Officials from all spheres of conservation, legislation, prosecution, science and law enforcement gathered today at the Pretoria National Botanical Gardens to attend the Workshop on Legal Standards for use of DNA evidence from Wildlife in South Africa.
The BoWP aims to demonstrate the value of DNA barcoding in the investigation and prosecution of wildlife, conservation and biodiversity crime. The purpose of the workshop was to bring together the various partners and role players together to establish and understanding of the project's goals and structure; reviewing the procedures for establishing the admissibility of new types of scientific data as evidence in South African courts and the standards for such evidence; and agreeing on a plan of action and a timetable for establishing the admissibility of DNA barcode evidence.
The welcome and introduction of various participants was facilitated by Michelle Hamer of SANBI, after which David Schindel of CBOL gave a brief overview of DNA barcoding, as well as the components involved in the legal standard for admissibility. Discussion was encouraged about a variety of topics relating to this, including the underlying scientific credibility of DNA barcoding and method validation studies, characteristics of the reference sequence database and reference specimens, procedures used in the construction of the database, the collection and handling of evidence, laboratory procedures used on evidence, data analysis using the reference sequence database, the accreditation, certification and training of laboratory staff and expert witnesses and the importance of geographical and population data in investigation and prosecution.
The interest in and importance of the project was evident during a brief coffee break, where participants continued to engage in discussions and debates, ranging from scientific discussions about taxonomy, zoology and botany to current issues such as rhino poaching, conservation policies and legislation and ivory trade.
One of the main topics of discussion when the workshop resumed was the necessity of the chain of custody and evidence collection and handling. One of the points that was clearly made was that lawyers and scientists think differently! As Dania Bruwer from the National Prosecuting Authority stated when discussing the chain of evidence, it is rarely the scientific data that is attacked in court, but rather the human process of collection and possible contamination during analysis that is a weak spot for defense. This process should not only include the suspect sample collected on the crime scene, but may also need to include the sample specimens collected for the reference database. The main obstacle seems to be collaborating the methods and expectations and finding a middle ground between the scientific standards and the legal standards. The need for secure storage and separating academic and forensic laboratories was emphasises as a procedural difference that needs to be addressed.
The workshop was a massive success, with many key points identified that will need to be addressed as the project progresses in the future.
The list also focused specifically on species that are traded as parts and derivatives, which may be difficult to identify. For instance, a leopard pelt is easily and readily identifiable. However, certain species of beetles are not so easy to identify as adults, and then we have not even started looking at them in their larvae stage. Also certain plants, such as cycads, are stripped of their leaves during transport which makes identification much more of a challenge.
