R v Grant (Alan Ian)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE GAGE |
| Judgment Date | 18 July 2008 |
| Neutral Citation | [2008] EWCA Crim 1890 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
| Docket Number | No: 200706601/D1 |
| Date | 18 July 2008 |
[2008] EWCA Crim 1890
Lord Justice Gage
Mr Justice Silber
His Honour Judge Radford
(Sitting as a Judge of the CACD)
No: 200706601/D1
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Miss s Dodd appeared on behalf of the Appellant
Mr D Kerr appeared on behalf of the Crown
This appellant, Alan Ian Grant, was convicted at Liverpool Crown Court on 21st November 2007 of two offences. They were robbery, count 1, and possessing a firearm at the time of committing the offence, count 2. He was sentenced in respect of those offences to 7 years' imprisonment less 175 days which he had spent on remand in respect of count 1 and 2 years' imprisonment concurrent in respect of count 2. The total sentence therefore was 7 years' imprisonment less 175 days. The judge ordered forfeiture of a ball bearing firing handgun, pursuant to section 52(1) of the Firearms Act 1968.
The issue at trial was the identity of the robber. The prosecution case depended on DNA evidence, connected with a balaclava helmet, which was discovered close to the premises that had been robbed, shortly after the robbery.
The facts adduced in evidence by the prosecution were not in dispute. They are as follows. The robbery occurred at Ladbrokes Bookmakers, situated at Argyle Street in Birkenhead, on the evening of 17th April 2007. A man entered the premises brandishing a firearm. He was wearing a dark jacket, a cap and a homemade balaclava. All these items of clothing together with gloves were very quickly recovered by police officers, after the robbery, from an alleyway next to the premises. In addition they recovered cash bags and the majority of money which had been taken in the robbery. They also found in a bin a firearm.
The only identification of the offender who committed the robbery was that he had a local accent and blue eyes. There was no relevant CCTV footage.
Scientific tests were made on the balaclava helmet and they revealed the following. There was a complete DNA profile which matched the DNA profile of the appellant. The agreed scientific evidence of two experts, one instructed on behalf of the prosecution and on one of behalf of the defence was that the odds of it being someone unrelated to the appellant were estimated at one in one billion. The testing, however, revealed the presence of a minor incomplete DNA profile of at least one other person. It was agreed between the two experts that this evidence did not assist with the question as to whether the appellant or the other contributor or contributors to the DNA on the balaclava wore the item at the time of the robbery. It was not possible to age the DNA. It was not possible to determine which DNA deposit was made first and it was not possible to determine whether the DNA attributed to the appellant was from skin, saliva or some other part of the body or material. There was no attempt made by the experts to examine the complete balaclava.
The prosecution expert, Mr Doyle, made a number of assumptions in order to conduct his enquiry. He assumed that the balaclava was being worn with the wider portion towards the bottom of the face, and that it was being worn with the inside of the garment next to the face. Mr...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v Tsekiri
...at the scene of a crime such as a hat or a scarf where the court had quashed convictions based solely on that evidence: see Grant [2008] EWCA Crim 1890; Ogden [2013] EWCA Crim 1294. In Bryon [2015] 2 Cr.App.R. 21 it was stated that, where a movable item with mixed DNA profiles, one being th......
-
R v Albert Sampson and Another
...not drawn to the attention of the judge: in particular, Doheny and Adams [1997] 1 Cr App R 369; Lashley [2000] EWCA Crim 88; Grant [2008] EWCA Crim 1890; and Ogden [2013] EWCA Crim 1294. 37 In all of these cases the Crown relied on DNA found on an article of clothing at a crime scene to lin......
-
R v Michael David Bryon
...in Doheny and Adams to which we have previously referred. 27 Grant is another case which proceeds essentially the same principle. In R v Grant [2008] EWCA Crim 1890, there was a robbery in Liverpool. The police discovered a balaclava helmet which appeared to have been worn by the robber. A ......
-
Neville Barnes v R
...Mr Taylor submitted that, in any event, the disapproval of the cases of R v Ogden [2013] EWCA Crim 1294, and R v Grant [2008] EWCA Crim 1890, in the later cases of R v FNC [2015] EWCA Crim 1732, and R v Tsekiri [2017] EWCA Crim 40, would now allow a conviction to soundly stand exclusive......
-
To the exclusion of all others? DNA profile and transfer mechanics—R v Jones (William Francis) [2020] EWCA Crim 1021 (03 Aug 2020)
...from its original position (see RvLashley—unreported; CPS Policy Directorate, Guidance on DNA Charging, 2004, implemented in RvGrant[2008] EWCA Crim 1890; RvOgden [2013] EWCA Crim 1294; RvBryon [2015] EWCA Crim 997),according to which DNA as a sole item of evidence provides an insufficient ......
-
DNA Evidence Alone as a Case to Answer
...Recorder Day, acceded to a defence sub-mission that following the Court of Appeal decisions in RvLashley [2000] EWCA Crim 88, RvGrant[2008] EWCA Crim 1890 and RvOgden [2013] EWCA Crim 1294, DNA evidence alone was insuffi-cient to constitute a case to answer. The prosecution appealed against......
-
Voice Recognition Evidence
...Recorder Day, acceded to a defence sub-mission that following the Court of Appeal decisions in RvLashley [2000] EWCA Crim 88, RvGrant[2008] EWCA Crim 1890 and RvOgden [2013] EWCA Crim 1294, DNA evidence alone was insuffi-cient to constitute a case to answer. The prosecution appealed against......
-
DNA Evidence Alone as a Case to Answer: Bech, R v Court of Appeal [2018] EWCA Crim 448
...be evaluated with at least some other supporting evidence in the case.(Paragraph 5.4)The CPS guidance was then implemented in RvGrant[2008] EWCA Crim 1890 and R v Ogden(Robert) [2013] EWCA Crim 1294 (CA (Crim Div)), both of which involved mixed—or potentiallymixed—DNA profiles on moveable i......