Legal Research
Cases
Aytugrul v R

Aytugrul v R

Case [2010] NSWCCA 272 3 December 2010

Appeal

Admissibility of Evidence

Jury Verdict

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Reported Decision: 205 A Crim R 157

New South Wales

Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: Aytugrul v R [2010] NSWCCA 272

HEARING DATE(S): 27 May 2010

JUDGMENT DATE:
3 December 2010

JUDGMENT OF: McClellan CJatCL at 1; Simpson J at 124; Fullerton J at 238

DECISION: By majority:
Appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - appeal against conviction - whether a miscarriage of justice occurred because of the directions given with respect to DNA evidence - whether the verdict of the jury should be set aside on the ground that it is unreasonable or cannot be supported having regard to the evidence - consideration of the admissiblity of DNA evidence in light of s 135 and s 137 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) - manner of expressing in non-scientific terms the conclusions to be drawn from DNA testing to the jury - jury verdict open and support by the evidence

LEGISLATION CITED: Evidence Act 1995
Criminal Appeal Act 1912

CATEGORY: Principal judgment

CASES CITED: Burrell v R [2009] NSWCCA 193
Fleming v R (2009) NSWCCA 223
R v Carroll [2010] SASC 156
R v Doheny and Adams [1996] EWCA Crim 728; (1997) 1 Cr App R 369
R v Duke (1979) 1 A Crim R 39
R v Gallagher [2001] NSWSC 462
R v Galli (2001) 127 A Crim R 493; [2001] NSWCCA 504
R v GK [2001] NSWCCA 413; (2001) 53 NSWLR 317
R v Karger (2002) 83 SASR 135
R v Noll [1999] VSCA 164; 3 VR 704
Weiss v R (2005) 224 CLR 300; (2005) HCA 81

TEXTS CITED: A Ligertwood, “Avoiding Bayes in DNA Cases” (2003) 77 ALJ 317
JJ Koehler, “On Conveying the Probative Value of DNA Evidence: Frequencies, Likelihood Ratios, and Error Rates” (1996) 67 University of Colorado Law Review 859
“The Psychology of Numbers in the Courtroom: How to Make DNA-Match Statistics Seem Impressive or Insufficient” (2001) 74 Southern California Law Review 1275
JJ Koehler, A Chia & JS Lindsey, “The Random Match Probability (RMP) in DNA Evidence: Irrelevant and Prejudicial?” (1995) 35 Jurimetrics 201)
RB Korobkin & TS Ulen, “Law and Behavioral Science: Removing the Rationality Assumption from Law and Economics” (2000) 88 California Law Review 1051, 1088; A Tversky & D Kahneman, “Availability: A Heuristic for Judging Frequency and Probability” (1973) 5 Cognitive Psychology 207
G Hazlitt, “DNA Evidence: Unravelling the Strands” (2002) 14 Judicial Officers Bulletin 9, 66
M Findlay and J Grix, “Challenging Forensic Evidence? Observations on the Use of DNA in Certain Criminal Trials” (2003) 14 Current Issues in Criminal Justice 269 at 274
WC Thompson, “Are Juries Competent to Evaluate Statistical Evidence?” (1989) 52 Law and Contemporary Problems 4 at 13)
R Jonakait, “When Blood is their Argument: Probabilities in Criminal Cases, Genetic Markers, and Once Again, Bayes’ Theorem” (1983) University of Illinois Law Review 369

PARTIES: Yusef Aytugrul (Appellant)
The Crown

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2008/5115

COUNSEL: R J Button SC (Appellant)
D Arnott SC (Crown)

SOLICITORS: O'Brien & Hudson (Appellant)
Director of…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Aytugrul v R

Details

AGLC: Aytugrul v R [2010] NSWCCA 272
Case: [2010] NSWCCA 272
Decision Date: 3 December 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Aytugrul, sought an appeal against his conviction for various criminal offences, contending that a miscarriage of justice had occurred due to the directions given to the jury regarding DNA evidence. The appeal was heard in the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal, which assessed whether the verdict was unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence. The appeal also involved a consideration of the admissibility of DNA evidence in accordance with sections 135 and 137 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), and the manner in which the conclusions of the DNA testing were expressed to the jury in non-scientific terms. The primary legal issues included whether the jury's verdict was open and supported by the evidence, and whether there was any error in the directions given to the jury about the DNA evidence.

The Court of Criminal Appeal examined the trial judge's directions to the jury concerning the DNA evidence. It was noted that the trial judge had provided appropriate directions to the jury, ensuring they understood the significance and limitations of the DNA evidence. The court found that the directions were clear and did not lead to a miscarriage of justice. Furthermore, the court assessed the admissibility of the DNA evidence under the relevant provisions of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), concluding that the evidence was properly admitted and that the trial judge had correctly managed its presentation to the jury. The court also found that the trial judge had appropriately communicated the DNA evidence's conclusions to the jury in a comprehensible manner, ensuring the jury could make an informed decision based on the evidence presented.

Having considered the evidence and the trial judge's directions, the Court of Criminal Appeal concluded that the jury's verdict was open and supported by the evidence. The court found no miscarriage of justice had occurred and rejected the appellant's contentions. The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant's convictions were upheld. The court confirmed that the trial had been conducted fairly, and the jury had been adequately directed regarding the DNA evidence. The court held that the verdict was not unreasonable or unsupported, and therefore, the appeal was unsuccessful.

Orders