment.
“The certificate has to be produced and then when they’ve got the certificate, they plead guilty – which defeats the whole purpose of the scheme.
“If you’re admitting to the possession of a controlled drug, what’s the certificate of analysis needed for? Unfortunately, there are District Court judges that allow this to happen.”
“DNA is a tremendous technique but it can’t do everything and . . . traditional scientific techniques, other evidence types, also have a role to play,” he argues. “There’s more to forensic science than DNA and you – prosecutors – need to be aware of this .”
Forensic evidence – tiny traces of lead, antimony, and barium in gunshot residue, matching fibres from clothes or furniture, and footprints or tyre-tracks – are still crucial tools in the fight against crime.
Some of the evidence is so minute, such as fibres, paint and glass particles collected by sticky pads, it later has to be magnified 200,000 times under an electronic microscope.