Dna Profiling Landmark Rulings
What is DNA Profiling
DNA profiling involves analyzing genetic material to identify individuals with high accuracy.
Used extensively for criminal identification, exoneration, and paternity disputes.
Key Legal Principles Established by Landmark Cases
1. R v. Doheny and Adams [1997] 1 Cr App R 369
Facts:
The Court of Appeal dealt with the admissibility of DNA evidence where prosecution relied heavily on DNA matching.
Judgment:
The court accepted DNA profiling as reliable but stressed that jury must be properly instructed on interpreting the evidence, especially the statistical likelihood of matches.
Significance:
Set standards for expert testimony on DNA.
Emphasized need to explain probability and limitations of DNA evidence.
2. R v. C (1996) 2 Cr App R 187
Facts:
This case challenged the admissibility of DNA evidence obtained under questionable chain-of-custody conditions.
Judgment:
Court ruled DNA evidence must have a proper and documented chain of custody to ensure integrity.
Significance:
Highlighted procedural safeguards for DNA evidence admissibility.
3. R v. L (2001) EWCA Crim 1082
Facts:
The accused challenged the reliability of DNA evidence due to possible lab errors.
Judgment:
Court held that while DNA evidence is reliable, courts must consider laboratory accreditation and quality control.
Significance:
Ensured that forensic labs meet standards before evidence is accepted.
4. R v. Reed and Reed [2009] EWCA Crim 2692
Facts:
The case involved the use of partial DNA matches and probabilistic genotyping.
Judgment:
Court allowed the use of advanced statistical methods but required experts to explain uncertainties and probabilities clearly.
Significance:
Acknowledged scientific advances but stressed transparency to avoid misleading juries.
5. R v. Broughton [2013] EWCA Crim 1627
Facts:
Accused argued DNA profiling infringed privacy rights under the Human Rights Act.
Judgment:
Court ruled that DNA profiling for identification purposes is lawful but must comply with data protection and privacy safeguards.
Significance:
Balanced forensic needs with individual privacy rights.
6. R (on the application of GC) v. Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2011] UKSC 21
Facts:
Challenge on retention of DNA profiles of individuals not convicted of any crime.
Judgment:
Supreme Court ruled that indefinite retention breaches Article 8 of the ECHR (Right to privacy) and set guidelines for limited retention periods.
Significance:
Strengthened privacy protections against overreach in DNA database management.
7. R v. W (2006) EWCA Crim 2431
Facts:
Court considered the admissibility of mixed DNA samples in complex cases.
Judgment:
Accepted mixed DNA samples if expert evidence sufficiently explains the methodology and limits.
Significance:
Allowed forensic science to keep pace with real-world complexities but required judicial scrutiny.
Summary Table
| Case Name | Key Issue | Principle Established |
|---|---|---|
| Doheny & Adams (1997) | Jury instruction on DNA statistics | Clear explanation of probabilities required |
| R v. C (1996) | Chain of custody | Proper documentation needed for admissibility |
| R v. L (2001) | Lab accreditation | Forensic labs must meet quality standards |
| Reed & Reed (2009) | Use of probabilistic genotyping | Experts must clarify uncertainties |
| Broughton (2013) | Privacy rights | DNA use must respect privacy and data protection |
| GC v. Commissioner (2011) | DNA retention | Limited retention periods to protect privacy |
| R v. W (2006) | Mixed DNA samples | Admissible with clear expert explanation |
RELATED Blog
comments