R v Nathan Green [2008] NSWDC 245

R v Nathan Green [2008] NSWDC 245

The DNA evidence was admissible because, despite the erased forensic markings and absence of a unique identifier on the sunglasses, there was sufficient contemporaneous documentation, photographic evidence, analyst evidence, exhibit description, and chain of possession evidence for a jury to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that the sunglasses tested were the sunglasses taken from Ms Reid. The evidence had very high probative value, and any prejudice was not unfair because the jury could be properly directed about the alleged deficiencies and the need to be satisfied that the tested sunglasses were the same sunglasses from Ms Reid's handbag.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 November 2008
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Voir Dire Ruling on Defence Objection to Admissibility of DNA Evidence During Trial
Outcome
Evidence of the DNA material taken from the sunglasses admitted; the accused was later acquitted on both counts by the jury on 7 November 2008.
Legal Topics
['admissibility of DNA Evidence' 'continuity and Chain of Custody' 'identification of Physical Exhibits' 'probative Value and Unfair Prejudice']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['admissibility of DNA Evidence' 'continuity and Chain of Custody' 'identification of Physical Exhibits' 'probative Value and Unfair Prejudice']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Voir Dire Ruling on Defence Objection to Admissibility of DNA Evidence During Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Crown could lead evidence that the accused's DNA was found on sunglasses said to have been taken from Ms Reid during the break and enter." 'Whether the absence of permanent identifying markings on the sunglasses meant the Crown could not establish that the sunglasses tested by the Division of Analytical Laboratories were the same sunglasses taken from Ms Reid.' 'Whether any deficiencies in continuity or exhibit identification required exclusion under sections 135, 136 or 137 of the Evidence Act 1995 or under any residual fairness discretion.']

Ratio Decidendi

The DNA evidence was admissible because, despite the erased forensic markings and absence of a unique identifier on the sunglasses, there was sufficient contemporaneous documentation, photographic evidence, analyst evidence, exhibit description, and chain of possession evidence for a jury to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that the sunglasses tested were the sunglasses taken from Ms Reid. The evidence had very high probative value, and any prejudice was not unfair because the jury could be properly directed about the alleged deficiencies and the need to be satisfied that the tested sunglasses were the same sunglasses from Ms Reid's handbag.

Court Disposition

Evidence of the DNA material taken from the sunglasses admitted; the accused was later acquitted on both counts by the jury on 7 November 2008.

Orders

  • ['The evidence of the DNA material taken from the sunglasses is admitted.' "Counsel to be heard on specific directions concerning the absence of identifying features on the sunglasses and the requirement that the jury be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the sunglasses from which the DNA sample was taken were...