R v KE [2019] NSWDC 349

R v KE [2019] NSWDC 349

The DNA evidence was inadmissible because both experts agreed that the evidence could not establish whether the DNA was present due to direct or secondary transfer, giving it only marginal, if any, probative value, which was outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice and potential misuse by the jury.

Parties
Prosecution: Regina (Crown); Accused: KE
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 July 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Evidentiary Ruling Prior to Trial
Outcome
Evidence excluded pursuant to s 137 of the Evidence Act 1995.
Legal Topics
DNA Evidence, Admissibility of Evidence, Probative Value, Unfair Prejudice
Criminal Law Evidence DNA Evidence Admissibility of Evidence Probative Value 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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina (Crown)

Prosecution

KE

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Evidentiary Ruling Prior to Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether DNA evidence has sufficient probative value to be admissible under s 137 of the Evidence Act 1995
  2. 2 Whether risk of unfair prejudice outweighs the probative value of the DNA evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The DNA evidence was inadmissible because both experts agreed that the evidence could not establish whether the DNA was present due to direct or secondary transfer, giving it only marginal, if any, probative value, which was outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice and potential misuse by the jury.

Court Disposition

Evidence excluded pursuant to s 137 of the Evidence Act 1995.

Orders

  • The DNA evidence sought to be adduced by the prosecution is excluded.