Police v Le Platrier - [2010] NSWLC 22

Local Court of New South Wales

CITATION: Police V Le Platrier [2010] NSWLC 22

JURISDICTION: Criminal

PARTIES: Police
Le Platrier

FILE NUMBER: 00079590/2010

PLACE OF HEARING: Downing Centre Local Court

DATE OF DECISION: 06/29/2010

MAGISTRATE: Magistrate Heilpern

CATCHWORDS: DNA evidence, admissibility, sibling issues.

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes (Forensic Procedures) Act 2000
Evidence Act 1995

CASES CITED: R v Forbes [2009] ACTCA
R v Rowe [2004] SASC

TEXTS CITED:

REPRESENTATION: Ms Sala, Police Prosecutor
Mr Blair for the Defendant

ORDERS:

Reasons for Decision

1 The defendant is charged with Break Enter and Steal. The prosecution rely on DNA evidence. The defendant challenges that evidence.

2 There are two issues in this case. The first is whether to admit a statement from an analyst as to probabilities (the first statement). The second is whether on the basis of the remaining evidence the defendant ought be convicted.

Uncontentious Facts

3 At 4.30am on 22 December 2007 three males were seen outside a shop on King Street, Newtown. They were seen to smash the shop window, grab a plasma television, and run away. A witness describes the first offender as wearing a dark reddish coloured top, had short hair and slim build. The second offender was described as having lighter coloured hair. The third male offender was described as wearing a grey T-shirt, slightly larger, and having light brown hair. They were described as 18 to 20 years old.

4 Later that morning a maroon jumper, like a Queensland State of Origin jersey, with a glove inside, was located under a car about 40m away in the direction the three fled, and a hammer was located near the shop. The civilian witness who located the jumper and glove thought they had blood on them. These three items were collected by police and delivered to DAL for analysis.

5 On 16 July 2009, for reasons which are unknown, the defendant was arrested as “he had been identified as a suspect for an old break and enter matter that happened in 2007” Statement of Const Adam Goodhew, at paragraph 7.. A buccal swab was taken from the defendant.

6 The police interviewed the defendant. He gives his date of birth as 30 August 1986. He could not remember where he was living in 2007. He has never owned a Queensland State of Origin Jersey, and he cannot remember having worn one. He is shown photographs of the crime scene, and it “rang no bells” with him. He made no admissions.

7 DNA was recovered from the jersey, the glove and the hammer. This was analysed with the DNA recovered from the defendant. It is the conclusion reached by the analyst that is in issue in this case.

8 In the absence of the DNA evidence, the case against the defendant cannot succeed. It is noted at this stage that the defendant does fit the age range of the description given by the witness.

The First Statement by the Analyst

9 The prosecution sought to tender an expert…

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 Police v Le Platrier

Details

AGLC: Police v Le Platrier [2010] NSWLC 22
Case: [2010] NSWLC 22
Decision Date: 06/29/2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Police v Le Platrier involved the Crown, represented by the police, seeking a conviction against the defendant based on DNA evidence. The dispute centred on the admissibility of the DNA evidence and the reliability of the results, particularly in light of the defendant's contention that the sample could have been contaminated due to a familial relationship with a sibling. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the DNA evidence could be admitted and whether it was sufficiently reliable to support a conviction. The court had to consider the scientific principles underlying DNA testing, the chain of custody of the evidence, and the possibility of contamination or error, particularly given the familial relationship between the defendant and another individual.

The court found that the DNA evidence was properly obtained and that the chain of custody was adequately maintained. It held that the possibility of contamination due to familial relationships, while acknowledged, did not undermine the reliability of the evidence to the extent that it should be excluded. The court emphasised that the presence of familial DNA does not invalidate the test results but rather requires careful consideration in interpreting the evidence. Consequently, the court ruled that the DNA evidence was admissible and reliable enough to support the conviction.

The court found the defendant guilty as charged. The final orders included the defendant's conviction and a sentence to be determined in a subsequent proceeding.

Orders