Police Officer Sent to Prison for Falsifying Evidence

A police officer has been sentenced to imprisonment for fabricating evidence against a woman during an investigation into drug offences.

37-year old former police detective Jye Symes pleaded guilty to one count of misconduct in public offence after falsely claiming DNA linked to a tenant suspected of being linked to the supply of prohibited drugs secreted in children’s toys and sent by post was found on a pair of gloves at the property.

The conduct 

The former detective was in charge of a 2019 police investigation into an alleged international drug trafficking ring suspected of importing illegal drugs and then distributing them via Australia Post. 

A property in Cairnlea, Melbourne, was identified as a safe house for the drugs, with police finding pieces of evidence — including a pair of gloves that had a man’s DNA on them. 

Despite only having the one source of DNA on the gloves, Symes falsely reported that he found a woman’s DNA on the gloves.

This led to to the woman being charged with a number of drug offences, including drug possession and drug supply. 

The woman’s criminal defence lawyers conducted their own investigations uncovered that Symes had in fact tampered with the evidence.

This eventually resulted in Symes being charged with misconduct in public office, and in the face of overwhelming evidence of his corrupt conduct, the officer pleaded guilty to that charge.

The sentencing proceedings came before his Honour Judge Cahill in the County Court of Victoria on 18 and 19 November 2024 who, after hearing submissions by both parties, imposed a full term of 3 years imprisonment with an 18-month non-parole period.

The Charge: Misconduct in Public Office 

Misconduct in public office occurs when a public officer intends to dishonestly gain a benefit from the officer or another person, or dishonestly causes a detriment to another person, by doing one or more of the following:

1. Dealing with information gained because of their position in office, 
2. Fails to perform a function of office, or
3. Does an actor make an omission in abusing the authority of office. 

This offence is not found in the Crimes Act 1900, nor has it been developed as an offence under the common law of England, including in New South Wales. However, this offence applies to criminal conduct by public sector officials and employees in the scope of their duties. For this offence to stand, there are numerous elements which must be proven:

1. The person must be a public official,
2. The person must be acting in due course of their duties, 
3. The person must have wilfully misconducted himself by act or omission, 
4. The person must have done so without any justification, and 
5. The misconduct must be serious and merit criminal punishment. 

Doctored DNA report

Since Symes used inaccurate DNA evidence to attempt to falsely convict a woman with drug offences, it is a direct violation of the Crimes Act. Part 1D of the Crimes Act states that evidence obtained from a forensic procedure is inadmissible if there has been a breach of the pre-set provisions. 

There are also safeguards in place for cases where victims require criminal appeals based on wrongful convictions. In Australia, the Courts of Criminal Appeal are empowered to receive evidence if it is ‘expedient in the interests of justice’, but with stipulations that the evidence be considered ‘fresh’. The High Court has no power to hear an appeal based on new DNA evidence. 

Furthermore, Australia also has formal independent review bodies to investigate wrongful convictions and redirect them to criminal appeal courts. Other less formal bodies, such as the Innocence Project, can also help with possible wrongful conviction appeals.

But, just because there are independent review bodies, this doesn’t mean that the country is doing all it can be — and should be — doing to prevent wrongful convictions. In fact, the Australian court system currently ignores scientific criteria recommended by elite organisations in favor of ‘junk science’, which has led to numerous wrongful convictions over the years. 

Wrongful Convictions in Australia 

There are numerous examples of falsified DNA documents or misuse of forensic technology that can potentially charge innocent people in Australia. There have been systemic causes of wrongful conviction, with 45% of wrongful conviction cases in the United States and 31% of wrongful conviction cases in Australia caused by the misapplication of forensic science. 

Incidents such as the Queensland DNA lab facility failures have highlighted the issues with DNA testing in Australia in recent years. Thousands of serious criminal cases in Queensland needed to be reviewed after an inquiry showed that the state-run lab did not properly test the DNA samples for years — which could have led to hundreds, if not thousands, of false convictions.

With the development of new DNA testing and other forensic evidence, laboratories, police officers, and scientists must understand how to use the new technology to properly acquit or charge a person with a crime. Keeping DNA and other forensic evidence after a trial has ended is now an essential part of criminal law—although it can lead to more issues in the future in terms of double jeopardy and wrongful convictions. 

DNA evidence has been used in criminal investigations much more in the last 20 years, with DNA profiling used to compare DNA on a victim or at a crime scene with a sample. Even so, as this case shows, DNA could be affected by contamination, planting, or lab errors. 

Furthermore, the need for DNA evidence at a crime scene has broadened the scope of police officers’ work. For example, laws were established in 2000 in NSW that allowed officers to collect DNA samples from offenders and suspects and store them in a database for future testing. However, with these new laws, a nationwide testing system that creates uniformity has yet to be established.

Police Corruption In Australia

The doctrine of DNA evidence and falsifying documents isn’t just a stand-alone case of one corrupt officer — it highlights the presence of corruption, misconduct, breach of discipline, and official misconduct in the country’s police force as a whole. DNA evidence, a powerful tool in criminal investigations, can be easily manipulated, as seen in this case, leading to potential miscarriages of justice. 

Corruption hit its highest in Australian law enforcement in 2021, the highest level in 15 years, with the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity, a key anti-corruption agency, finding that there were ‘hundreds of incidents of unauthorised access’. This underscores the need for robust oversight and accountability measures within law enforcement agencies.

Furthermore, there are predictive indicators for police officers that can help determine whether someone may be susceptible to serious misconduct in their job. A study conducted by Crime Science in 2020 produced an analysis of police misconduct that found younger, male officers were more often misconduct-prone. In addition, risk factors for misconduct include those with criminal records prior to joining the police force, prior deviance, and incidents of ‘issues with an investigation’, all of which were predictors of serious misconduct. 

Understanding the risk factors for police officers who could potentially be susceptible to serious misconduct throughout their careers can be critical for the police force as a whole’s ability to minimise risk and screen its officers. Policy among policing agencies should reflect the seriousness and prevention of misconduct among officers throughout their careers. 

Lastly, the general public’s distrust and perceptions of corruption in Australia clearly frame the bigger issue at hand—the Australian police force has a track record of incidents that have minimised the country’s positive perception of them as a whole. So, it is no surprise that one of Victoria’s ex-police officers would have found themselves in a situation like this one.