High Court of Australia

Aytugrul v The Queen [2012] HCA 15

247 CLR 170; 86 ALJR 474; 286 ALR 441

18 Apr 2012

Case Number: S315/2011

Before

French CJ, Hayne, Heydon, Crennan, Bell JJ

Catchwords

Criminal law – Evidence - Admissibility of evidence about DNA analysis - Appellant convicted of murder - Expert gave evidence at trial about mitochondrial DNA testing of hair found on deceased's thumbnail - Expert's statistical evidence given in form of frequency ratio and exclusion percentage - Whether evidence of exclusion percentage relevant given evidence of frequency ratio - Whether probative value of evidence of exclusion percentage outweighed by danger of unfair prejudice to appellant - Whether evidence of exclusion percentage misleading or confusing.

Evidence – Judicial notice - Argument for general rule that evidence of exclusion percentage is always inadmissible due to danger of unfair prejudice - Facts underpinning adoption of general rule not proved - Whether judicial notice can be taken of psychological research said to support adoption of general rule.

Words and phrases – "evidence", "exclusion percentage", "frequency ratio", "judicial notice", "misleading or confusing", "unfair prejudice".

Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) – ss 135, 137, 144.

View   RTF



PDF MD5: 99f4965b557e9fa41c4db50576c9ebb2
RTF MD5: bd8b5f6ff5a441bab51b394123b22566