|[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 >> Bates, R. v  EWCA Crim 1395 (07 July 2006)
Cite as:  EWCA Crim 1395
[New search] [Context] [View without highlighting] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT
Mr. Justice Fulford
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
B e f o r e :
MR. JUSTICE BURTON
SIR RICHARD CURTIS
|- and -
Mr. John Hilton Q.C. and Mr. Philip Bennets (instructed by the Crown Prosecution Service) for the respondent.
Hearing date: 16th June 2006
Crown Copyright ©
Lord Justice Moore-Bick:
2. The nature of DNA evidence
(a) The process of analysis
(b) Copying and the production of artefacts
(c) Mixed profiles and partial profiles
3. The present appeal
"13. What are the consequences of the impossibility of assigning a statistical weight to the voids? The alternatives are to exclude the evidence entirely or to admit it subject to an appropriate warning to the jury of the limitations of the evidence, and particularly highlighting the fact that although what was found was consistent with Bates' DNA profile, the voids at D2 and D18 in particular may have contained an allele or alleles, the presence of which would have been wholly exculpatory.
14. In arriving at the correct conclusion it is important to remember that scientific evidence frequently only provides a partial answer to a case, or to an issue in a case. However, the test of admissibility is not whether the answer is complete, but whether science can properly and fairly contribute to the matter in question. . . . . . . . . "
4. The path to conviction
"Given the way in which the prosecution had presented its case, Garside would have been denied a fair trial if the judge had left the case against Garside on an alternative basis. Thus, the only way for the judge to have given effect to what Mr. Miskin wanted him to do would have been for the jury to be directed that when considering Garside's case, they could only convict Garside if they convicted Bates, but that when considering Bates' case they could convict Garside without convicting Bates. The jury would have been utterly bewildered if they had received that direction. The only direction which the judge could have given in the circumstances was the one he gave." (Emphasis added).