Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Taggart

Suggestion To Take Punter's Dna !

24 posts in this topic

Just WTF is happening to our civil liberties??

What happened to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty?

Why are the police resorting to 'lazy' detection methods?

To what am I referring? The proposal by a senior Bradford police officer that men who see prostitutes should have their DNA taken ! www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bradford-west-yorkshire-12201907

A chief superintendent at West Yorkshire Police has called for a DNA database of men who use prostitutes. Ch Supt Alison Rose, who works in Bradford South, said if DNA was taken men might "think again" about committing crimes against women.

While it is regretable that West Yorkshire police have had the investigation of the heinous crimes of both Peter Sutcliffe and Stephen Griffiths to deal with, keeping DNA is a step too far. Supt Rose appears to be away with the fairies. What is the proportion of crimes committed against WGs in relation to the number of punts that take place. Words like sledgehammer and walnut come to mind.

Apart from the incrdible impracticalities of such a suggestion (are they going to wait in red light area and intercept likely kerb crawlers, or have a PCSO lurking on duty in every Travelodge or PremierInn, just in case a punter and WG turn up?) isn't this an infringement on Human Rights law?

The police seem to have a fantastic knack of seriously pissing off the male population of the UK with some of the barmy suggestions. Why not just pass a law to collect DNA from birth?

Are any other punters as seriously incensed by this ridiculous and unworkable suggestion as I am?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really wonder if some of the ludricious suggestions proposed by the UK's judicial scum (KGB UK Plc ? )that are blatant rights infringements would stand up in the European Court of Human Rights if ever challenged. Especially as prostitution is legal in the majority of the founding members ( ignoring the fucking French !)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just WTF is happening to our civil liberties??

What happened to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty?

Why are the police resorting to 'lazy' detection methods?

To what am I referring? The proposal by a senior Bradford police officer that men who see prostitutes should have their DNA taken ! www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bradford-west-yorkshire-12201907

A chief superintendent at West Yorkshire Police has called for a DNA database of men who use prostitutes. Ch Supt Alison Rose, who works in Bradford South, said if DNA was taken men might "think again" about committing crimes against women.

While it is regretable that West Yorkshire police have had the investigation of the heinous crimes of both Peter Sutcliffe and Stephen Griffiths to deal with, keeping DNA is a step too far. Supt Rose appears to be away with the fairies. What is the proportion of crimes committed against WGs in relation to the number of punts that take place. Words like sledgehammer and walnut come to mind.

Apart from the incrdible impracticalities of such a suggestion (are they going to wait in red light area and intercept likely kerb crawlers, or have a PCSO lurking on duty in every Travelodge or PremierInn, just in case a punter and WG turn up?) isn't this an infringement on Human Rights law?

The police seem to have a fantastic knack of seriously pissing off the male population of the UK with some of the barmy suggestions. Why not just pass a law to collect DNA from birth?

Are any other punters as seriously incensed by this ridiculous and unworkable suggestion as I am?

I do seriously worry about the intelligence of some police officers, especially when they're apparently quite high ranking.

It's already the case that anyone arrested has their DNA taken, so any kerbcrawlers they arrest etc. already have it taken. So what she's actually suggesting is that people who aren't breaking the law but are doing something that she finds morally questionable should have their DNA taken.

As you say it's impractical unless they just camp outside known brothels, and it would 100% result in a breach of the human rights' act. They've already lost EU court cases regarding retaining DNA profiles of exonerated people, or people who were never charged. Yet she seems to think it'll be OK to take DNA of people where there's never been any suggestion they've broken the law....confused to say the least.

Edited by punter992005

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's also an anathema is not only why plod are hell bent on collecting DNA samples, but as a former columnist for a national magazine, I simply cannot believe the police spout this utter crap without consultation with the forces press officer?

Will we have DNA samples collect next for illict thoughts of sex with a 18 year old we happen to see in a shopping centre ?

And where are the balanced comments from the civil liberties groups in this story? Heads in the sand as usual? The police lost the support of the public years ago, and are like a runaway train on a trail of destruction. This country really is the pits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The woman is a muppet. At first I thought that she was the same woman as in this thread:

as they are both in Bradford South Police, but I see that one’s a Super and the other is a CS.

In S & Marper v UK [2008] all 18 judges in the ECHR held that the government's present policy on retention of DNA of innocent persons is incompatible with Article 8 (right to a private life) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The decision does not have precedence over our existing law but the Home Office have been dragging their feet in amending it. The Crime and Disorder Act 2010 received Royal Assent just before the general election, but the provisions regarding partial removal of DNA of the innocent are not yet in force.

As Punter992005 says, if a kerbcrawler is arrested for kerbcrawling (now called soliciting – s51A) then he will have a DNA sample taken at the station because it’s a Recordable Offence (subject to my comments below). However, so far as I am aware the new section 53A offence (Paying for the sexual services of a prostitute subjected to force) is not yet a Recordable Offence. It’s neither an imprisonable offence nor included in the National Police Records (Recordable Offences) (Amendment ) Regulations. So, as far as I am aware if anyone is arrested, cautioned or convicted of the new offence they can’t be required to provide a DNA sample ....yet.

Fat chance she’s got of persuading anyone to take her seriously.

[To be honest I’m not even sure that kerbcrawling/soliciting is a Recordable Offence any more. The offence of kerbcrawling was introduced by the Sexual Offences Act 1985. Sections 1 and 2 of that Act were made Recordable Offences by the National Police Records (Recordable Offences) Regulations 2000. The SOA 1985 was repealed by the Policing and Crime Act 2009. That inserted the non-imprisonable offence of Soliciting as section 51A Sexual Offences Act 2003. So far as I am aware no new non-imprisonable Recordable Offences have been created since the National Police Records (Recordable Offences) (Amendment) Regulations 2007. If that’s correct then no DNA sample can be taken for the new s.51A offence.

If I’m wrong then let me know.]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i wonder if it's next suggested that pakistani men should have their dna taken bearing in mind recent events? or would that be considered racist?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Taking DNA at birth would certainly clear up a lot of crimes, but it needs to be combined with sensible de-criminalisation in some areas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Taking DNA at birth would certainly clear up a lot of crimes, but it needs to be combined with sensible de-criminalisation in some areas.

Well the fact is that DNA is not always of much use. It's called the CSI effect, and was recently in evidence with the Jo Yeates murder. Some of you may have noticed that an MP came out with a suggestion that all the men in the area should be DNA tested in order to eliminate them....seemingly oblivious to the fact DNA hasn't helped with the one suspect they DO have. The Landlord was arrested and obviously would have had his DNA taken but he hasn't been charged and hasn't been cleared. The point being that they clearly don't have any DNA evidence to compare it with. Too many people watching TV programmes thinking DNA is a magic bullet. There has been some suggestion since then that DNA may have been found but the point with the Landlord still stands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously this woman hasm't realised that Labour lost the last election and sucking up to Harperson isn't gonna get her a promotion.

What not make it mandatory for all militant feminists to have their DNA taken?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The article conflates two issues. As I understand it Peter Sutcliffe and Stephen Griffiths predominantly targeted vulnerable women who worked the streets. To raise this issue and DNA is a red herring, since there are laws for which anyone soliciting a street prostitute is liable to arrest and conviction and therefore likely to have DNA taken and held regardless?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Recordable Offences have been created since the National Police Records (Recordable Offences) (Amendment) Regulations 2007. If that’s correct then no DNA sample can be taken for the new s.51A offence.

If I’m wrong then let me know.]

I admit and confess that I've never even looked at the 2007 Regulations!

I was arrested by the MET for driving over the limit three years ago. I had my dabs & DNA taken and they tried to take my photo, but the camera wouldn't work! (The breath analysis machine did me one reading (34) before its solenoid went down, so they bled me an hour later, by which time I was down to 40 by their analysis and 60 by mine, when they could find a Dr.) Was I conned?

I think that the vital words are "what you are arrested for"! In their "hound the punter" campaigns, I rather think they arrest for rape, and work back down from there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I admit and confess that I've never even looked at the 2007 Regulations!

I was arrested by the MET for driving over the limit three years ago. I had my dabs & DNA taken and they tried to take my photo, but the camera wouldn't work! (The breath analysis machine did me one reading (34) before its solenoid went down, so they bled me an hour later, by which time I was down to 40 by their analysis and 60 by mine, when they could find a Dr.) Was I conned?

I think that the vital words are "what you are arrested for"! In their "hound the punter" campaigns, I rather think they arrest for rape, and work back down from there.

well traditionally they are supposed to have reasonable grounds for arrest, and I'm quite sure that so long as you had the balls to stick with it and not let the matter drop you could cause them some serious problems if they arrested you for rape simply because it would get them your DNA. It's already a stretch for them to arrest you for the new offence since they rarely would have any specific intelligence regarding the girl you're with - so arresting you for rape would be fairly OTT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not just pass a law to collect DNA from birth?

To be honest I wish the did collect DNA at birth, or on entry to the country legally or caught illegaly.

Once I would have ridiculed the idea but then I grew up. Think of all the police resources and government cash that could be saved by a simple check in a database. Rape,murder,child abuse could all easily be solved or at least the man hours would be cut right back leaving the coppers more time to police the problem areas in the country. Yes I know innocent people could be put under scrutiny over a scrap of DNA but lets face it, that happens already, it just takes longer to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the fact is that DNA is not always of much use. It's called the CSI effect, and was recently in evidence with the Jo Yeates murder. Some of you may have noticed that an MP came out with a suggestion that all the men in the area should be DNA tested in order to eliminate them....seemingly oblivious to the fact DNA hasn't helped with the one suspect they DO have. The Landlord was arrested and obviously would have had his DNA taken but he hasn't been charged and hasn't been cleared. The point being that they clearly don't have any DNA evidence to compare it with. Too many people watching TV programmes thinking DNA is a magic bullet. There has been some suggestion since then that DNA may have been found but the point with the Landlord still stands.

I concur.

Voluntary DNA samples could be requested and I believe would be beneficial but as highlighted on this thread people do not trust the police.

The science of DNA is getting more and more infinite thus samples of DNA can gleaned from easier and with greater effect. Example - if you owned a car in 1986 and it was used today in a murder chances are they'll still find traces of your DNA in that car today.

One example in my previous job was the rape of young girl. The underwear she wore was put in the washing machine, even after washing the lab retrieved 4 samples of male DNA, the offenders, the fathers and her two brothers. The family members had come from cross contamination in the wash, this however gave the defence several lines of questioning as you can imagine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the fact is that DNA is not always of much use. It's called the CSI effect, and was recently in evidence with the Jo Yeates murder. Some of you may have noticed that an MP came out with a suggestion that all the men in the area should be DNA tested in order to eliminate them....seemingly oblivious to the fact DNA hasn't helped with the one suspect they DO have. The Landlord was arrested and obviously would have had his DNA taken but he hasn't been charged and hasn't been cleared. The point being that they clearly don't have any DNA evidence to compare it with. Too many people watching TV programmes thinking DNA is a magic bullet. There has been some suggestion since then that DNA may have been found but the point with the Landlord still stands.

Never in a million years would I voluntarily provide a DNA sample in a mass screening.

It's not that I don't trust the police to destroy it afterwards. I just don't trust the technology.

DNA degrades. There's partial DNA and low copy DNA - although for all I know they may mean the same thing.

As far as I'm concerned if I'm not a suspect then I don't need to be eliminated from the inquiry. I'm not at all happy with what happened to the landlord (Chris Jefferies). There's always the danger that some of your DNA markers could by coincidence match those of a partial DNA sample found at the scene. Being questioned by the police for up to 3 days, having your home ripped apart and then released on police bail, like Chris Jefferies, isn't my idea of fun. So far as I'm aware, Jefferies is still on police bail even though Vincent Tabak has been charged with murder and is held on remand in Horfield Prison.

Admittedly there's a very low chance of that happening. But why take the chance of making yourself a potential suspect because of similarities in DNA by voluntarily providing a DNA sample? No thanks. I'll pass on that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Never in a million years would I voluntarily provide a DNA sample in a mass screening.

It's not that I don't trust the police to destroy it afterwards. I just don't trust the technology.

DNA degrades. There's partial DNA and low copy DNA - although for all I know they may mean the same thing.

As far as I'm concerned if I'm not a suspect then I don't need to be eliminated from the inquiry. I'm not at all happy with what happened to the landlord (Chris Jefferies). There's always the danger that some of your DNA markers could by coincidence match those of a partial DNA sample found at the scene. Being questioned by the police for up to 3 days, having your home ripped apart and then released on police bail, like Chris Jefferies, isn't my idea of fun. So far as I'm aware, Jefferies is still on police bail even though Vincent Tabak has been charged with murder and is held on remand in Horfield Prison.

Admittedly there's a very low chance of that happening. But why take the chance of making yourself a potential suspect because of similarities in DNA by voluntarily providing a DNA sample? No thanks. I'll pass on that.

Well a partial DNA sample is what some of the papers are suggesting has been found. If true this could be used to eliminate people, but not conclusively prove they did it. In any case even a full DNA match isn't enough for a conviction on its own. The law in this country requires corroborating evidence to be presented alongside it in order to charge someone. Typically in this sort of situation, with a partial DNA sample they'll get a match with fairly high odds e.g. several hundred thousand to one across the global population (tens of millions if not hundreds would be required for them to say it was a full match) You could then say - and I'm hypothesising a bit with this - well he lives next door, he was home on the night it happened, his mobile phone proves he travelled from his home to the body dump site a day later, and lied to the police about being there on the night she disappeared. Then you say is that beyond reasonable doubt....some would say yes, what are the odds that a person who happens to match a 300,000 to one DNA sample also has all of the circumstantial evidence linking them too. In fact even a million to one match would be considered a partial match....so the evidence could be very strong indeed.

Anyway, the point being a DNA match on its own won't get you convicted. I remember a case a few years ago where the Italian police put a DNA sample from a murder into the EU database and apparently got a match to some guy in this country. The guy wasn't extradited because he was able to show that he's never been to Italy, and his boss remembered he was at work the day of the killing.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2766289.stm

Edited by punter992005

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not just pass a law to collect DNA from birth?

Are any other punters as seriously incensed by this ridiculous and unworkable suggestion as I am?

Now that would be more realistic and could form part of an identity card system and would treat everybody the same. Not that I agree with it, but at least we would all be the same.

Just targetting punters is 'punterist'. Also, what makes a punter a punter? Some ladies I know say some men just want to chat. Is that punting?

IMHO, strip clubs and gentlemens clubs promote sex that is unreachable, there is no release and as such, the people who visit these venues are more likely to go and rape, even murder someone, than those who have visited an SP nad been fulfilled. Are the people who frequent these clubs punters?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In any case even a full DNA match isn't enough for a conviction on its own. The law in this country requires corroborating evidence to be presented alongside it in order to charge someone.

No. The law doesn't require corroboration. The judge will no doubt give a corroboartion warning. If he failed to do so then that would be very good grounds for appeal.

CPS guidelines say that corroboration is required before charging, but they are guidelines only.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/assets/uploads/files/pdf_000328%20-%20%20DNA%20Charging%20Guidance.pdf

In R v Watters [2000] it was held that in that case DNA evidence alone was insufficient, but the decision is particular to the facts of the case, and the Court of Appeal made that clear:

http://www.forensic-evidence.com/site/EVID/DNA_Watters.html

There's also the question of the prosecutor's fallacy as discussed by Phillips LJ in R v Dallagher [2002]:

“The prosecutor’s fallacy can be simply demonstrated. If one person in a million has a DNA profile which matches that obtained from the crime stain, then the suspect will be one of perhaps 26 men in the United kingdom who share that characteristic. If no fact is known about the defendant, other than that he was in the United Kingdom at the time of the crime, the DNA evidence tells us no more than that there is a statistical probability that he was the criminal of one in 26.”

Statistics aren't my strong point but Trupti Patel nearly fell foul of them when she was tried over the cot death murders of her children.

The now discredited Roy Meadow's claim that the likelihood of two babies dying from natural causes in the same family was one in 73 million prompted the Royal Statistical Society to write a letter of complaint to the Lord Chancellor, stating that the figure had "no statistical basis"; other experts said that when genetic and environmental factors were taken into account, the figure was closer to one in 200. As I recall it was shown that there was a very high incidence of child deaths in her family ancestry. She was acquitted of the murder of her children.

Then there's poor old Barry George, a very strange guy, but who was eventually freed by the Court of Appeal. He was convicted of the murder of Jill Dando based solely on the single speck of gunshot residue found in his coat a year after the murder, and some very dubious circumstantial evidence. The most likely cause of the residue being found on his clothes is based on sloppy evidence retention by the police ie. the use of the mannequin. The gunshot residue evidence was totally discredited by the Court of Appeal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. The law doesn't require corroboration. The judge will no doubt give a corroboartion warning. If he failed to do so then that would be very good grounds for appeal.

CPS guidelines say that corroboration is required before charging, but they are guidelines only.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/assets/uploads/files/pdf_000328%20-%20%20DNA%20Charging%20Guidance.pdf

In R v Watters [2000] it was held that in that case DNA evidence alone was insufficient, but the decision is particular to the facts of the case, and the Court of Appeal made that clear:

http://www.forensic-evidence.com/site/EVID/DNA_Watters.html

There's also the question of the prosecutor's fallacy as discussed by Phillips LJ in R v Dallagher [2002]:

“The prosecutor’s fallacy can be simply demonstrated. If one person in a million has a DNA profile which matches that obtained from the crime stain, then the suspect will be one of perhaps 26 men in the United kingdom who share that characteristic. If no fact is known about the defendant, other than that he was in the United Kingdom at the time of the crime, the DNA evidence tells us no more than that there is a statistical probability that he was the criminal of one in 26.”

Statistics aren't my strong point but Trupti Patel nearly fell foul of them when she was tried over the cot death murders of her children.

The now discredited Roy Meadow's claim that the likelihood of two babies dying from natural causes in the same family was one in 73 million prompted the Royal Statistical Society to write a letter of complaint to the Lord Chancellor, stating that the figure had "no statistical basis"; other experts said that when genetic and environmental factors were taken into account, the figure was closer to one in 200. As I recall it was shown that there was a very high incidence of child deaths in her family ancestry. She was acquitted of the murder of her children.

Then there's poor old Barry George, a very strange guy, but who was eventually freed by the Court of Appeal. He was convicted of the murder of Jill Dando based solely on the single speck of gunshot residue found in his coat a year after the murder, and some very dubious circumstantial evidence. The most likely cause of the residue being found on his clothes is based on sloppy evidence retention by the police ie. the use of the mannequin. The gunshot residue evidence was totally discredited by the Court of Appeal.

Well from your own links there's this quote

As a result the current policy will change with effect from 1st

August 2004. The new policy will mean that a suspect may now be charged on

the basis of a DNA intelligence match, derived from the scene of the crime,

and a sample of DNA kept on the National Database providing there is some further supporting evidence. This new policy is outlined at Annex 8

I seriously doubt that the CPS would consider charging someone, in breach of their own guidelines, where the only evidence was the DNA match. The two cases you mention at the bottom specifically have nothing to do with DNA. One has nothing to do with forensics at all, simply statistical probability. The first was ten years ago, before the new guidelines were evidently written. And in a sense there was *some* corroboration in that the defendant was a known burglar who frequented the area...although they had nothing specific to tie him to that scene, and he seems to have got away with it because he has a brother who could have been a match and also lived in the area (didn't read enough to see whether he was a known burglar) As I said, I seriously doubt the CPS would breach their own guidelines as to a DNA match, even where the person had no close relatives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well from your own links there's this quote

As a result the current policy will change with effect from 1st

August 2004. The new policy will mean that a suspect may now be charged on

the basis of a DNA intelligence match, derived from the scene of the crime,

and a sample of DNA kept on the National Database providing there is some further supporting evidence. This new policy is outlined at Annex 8

I seriously doubt that the CPS would consider charging someone, in breach of their own guidelines, where the only evidence was the DNA match. The two cases you mention at the bottom specifically have nothing to do with DNA. One has nothing to do with forensics at all, simply statistical probability. The first was ten years ago, before the new guidelines were evidently written. And in a sense there was *some* corroboration in that the defendant was a known burglar who frequented the area...although they had nothing specific to tie him to that scene, and he seems to have got away with it because he has a brother who could have been a match and also lived in the area (didn't read enough to see whether he was a known burglar) As I said, I seriously doubt the CPS would breach their own guidelines as to a DNA match, even where the person had no close relatives.

I agree with what you’re saying. They are though guidelines/policy only. There’s no statute or appeal court precedent, however, that says that corroboration is required in law.

Clearly the CPS will want corroboration before charging, and rightly so.

If it’s a very serious crime ( and the DNA match probabilities are high enough) the police are going to put a lot of effort into finding that corroborating evidence including a taped interview under caution and no doubt a thorough search of your home and car, and possibly work-space.

I mentioned the Trupti Patel case because to me it’s an example of dubious statistical evidence being introduced by the prosecution in a murder trial.

The Barry George trial was mentioned because that again introduced the question of statistics and probability ie. the probability that the single speck of residue came from the gun that was used to kill Jill Dando.

The corroborating evidence was essentially:

1. witnesses who had seen a man who looked like Barry George near the scene of the murder when it occurred and one witness who had identified him as being there four hours earlier;

2. repeated lies told by Barry George in interview;

3. an alleged attempt to create a false alibi.

All that can be put down to the fact that he was a fantasist, who lived in the area and who had been previously questioned about the murder of Rachel Nickell and was worried about being pulled in for Jill Dando’s murder.

The point that I’m trying to make is that it’s very easy for the police to twist the facts to find what they believe to be corroboratory evidence, and for the prosecution to be less than truthful about statistical probability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMHO, strip clubs and gentlemens clubs promote sex that is unreachable, there is no release and as such, the people who visit these venues are more likely to go and rape, even murder someone, than those who have visited an SP nad been fulfilled. Are the people who frequent these clubs punters?

That is exactly the type of comment that Eaves would make, and in fact they provided evidence to back up this claim. Their evidence though is lacking in credability. Why a person kills or rapes is far more complicated?

A link to why the evidence Lillith, part of Eaves is found wanting is already on this forum, but I will link to it again.

http://harlotsparlour.wordpress.com/2011/01/19/the-impact-of-adult-entertainment-on-rape-statistics-in-camden-a-re-analysis/

http://www.scribd.com/doc/47185652/Green-Paper-Camden-Lilith-rape-stats

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One example in my previous job was the rape of young girl. The underwear she wore was put in the washing machine, even after washing the lab retrieved 4 samples of male DNA, the offenders, the fathers and her two brothers. The family members had come from cross contamination in the wash, this however gave the defence several lines of questioning as you can imagine.

This guy's conviction for rape was quashed because the Court of appeal found the DNA evidence to be flawed:

A father who has served more than five years in jail after being found guilty of raping his daughter has had his conviction quashed.

The man, from south Wales, who cannot be named, was jailed at Swansea Crown Court in 2005.

Criminal Appeal Court judges have now ruled that vital forensic evidence at the heart of his trial was unreliable.

The man's solicitor said the case showed the danger of absolute reliance on DNA evidence.

The court heard that conviction of the man was largely based on evidence presented by a forensic scientist called by the prosecution.

At London's Criminal Appeal Court new scientific experts for both the Crown and the defence agreed that the original forensic evidence was in fact "of no value."

Counsel appearing for the man told Lord Justice Hooper, Mr Justice Openshaw and Mrs Justice Sharp the evidence was incorrect and overstated.

Quashing the conviction and ordering no retrial, Lord Justice Hooper ordered the man's immediate release.

He said it should be reported to the Crown Prosecution Service and to those responsible for this type of forensic evidence.

After his release, the man's solicitor said he was delighted the man could return to his family.

He added that it was "unlikely" that this was the only case in which the jury has been misled by DNA.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-12310494

The forensic scientist claimed DNA evidence found on the daughter's shorts led to the inevitable conclusion that intercourse with her father had taken place.

However at London's Criminal Appeal Court new scientific experts for both the Crown and the defence agreed that the original forensic evidence was in fact "of no value."

Andrew Baker, appearing for "E", told Lord Justice Hooper, Mr Justice Openshaw and Mrs Justice Sharp: "The scientific evidence relating to the DNA found on the complainant's shorts was both incorrect and considerably overstated by the forensic scientist called on behalf of the Crown."

Mr Baker said newly-instructed experts had concluded that the scientific findings did not prove that intercourse had taken place.

"The DNA found on the front of the shorts was a weak partial profile," he said. "Statistical analysis of such weak partial profiles has no relevance.

"The DNA did not necessarily originate from semen, but may have originated from skin, sweat or even secondary transfer form such sources."

He concluded: "The conviction is unsafe...The conclusions which the Crown invited the jury to draw form the scientific evidence were overstated and of no evidential value."

http://www.yorkshirewired.co.uk/news.php/126223-Port-Talbot-mans-daughter-rape-conviction-quashed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well from your own links there's this quote

As a result the current policy will change with effect from 1st

August 2004. The new policy will mean that a suspect may now be charged on

the basis of a DNA intelligence match, derived from the scene of the crime,

and a sample of DNA kept on the National Database providing there is some further supporting evidence. This new policy is outlined at Annex 8

I seriously doubt that the CPS would consider charging someone, in breach of their own guidelines, where the only evidence was the DNA match.

Here are 2 Court of Appeal cases where convictions were overturned and the only evidence was DNA obtained from the crime scene:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2000/88.html

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2008/1890.html

As you will see, in the second case the initial conviction was in 2007 ie. after the CPS Guidelines.

My understanding is that if the CPS do try and charge on the basis of DNA alone then sending them a copy of their own Guidance Notes usually does the trick. If not then it's a claim for Abuse of Process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0