CRIMINAL cases built solely on DNA evidence would not be allowed to proceed under changes being considered by Victoria Police and the state's Director of Public Prosecutions following the wrongful rape conviction of 22-year-old Fara Jama.

Victoria has again allowed DNA evidence in court after a meeting of Australia's leading forensic scientists agreed on a national standard for the interpretation of DNA.

The use of the evidence was suspended last month after Chief Commissioner Simon Overland said interpretation methods were out of step with improved sampling technology.

Read Next

Deputy Commissioner Ken Jones yesterday said the old interpretation methods had not "adversely affected" any defendants and there was no need for a "wholesale" review of past cases.

However, Sir Ken said the wrongful conviction of Mr Jama in 2006 - which was a result of a contaminated sample rather than a failure in interpretation - gave weight to the argument that juries should not be asked to convict on DNA alone.

"We are going to have to look very carefully on whether any case should proceed solely on DNA," Sir Ken said. "In many jurisdictions, parts of America, and certainly the United Kingdom, where I come from, you can't take a case forward on DNA alone. This is an incredibly important tool for us. It allows us to catch some of the worst and most violent people in our society. So we need to preserve and protect that capability.

"If that means we look for greater support for DNA evidence in any proceeding case, I personally would favour that."

A change in policy would require DPP Jeremy Rapke QC to write the requirement for supporting evidence into prosecutorial guidelines.

A state government spokesman yesterday said: "It is critical for the criminal justice system that there is confidence in DNA as an investigative tool, however criminal offences generally require additional proof."

The Jama case, which was overturned on appeal last month after prosecutors conceded there had been a "substantial miscarriage of justice", is being reviewed by retired Supreme Court judge Frank Vincent.

Mr Jama was jailed after a jury relied entirely on DNA evidence to find him guilty of raping a 40-year-old woman, despite testimony from family members that he was at his sick father's bedside at the time of the alleged attack.