The defendant, supported by the Criminal Cases Review Commission sought to appeal against his conviction in 1988 for murder, saying that a modern DNA test rendered the conviction unsafe. He had been convicted in part on the basis of analysis of semen samples. Only recently had the tests on such small amounts been effective for DNA. The crown now accepted that the new test meant that at least one person other than the defendant had been involved.
Held: The Crown had disavowed the possibility of there being two perpetrators, and additional doubts had also been raised as to the times of the events on the evening, and ‘In the result there is nothing in the materials relied upon by the Crown, all of which we have examined carefully, to dispel the very strong probability that there was only one male contributor to the DNA found in the intimate samples taken from the victim. As we have said it is accepted that if that is the court’s conclusion, the appellant cannot have been that contributor. In short, in light of the fresh evidence obtained from the DNA profiles, this appellant’s conviction is plainly unsafe. The appeal will be allowed and the conviction quashed. ‘
Laws LJ, Mitting, Gage JJ
 EWCA Crim 1976
Cited – Nunn, Regina (on The Application of) v Chief Constable of Suffolk Constabulary and Another SC 18-Jun-2014
Limits to Duty To Investigate
The claimant had been convicted of a murder. He continued to protest his innocence, and now sought judicial review of the respondent’s decision not to act upon his requests for further investigations which might prove his innocence.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 04 December 2021; Ref: scu.526717