Court of Appeal
| Author | Karen Richmond |
| DOI | 10.1177/0022018317721641 |
| Published date | 01 August 2017 |
| Date | 01 August 2017 |
| Subject Matter | Case Notes |
Case Note
Court of Appeal
DNA Profiling: Transfer and Persistence
RvTsekiri [2017] EWCA Crim 40
Keywords
DNA, Forensic science, Expert evidence
On 11th June 2016, Ms Carr, the victim, unlock ed her vehicle which was parked on a street ne ar
Wimbledon Park Tube Station. At this point, an unidentified man attempted to enter the car. A brief
struggle ensued and the man escaped with Ms Carr’s gold necklace. Swabs were taken from the exterior
door handle of the vehicle and these revealed a mixed DNA profile. The profile belonging to the major
contributor was consistent with that taken from the appellant (with a match probability of one in one
billion). There was at least one other minor contributor. The reporting scientist could reach no deter-
mination as to when the major components of the mixed DNA profile had been deposited, nor their
source. The deposit could have been due to that person touching the door handle or due to indirect
secondary transfer through an intermediary (though she considered this unlikely, given that the DNA in
question was the major contributor to the profile). The appellant submitted that there was no case to
answer given the dearth of evidence.
Held, dismissing the appeal, ‘...there is no evidential or legal principle which prevents a case
solely dependent on the presence of the defendant’s DNA profile on an article left at the scene of a crime
being considered by a jury’ (per Lord Thomas at [21]). Whether the evidence is sufficient will depend on
the facts of the case. However, the court provided a non-exhaustive list of relevant factors to be taken
into account, which are as follows:
Can the presence of the DNA evidence be otherwise accounted for?
Was the article apparently associated with the offence itself?
How readily moveable was the article in question?
Is there evidence of some geographical association between the offence and the offender?
In the case of a mixed profile, is the DNA pro file which matches the defendant, the ma jor
contributor?
Is it more or less likely that the DNA profile attributable to the defendant was deposited by
primary, or secondary, transfer? (at [15]–[21]).
Commentary
In his 2014 Kalisher lecture to the Criminal Bar Association (Expert Evidence: The future of forensic
science in criminal trials, 14th October 2014), the Lord Chief Justice, the Rt. Hon. The Lord Thomas of
Cwmgiedd, expressed concerns regarding the potential of new, or complex, scientific developments to
The Journal of Criminal Law
2017, Vol. 81(4) 275–277
ªThe Author(s) 2017
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0022018317721641
journals.sagepub.com/home/clj
To continue reading
Request your trial