REGINA v GK [2001] NSWCCA 413

REGINA v GK [2001] NSWCCA 413

A trial judge at a subsequent trial after a hung jury is not bound by the evidentiary rulings of a judge at an earlier trial. Statistical evidence in the form of paternity index figures derived from DNA testing should have been admitted, as their probative value was not outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, provided the jury receives proper directions to avoid the prosecutor's fallacy. The exclusion of percentage probability statistics was correct due to the risk of misunderstanding and potential for unfair prejudice.

Parties
Crown: Regina; Respondent: GK
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 October 2001
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Stated Case / Determination of Questions of Law Pursuant to S5 A(2) Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (nsw) After Acquittal at Trial
Outcome
Questions answered: No, as to whether trial judge is bound by earlier ruling; Yes (paternity index statistics admitted), No (relative chance of paternity statistics admitted), as to error in refusing numerical probability evidence.
Legal Topics
Admissibility of DNA Evidence, Jury Directions, Discretionary Evidentiary Rulings, Section 137 Evidence Act 1995 (nsw), Statistical Evidence in Criminal Trials
Evidence Criminal Law Admissibility of DNA Evidence Jury Directions Discretionary Evidentiary Rulings Section 137 Evidence Act 1995 (nsw) Statistical Evidence in Criminal Trials

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 5 Authorities cited 24 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

GK

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal Stated Case / Determination of Questions of Law Pursuant to S5 A(2) Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (nsw) After Acquittal at Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a judge at a subsequent trial is bound by an earlier judge’s evidentiary ruling after a hung jury
  2. 2 Whether the judge erred in excluding numerical probability/statistical evidence of paternity derived from DNA testing under s137 Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)

Ratio Decidendi

A trial judge at a subsequent trial after a hung jury is not bound by the evidentiary rulings of a judge at an earlier trial. Statistical evidence in the form of paternity index figures derived from DNA testing should have been admitted, as their probative value was not outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, provided the jury receives proper directions to avoid the prosecutor's fallacy. The exclusion of percentage probability statistics was correct due to the risk of misunderstanding and potential for unfair prejudice.

Court Disposition

Questions answered: No, as to whether trial judge is bound by earlier ruling; Yes (paternity index statistics admitted), No (relative chance of paternity statistics admitted), as to error in refusing numerical probability evidence.

Orders

  • Question 1: No, a trial Judge is not bound at a subsequent trial following a hung jury to follow a previous evidentiary ruling.
  • Question 2: Judge erred in refusing evidence of the paternity index statistics, but not in excluding the relative chance of paternity statistics.