|[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]|
England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions >> R v Nealon  EWCA Crim 574 (28 March 2014)
Cite as:  EWCA Crim 574
[New search] [Context] [View without highlighting] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
ON APPEAL FROM Hereford Crown Court
Mr Justice Jowitt
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
B e f o r e :
MR JUSTICE KENNETH PARKER
Sir DAVID CALVERT-SMITH
|- and -
Copies of this transcript are available from:
WordWave International Limited
A Merrill Communications Company
165 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2DY
Tel No: 020 7414 1400, Fax No: 020 7831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
Ms S Whitehouse (instructed by CPS Special Crimes Division Appeals Unit) for the Respondent
Hearing dates : 13 December 2013
Crown Copyright ©
Lord Justice Fulford :
The Witnesses at the Scene
The Appellant's Arrest
The Appellant's Case at Trial
"[ ] what Dr Barnes can't exclude though, because it would occur without leaving any signs, is a swelling caused by a blow of some kind or other, a swelling from a heavy blow can come up very quickly and then will subside over just a few days. It will not leave any visible sign of its former presence, though in some, but not in all cases there can a thickening of the underlying tissue which can be felt, although there remains no visible sign of the former swelling. There wasn't any thickening of that nature in this case but, as Dr Barnes said, that doesn't exclude the possibility of there having been some sort of blow, a large lump and then quickly going down again. So the medical evidence doesn't show the defendant can't have had a lump on his forehead "
The 1998 Appeal against Conviction
The Reference by the CCRC
i) A sample from the lower right front of Ms E's blouse revealed a full male DNA sample from what was probably a saliva stain. It is not from the appellant, and it had been deposited by a man who was designated as the "unknown male".
ii) Further probable saliva stains were detected on the right and left cups of Ms E's brassiere, as well as other DNA material from the inside and outside of the brassiere. It is accepted that there is no scientific support for the proposition that the appellant contributed to these deposits. However, Ms Sower suggested there was a "high degree of similarity" between what was found on the brassiere and the DNA of the "unknown male" discovered on the blouse; Dr Clayton put his conclusions on this slightly differently, namely the "unknown male" may have been a contributor to the material; and Ms Morgan suggested there were consistencies between the samples from the brassiere and the blouse.
iii) Complex mixtures of DNA were retrieved from Ms E's skirt and tights. Each mixture included DNA from at least three individuals of whom at least one was a woman. Although the appellant shared some of the DNA components in this "mixed profile", the complexity of the results is such that a large proportion of the population would show concordance with these findings. This meant that the failure to eliminate the appellant from these mixtures has little significance.
The Submissions of the Respondent
"[h]aving worked on a number of these types of cases over the years, I have to say that my expectation of finding detectable levels of the offender's DNA at the outset would have been low. In my opinion, at this juncture it remains quite plausible that the attacker transferred little or no DNA to the C's clothing during the commission of the offence and that the DNA from the unknown male is not crime related."
The Submissions of the Appellant