Forensic Ballistics, Firearms & Explosives
Frank Lawton
Melbourne, AustraliaProviding experienced, independent, expert forensic advice on

Ballistics	Explosives
Firearms	Bombings
Shootings	Gun Shot Residue
Ammunition	Scene Investigations

Contacts:

Phone: 0412 523 842

email: ballistics.au@gmail.com

Qualifications & Experience

Forensic Ballistics, Firearms and Explosives
Frank Lawton

• Given evidence in UK courts and accepted as an expert witness in the Federal Court, Supreme Courts of Victoria and New South Wales and other courts in those states. Worked successfully on many cases with solicitors and barristers in Victoria, New South Wales, ACT, Queensland and South Australia where court appearances were not necessary.

• Experienced in:

• investigation of shooting and bombing incidents

• examination of physical evidence
• determination of type of weapon used
• weapon and bullet identification from bullets and cartridge cases
• study of effects of explosives on their targets
• examination of evidence at scene of a crime

• Professionally trained and qualified in UK on a 12 month full time course, including:

Weapon design, testing and proof

Design, manufacture, ballistics and testing of ammunition

Chemistry of all types of propellants and explosives

Metallurgy and metal working

Electronic systems

Explosive device construction, trends and usage

Bomb scene investigation

Disposal of explosive devices

Qualified demolition supervisor and explosives instructor

• Have held licence to use blasting explosives in Victoria.

Case Examples

Forensic Ballistics, Firearms and Explosives
Frank Lawton

High Profile Incidents

I provided advice on the following high profile incidents:

• Russell Street car bomb, Melbourne
• Toorak bombing, Melbourne
• Turkish Embassy bomb, Melbourne
• Tax Office letter bombs, ACT
• Shooting murder of Mr John Newman, MP, Sydney

Case Examples

The following are examples of some of the cases and type of advice I have been able to provide. The personal details and other items which may identify the people involved have been omitted. In many instances my reports and short discussions were sufficient to provide defence counsel with the advice needed. In other cases evidence was given at trial. This specialist advice, in conjunction with other evidence presented, contributed to the outcomes shown.

1. Accidental Shooting with Rifle

The accused was charged with deliberate wounding with a rifle. After examining the recovered bullet, the possibility of a ricochet having caused the injury was able to be put forward. The charges were reduced to accidental wounding and no custodial sentence was imposed.

2. Illegal Discharge of Weapon

Three people were charged with several firearms offences including illegal discharge of a weapon, unlicensed possession of a weapon etc. After examining the statements, photographic evidence and crime scene diagrams, it was possible to show that the events in relation to the gun, as suggested by the some prosecution witnesses, was unlikely to have happened in the time available; and that gun shot residue traces found were inconclusive in showing one person had fired a weapon. Following this and other evidence, the charges against two people were dropped, and the third pleaded guilty to a much lesser charge involving no custodial sentence.

3. Attempted Murder #1

The accused was charged with attempted murder and other weapons offences, even though no shots had been fired. After examining the weapon and how it could have been handled during the incidents reported, it was possible to show that the accused’s version, the alleged victim's version and the witness versions did not entirely agree with each other, nor with the probable events. Charges were reduced to illegal possession of a firearm.

4. Bombing Murder

The prosecution presented evidence as to one type of explosive used, and that quantities of it had been found in the accused’s possession. Through a practical demonstration using live explosives, and recorded on video, it was possible to show to the court that the explosive suggested by the prosecution probably was not involved in the crime. This was supported by evidence from a chemical analysis expert and other evidence. The accused was found not guilty.

5. Shooting Murder

Through a series of test firings at the scene of the crime, in conjunction with the prosecution experts, it was possible to validate certain aspects of the accused’s evidence. The accused was found not guilty.

6. Shooting Murder #2

The accused offered a version of events pointing to an accidental shooting. From an examination of the scene diagrams, pattern of cartridges and cases found, wound positions and blood stain positions, it was possible to show that the accused's version was a most unlikely scenario, and that the accused should not rely on that version of events for a defence. Outcome not known.

7. Shooting Murder #3

The only physical evidence against the accused was a partial indication of gun shot residue found on the accused’s clothing some time after the murder. Evidence was given that this was inconclusive of the accused having fired the fatal shot. This and other evidence lead to a not guilty verdict.

8. Attempted Murder #2

From an examination of the scene photographs, blood stain patterns, angle of the wound, and a recreation of the scene, it was possible to show that the accused would have had some difficulty in firing the shot as proposed by the prosecution, and that another person may have fired the wounding shot. This and other evidence lead to a not guilty verdict.

Quotations

The only reliable evidence
is the physical evidence.

“This is evidence that does not forget.   It is not confused by the excitement of the moment.   It is not absent because human witnesses are.   It is factual evidence.   Physical evidence cannot be wrong, it cannot perjure itself, it cannot be wholly absent.   Only human failure to find it, study and understand it, can diminish its value.”

Professor Edmond Locard (1877-1966)

“Whenever you have excluded the impossible, whatever remains, 
however improbable, must be the truth.”

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes