Criminal lawyers in the Australian state of Victoria are calling for an inquiry into the use of forensic evidence, saying unreliable science is being admitted into evidence in trials.

It echoes a call by the president of Victoria's Court of Appeal, who says there's little proof that forensic techniques like gunshot analysis, footprint analysis and hair comparisons can reliably identify criminals.

President of the Criminal Bar Association Len Andersen told Andrew Dickens that when it comes to relying on DNA, the answer is "yes and no".

He says that evidence can often be circumstantial and that it can prove to be controversial.

Andersen cites the ongoing case around Mark Lundy, who has taken his case to the Supreme Court over brain cell matter found on his clothing. 

"The problem with it is that while you can say bite marks, for example, found at the scene are identical to the defendant, unless you have a proper, statistical base, you aren't able to say how accurate that is. It's a question of what weight is given to it." 

He says DNA usually provides a good statistical base. 

LISTEN ABOVE