Recent Judicial Decisions
| Author | Jane Creaton |
| Date | 01 June 2007 |
| Published date | 01 June 2007 |
| DOI | 10.1350/pojo.2007.80.2.167 |
| Subject Matter | Recent Judicial Decisions |
JANE CREATON
Legal Correspondent
Email: jane.creaton@port.ac.uk
RECENT JUDICIAL DECISIONS
Admissibility of DNA Evidence
R v Bates [2006] EWCA Crim 1395
Court of Appeal, Criminal Division
7 July 2006
accuracy of match probabilities; admissibility of DNA
evidence; alleles; mixed profiles; partial profiles; presenting
statistical evidence; risks and probabilities; whether judge
misdirected jury on law relating to principals and
accomplices
This was an appeal against a conviction of murder.
The facts
Marilyn Garside was killed in October 2001 at her mother’s
house. Her husband, James Garside, and Bates were tried
together in 2003 for her murder. The prosecution’s case was that
Garside had hired Bates to carry out the murder, and it submitted
that a partial DNA profile from the crime scene showed that
Bates had been present. The appellant had argued at the trial
that James Garside had hired someone else, whose identity was
unknown, to murder his wife. Both men were convicted of
murder in 2003. The appellant successfully appealed on the
grounds that, as a result of a misunderstanding by his counsel, he
had not had the benefit of the closing speech to the jury. His
conviction was quashed and a retrial was ordered. Garside’s
conviction was also quashed and a re-trial ordered, and a second
trial of both men took place between February and May 2005.
At the second trial, the prosecution again sought to rely on
the partial DNA profile as part of the evidence against Bates. The
judge, following a voir dire, held that the evidence was admiss-
ible. The judge directed that the jury could not convict Garside
unless they were sure that Bates had killed Garside’s wife. Bates
was subsequently convicted of murder.
The appeal
The appeal was based on two grounds. The first was that the
DNA evidence should not have been admitted because it was
The Police Journal, Volume 80 (2007) 167
impossible to give an accurate statistical value to the partial
profile. The second ground was that the judge’s direction to the
jury that they could only convict Garside if they had decided that
Bates was guilty, was a misdirection, because an accomplice
may be convicted despite the principal being acquitted. These
were the same grounds of appeal as for the appeal against the
first trial. Leave to appeal was granted on the first ground,
because the issue relating to the DNA evidence had not been
considered on that occasion. The second ground was referred to
the full court.
HELD
In relation to the first ground, the Court of Appeal held that
partial-profile DNA evidence could be admitted, provided that
the jury are given sufficient explanation to evaluate it and to
understand its potential limitations. In relation to the second
ground, the court held that although it may be correct in law that
an accomplice may be convicted despite the principal being
acquitted, the judge’s direction was the only possible one in the
circumstances.
The appellant argued that the statistical evidence should not
have been placed before the jury because it was inaccurate,
misleading and left the jury to evaluate evidence that was not
properly quantifiable. The court had no doubt that the judge’s
summing-up was clear, fair and enabled the jury to evaluate the
evidence. Furthermore, it was not the only evidence in the case.
The judge properly admitted the evidence and this ground of
appeal was rejected.
The second ground of appeal was that the judge was wrong
to direct the jury that the judge should only consider the case
against Garside if they were sure that the appellant was the
person who had killed Marilyn Garside. In this particular case,
the prosecution’s case related specifically to the assertion that
Garside had hired Bates to kill his wife and that he had done so.
It did not seek to argue that if Bates had not carried out the
murder then it had been carried out by someone else. The court
could not see what other direction the judge could have given in
the circumstances and leave to appeal on that ground was
refused.
Comment
A complete DNA profile from a single contributor will identify
two alleles (genetic blocks) at each of ten loci (regions of the
168 The Police Journal, Volume 80 (2007)
To continue reading
Request your trial