The defendant appealed against his convictions for robbery. The sole evidence was the presence of DNA evidence drawn from a balacava left at the scene. There was a probability of a one in a billion that it was DNA matching someone other than the appellant. There was no other independent evidence which could be relied upon by the prosecution to establish guilt. The experts were unable to say how the DNA was deposited on the balaclava and it was possible that it had been taken to the scene by somebody else.
Held: The appeal was successful despite the fact there had been a no comment interview.
Judges:
Gage LJ, Silber J, Radford J
Citations:
[2008] EWCA Crim 1890
Links:
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Grant CACD 18-Jul-2008
The defendant appealed against his convictions for robbery. The sole evidence was the presence of DNA evidence drawn from a balacava left at the scene. There was a probability of a one in a billion that it was DNA matching someone other than the . .
Cited by:
Cited – Regina v Ogden CACD 28-Jun-2013
The defendant had been charged for burglary on the basis, solely, of DNA evidence found on a scarf. The scarf was accidentally destroyed before the trial, and the defence had been unable to have it examined. He now appealed saying that the use of . .
Cited – Regina v Grant CACD 18-Jul-2008
The defendant appealed against his convictions for robbery. The sole evidence was the presence of DNA evidence drawn from a balacava left at the scene. There was a probability of a one in a billion that it was DNA matching someone other than the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Evidence
Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.343033