The prosecution sought to bring into evidence an ear print. The defendant appealed.
Held: The science of identifying ear prints remained under development, but there was nothing to stop it being admitted where appropriately cautious directions were given by the judge. There was no basis for excluding evidence in respect of marks found at the scene of a crime. In this case however there was fresh evidence as to the reliability of these particular marks, which might have affected the jury’s decision if it had been available at trial. The conviction was quashed, and a new trial ordered.
Judges:
Lord Justice Kennedy, Mr Justice Curtis and Mr Justice Pitchford
Citations:
Times 21-Aug-2002, [2002] EWCA Crim 1903
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Kempster, Regina v CACD 7-May-2008
The defendant appealed against his conviction saying that evidence of an ear-print expert had been wrongly admitted.
Held: The court rejected an argument based on Coutts. Ear-print evidence can be admitted provided the experts were . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Crime, Evidence
Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.174356