Important issues which arose from this case:   1: The prudence of examining the science behind the Certificates of Identification offered as evidence by forensic analysts.   2: There needs to be a sample of the seized substance sealed, numbered and signed by the accused person at the time of arrest, in order that counsel can have it independently tested or that it can be tested in the of defense counsel along the lines of the ‘B’ sample in sports drug cases.   3: Stringent measures placed on the continuity of handling of substances sent for analysis to ensure that the analysed substance presented in court is the same substance that was seized.   4: The need for full disclosure of evidence, supported by documentation where applicable, that the prosecution later relies on in court.   5: There needs to be a demonstrable separation between the analyst and the police investigators in order to preserve the independence of the scientific testing and subsequent reports.   6: The necessity for manuals and protocols to be followed correctly, reviewed regularly and problems reported immediately is emphasised.   7: The conducting of scientific tests need to be carried out in an independent and professional manner under the protocols and guidelines of the individual laboratory, the National Association of Testing Authorities (NATA) and where applicable the Australian Public Service Code of Conduct.   8: The giving of evidence, especially complex scientific data, needs to be supported by clear documentation and oral evidence needs to be as straightforward as possible.   9: This case also highlights the obligations of the expert witness to the court and the consequences of expert witness immunity when that privilege is abused.