Regina v David John McIntyre [2001] NSWSC 311

Regina v David John McIntyre [2001] NSWSC 311

DNA testing by the Profiler Plus system was treated as a field of specialised knowledge for s 79 of the Evidence Act 1995. The interpretation of Profiler Plus electropherograms required specialised knowledge, and Mr Goetz had relevant training, study and experience. The challenge to the statistical validity of the DNA databases was not made good, and Mr Goetz was qualified to express the random match probability opinion. Questions about nullalleles and general reliability of the Profiler Plus system could be explored before the jury but did not justify excluding the evidence. The evidence was therefore admissible and was not excluded in the exercise of discretion.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 April 2001
Procedural Posture
Criminal Proceeding / Voir Dire Hearing on Admissibility of Opinion Evidence as to Results of DNA Testing
Outcome
Evidence admitted
Legal Topics
['expert Opinion Evidence' 'dna Evidence' 'profiler Plus System' 'random Match Probability' 'evidence Act 1995 S 79']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['expert Opinion Evidence' 'dna Evidence' 'profiler Plus System' 'random Match Probability' 'evidence Act 1995 S 79']

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 / Voir Dire Hearing on Admissibility of Opinion Evidence as to Results of DNA Testing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether opinion evidence from Robert Goetz as to DNA testing conducted using the Profiler Plus system was admissible pursuant to s 79 of the Evidence Act 1995.' 'Whether the Profiler Plus system was sufficiently reliable or accepted as specialised knowledge despite non-publication of commercially sensitive primer sequence information.' 'Whether evidence of the statistical probability of a random DNA match should be admitted given the size and validity of the DNA database.' 'Whether the evidence should be excluded in the exercise of discretion because of alleged disproportionate and overpowering effect on the jury.']

Ratio Decidendi

DNA testing by the Profiler Plus system was treated as a field of specialised knowledge for s 79 of the Evidence Act 1995. The interpretation of Profiler Plus electropherograms required specialised knowledge, and Mr Goetz had relevant training, study and experience. The challenge to the statistical validity of the DNA databases was not made good, and Mr Goetz was qualified to express the random match probability opinion. Questions about nullalleles and general reliability of the Profiler Plus system could be explored before the jury but did not justify excluding the evidence. The evidence was therefore admissible and was not excluded in the exercise of discretion.

Court Disposition

Evidence admitted

Orders

  • ['The opinions expressed by Mr Goetz in his reports, Ex VD "B", "C" and "D", both as to the results of the Profiler Plus tests and as to the statistical probability of a random match, are admissible.' 'The evidence was not excluded in the exercise of discretion.']