R v Tatola (No. 2) [2023] NSWDC 387

R v Tatola (No. 2) [2023] NSWDC 387

The contested endocervical swab DNA evidence had near nothing to minimal probative value on the central issue of whether penile-vaginal penetration occurred, especially where no semen or spermatozoa was detected and the Crown conceded the evidence was not determinative of that issue. Its admission risked unfair prejudice because the jury might speculate about its significance or give disproportionate weight to scientific evidence. Under s 137 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), the danger of unfair prejudice outweighed the minimal probative value, so the evidence was not admitted.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 September 2023
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Procedural Ruling on Admissibility of DNA Evidence
Outcome
Contested DNA evidence excluded.
Legal Topics
['s 137 Evidence Act' 'admissibility of Evidence' 'dna Evidence' 'unfair Prejudice' 'probative Value' 'sexual Assault Investigation Evidence']
['evidence' 'criminal Law'] ['s 137 Evidence Act' 'admissibility of Evidence' 'dna Evidence' 'unfair Prejudice' 'probative Value' 'sexual Assault Investigation Evidence']

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 / Procedural Ruling on Admissibility of DNA Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether evidence from an endocervical swab screening test indicating male DNA of the same Y-STR profile as the accused should be admitted.' 'Whether the probative value of the contested DNA evidence was outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the accused under s 137 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).']

Ratio Decidendi

The contested endocervical swab DNA evidence had near nothing to minimal probative value on the central issue of whether penile-vaginal penetration occurred, especially where no semen or spermatozoa was detected and the Crown conceded the evidence was not determinative of that issue. Its admission risked unfair prejudice because the jury might speculate about its significance or give disproportionate weight to scientific evidence. Under s 137 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), the danger of unfair prejudice outweighed the minimal probative value, so the evidence was not admitted.

Court Disposition

Contested DNA evidence excluded.

Orders

  • ['Pursuant to s 137 Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), the evidence should not be admitted.']