Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.
Appellant was informed of grounds for authorisation to take DNA evidence which connected him to a murder
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
Court of Appeal dismisses appeal of murder conviction where the prosecution contended that a glove with DNA evidence linking it to the appellant which was found close to the murder scene, phone evidence and evidence of a family feud involving the appellant all supported a conviction, finding that: a) the trial judge was entitled in his discretion to leave the case to the jury; b) while there was no evidence the appellant was explicitly told what the grounds for an authorisation for a buccal swab to be taken were, it was clear the appellant was so informed; c) evidence of phone charts detailing the use of a mobile phone connected with the offence were properly admitted; d) sufficient evidence was put before the judge of the District Court in order for him to form a reasonable suspicion that the appellant was connected with the offence (which formed the basis for his valid arrest); and e) the trial judge was correct not to discharge the jury in light of the prosecutions closing speech regarding the appellant's use of a mobile phone and properly refused to direct the prosecution to disclose two statements made by persons unknown.
Criminal law – appeal of murder conviction – whether the judge should have directed the jury to return a verdict of not guilty at the close of the prosecution case – admissibility of DNA evidence in circumstances where there was a challenge to the procedure followed in relation to the taking of a buccal swab from the appellant at a time when he was in custody – whether there was consent to the taking of the sample – Phone activity – evidence that there was a feud involving the deceased and the family of the appellant – while the detainee was told of the fact of an authorisation, he was not told what the grounds were, on which the authorisation was issued – section 2(6) of the Criminal Justice (Forensic Evidence) Act 1990 –lawfulness of the arrest of the appellant pursuant to an arrest warrant issued in accordance with the provisions of s. 42 of the Criminal Justice Act 1999 – whether insufficient evidence was put before the judge of the District Court in order for him to form a reasonable suspicion that the appellant was connected with the offence – failing to discharge the jury in the light of the prosecution’s closing speech – judge’s ruling on phone charts was correct – whether the judge erred in law in failing to direct the prosecution to disclose two statements made by persons unknown – failing to accede to requests to recharge the jury and failing to discharge the jury after requisitions – appeal dismissed.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
