Rice v R (No 1) [2014] NSWSC 1400

Rice v R (No 1) [2014] NSWSC 1400

The DNA evidence had high probative value because, with other Crown evidence, it was capable of placing the accused in a vehicle alleged to have been used for surveillance and to carry the alleged gunman in the conspiracy. Although destruction of the cigarette butt deprived the accused of the opportunity to have that item independently tested, the possible result of such testing was speculative and the accused retained the ability to challenge the DNA analysis through laboratory notes, cross-examination and expert assistance. The suggested contamination and prejudice from failure to seize other items were also speculative and could be explored before the jury. Accordingly, the probative...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 October 2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal Proceeding; Indictment Alleging Conspiracy to Murder Dusan Krstic / Pre Trial Notice of Motion Seeking Exclusion of DNA Evidence
Outcome
The notice of motion is dismissed; the DNA evidence should not be excluded.
Legal Topics
['conspiracy to Murder' 'dna Evidence' 'exclusion of Evidence' 'unfair Prejudice' 'destruction of Evidence' 'jury Directions']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['conspiracy to Murder' 'dna Evidence' 'exclusion of Evidence' 'unfair Prejudice' 'destruction of Evidence' 'jury Directions']

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 Proceeding; Indictment Alleging Conspiracy to Murder Dusan Krstic / Pre Trial Notice of Motion Seeking Exclusion of DNA Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether evidence of DNA analysis of a cigarette butt found in a vehicle allegedly used in the conspiracy should be excluded under s. 137 of the Evidence Act 1995 because the cigarette butt had been destroyed and could not be independently tested by the accused.' 'Whether the evidence should alternatively be excluded under s. 135 of the Evidence Act 1995.' 'Whether alleged possible contamination and the failure to seize and test other items in the vehicle created unfair prejudice.' 'Whether, if the DNA evidence were admitted, the jury should be directed about the disadvantage to the accused caused by destruction of the cigarette butt.']

Ratio Decidendi

The DNA evidence had high probative value because, with other Crown evidence, it was capable of placing the accused in a vehicle alleged to have been used for surveillance and to carry the alleged gunman in the conspiracy. Although destruction of the cigarette butt deprived the accused of the opportunity to have that item independently tested, the possible result of such testing was speculative and the accused retained the ability to challenge the DNA analysis through laboratory notes, cross-examination and expert assistance. The suggested contamination and prejudice from failure to seize other items were also speculative and could be explored before the jury. Accordingly, the probative...

Court Disposition

The notice of motion is dismissed; the DNA evidence should not be excluded.

Orders

  • ['The notice of motion is dismissed.']