Admissibility of Low Template DNA Evidence
| Author | Michael Stockdale,Brian Brewis |
| Published date | 01 April 2013 |
| Date | 01 April 2013 |
| DOI | 10.1350/1740-5580-77.2.115 |
| Subject Matter | Court of Appeal |
to a matter in issue of substantial importance in the context of the
proceedings, namely W’s alleged propensity to violent behaviour in
public, apparently triggered off by some personal grievance (at [41]).
Nevertheless, the court held that the failure of the judge to admit the
evidence had no effect on the safety of the conviction, noting that
the evidence added ‘very little to what the jury already knew about W’
(at [42]).
Brian Brewis, Adam Jackson and Michael Stockdale
Admissibility of Low Template DNA Evidence
R vDlugosz; R vPickering; R vMDS [2013] EWCA Crim 2
Keywords Low Template DNA; Expert evidence; Evaluative opinion;
Reliability; Admissibility
D1 appealed against his convictions of burglary, robbery and man-
slaughter; his co-defendant had been convicted of manslaughter and
robbery. The forensic evidence consisted only of a very small mixed DNA
profile found on two chisels that were recovered from the premises.
D2 was charged with two counts of sexual assault on a girl under the
age of 13. The jury could not reach agreement on the first count, but
convicted by a majority on the second. Four swabs were taken from V,
each showing the presence of DNA from at least two persons.
D3 was convicted of murder and other offences which had occurred
during a robbery in which two persons, L and O, had been stabbed, the
latter fatally. The issue at trial concerned whether the appellant, D3, had
stabbed L. Swabs were taken from the doorbell of the premises at which
the robbery occurred which showed a mixed profile from three or four
contributors. A knife was also discovered in a nearby garden wrapped in
cling film, the handle of which showed a weak profile from at least three
contributors.
The corresponding feature of each appeal concerned the judge’s
decision to admit Low Template DNA evidence and DNA derived from a
mixed sample in which there were least two or three contributors. In the
first appeal, the Crown’s expert contended that it was ‘rare’ to find all 20
components of the person’s DNA present whereas the appellant’s expert
described it as ‘somewhat unusual’. The DNA sample in each case
contained 19 or 20 components of the defendant’s DNA. In the first two
appeals it was accepted that the experts were unable to calculate a
random match probability whilst in the third appeal the judge refused to
admit evidence that had been refined by the use of a software program
that had been developed by the expert. Consequently, DNA evidence
was given in each case despite the expert being unable to provide a
random match probability. It was not possible, as is usual with Low
Template DNA, to conclude how the DNA had been deposited and
when. It was contended that the lack of statistical evidence meant that
Admissibility of Low Template DNA Evidence
115
To continue reading
Request your trial