Home
The Law and the Expert
Important Issues
Case Background
Analyst Murtagh
Seized Sample as Standard
Field and GCMS Tests
Analyst Ballard
GCMS Tests
GCMS Tests continued
Interaction
Sample 992027 Tests
NATA
Concluding Comments
e-mail me

 

The Arrest:

In July 1999, myself and two others had our premises raided by police in the company of an Australian Government Analyst, Vincent Murtagh, and a number of chemical substances were seized along with documents, some of which were later referred to as ‘recipes’ at trial. We were arrested and charged with the manufacture of a prohibited substance and this charge was later amended to manufacture methcathinone, a substance not previously seized in Australia, so obviously not tested by the Australian Government Analytical Laboratory (AGAL) to which the police sent the seized substance for analysis. The end result was that we were held without bail, for 19 months before trial, endured a 22 week trial, were convicted and sentenced to four years gaol on the evidence given by expert witnesses. Our convictions were later overturned in an unanimous decision of the Supreme Court of NSW due to sloppy science, physical interference with evidence and attempts to conceal that interference.

 

The Analysts:

The Government Analysts

The science here was conducted by two government analysts, Vincent Murtagh and Peter Ballard, in the employ of the Australian Government Analytical Laboratory (AGAL), now the National Measurement Institute. Both were deemed to be experienced forensic analysts and yet each physically altered evidence, failed to correctly interpret or understand scientific data, and one analyst produced certificates of analysis which were unsigned, undated and unwitnessed. Both analysts failed to follow guidelines and manuals and breached the various codes of conduct to which they were obligated. Both these analysts presented unclear copies of test results as evidence and on several occasions contradicted evidence they had given earlier. They both failed to tender test results at the Committal Hearing which they later relied upon at trial and they failed to supply such test results to the defense.

 

The Defense Analyst

The defense analyst, Dr Kibby, has an extensive curriculum vitae which includes 14 publications. He worked at ICI Australia in the Scientific Instrument Division as an Hewlett Packard Applications Manager and had some input into the manufacture of instruments and the training of others in their use. Further he worked with computer programmers in developing the software for running the instruments.

Further to Dr Kibby’s experience, the following is an extract from his evidence-in-chief:

“...with my background I specialised in pharmaceutical formulations and agricultural chemicals but even more relevant to these proceedings is the fact that at the time in 1991/1992 ICI had a pseudoephedrine factory at Mayfield up in Newcastle and I personally developed the analytical techniques for looking mixtures of pseudoephedrine, ephedrone which has been referred to in these proceedings as methcathinone, so I have actually got personal experience in analysing mixtures of these chemicals.”






|Home| |The Law and the Expert| |Important Issues| |Case Background| |Analyst Murtagh| |Seized Sample as Standard| |Field and GCMS Tests| |Analyst Ballard| |GCMS Tests| |GCMS Tests continued| |Interaction| |Sample 992027 Tests| |NATA| |Concluding Comments|