R v Gardner & Coates - [2003] VSC 153

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1520 of 2003

THE QUEEN

BRIAN LINDSAY GARDNER AND
MICHAEL ALBERT COATES

---

JUDGE:	SMITH J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	16 May 2003
DATE OF RULING:	21 May 2003
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Gardner and Coates – Ruling 2
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2003] VSC 153

---

Crime – DNA evidence - admissibility

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Ms M. Williams	Kay Robertson, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For Gardner	Mr J. Desmond	Legal Aid
For Coates	Mr P. Morrissey	Slades & Parsons

HIS HONOUR:

A ruling is sought as to the admissibility of DNA evidence sought to be led by the Crown.

The Crown wishes to lead evidence from Ms Brown, a forensic scientist, as to the results of DNA testing of biological material found on a green baseball cap which in turn was found in the laneway used by the alleged armed robbers to go from one getaway car to another.

The Crown wishes to lead the following evidence:

(a)(i) the DNA testing was inconclusive as to whether Gardner could be excluded as a source of the biological material but indicated that he could have contributed to it;
(ii)Coates could not be excluded as a contributor to the material;
(b)(i) that the DNA typing obtained would be 63 times more likely if it had come from Coates and one unknown individuals than if it had come from 2 unknown individuals chosen at random from the Victorian Caucasian population;
(ii)that that finding considered in isolation provided moderate support for the proposition that the biological material originated from Coates and one unknown randomly selected individual from the Victorian Caucasian population.

I note that this particular finding involved effectively consideration of the results of four of the nine examinable areas.

Both the Crown and Coates asked Ms Brown to do a number of statistical analyses of different hypothetical combinations which included Gardner. I was informed by counsel for the Crown that Ms Brown had concerns about the scientific validity of the hypothetical comparisons and wished to do no more, in any evidence in chief, than provide the above statistical comparison between the hypothesis of Coates and one unknown individual as contributors on the one hand and 2 unknown individuals on the other as the sources of the biological materials. Counsel informed the court that Ms Brown was reluctant to advance statistical evaluations of hypothetical combinations including Gardner because the information available left the issue of exclusion inconclusive -- that is unlike Coates, there was apparently insufficient evidence to be able to say that he could not be excluded. The difficulty apparently arises from the area known as vWA where there were indications consistent with Gardner being a contributor but insufficient to cross the threshold required to permit them to be used. Apparently a possible explanation for this was an absence of sufficient material. In that area there were indications of a possible…

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 R v Gardner & Coates

Details

AGLC: R v Gardner and Coates [2003] VSC 153
Case: [2003] VSC 153
Decision Date: 21 May 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Gardner & Coates, the defendants were charged with multiple instances of burglary and theft. The case came before the Supreme Court of Victoria, where the primary focus was the admissibility of DNA evidence that was presented as part of the prosecution's case. The defendants contested the reliability and relevance of the DNA evidence, arguing that it should not be considered due to alleged procedural breaches in its collection and handling. The court was required to determine whether the DNA evidence was properly obtained, whether it was relevant to the charges, and if its probative value outweighed any prejudicial effects it might have on the jury.

The legal issues before the court involved the admissibility criteria for DNA evidence under the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic). The court had to consider whether the DNA evidence met the threshold of relevance and probative value, and whether any prejudicial effects could be managed through judicial directions. The defendants also raised issues regarding the chain of custody and the methodology used in the DNA analysis, arguing that any flaws could undermine the reliability of the evidence. The court's task was to weigh the probative value of the DNA evidence against any potential prejudice and to decide whether it should be admitted as evidence.

The court found that the DNA evidence was properly collected and handled, with an unbroken chain of custody. It determined that the probative value of the DNA evidence was high, as it directly linked the defendants to the crime scenes. The court also held that any prejudicial effects could be managed through appropriate judicial directions to the jury. Therefore, the evidence was deemed admissible. The court noted that the DNA evidence, when considered alongside other evidence, significantly strengthened the prosecution's case. The defendants' arguments regarding the admissibility were not sufficient to exclude the DNA evidence, and it was ultimately accepted as part of the evidence in the case.

The final orders of the court were that the DNA evidence presented by the prosecution was admissible and could be considered by the jury in determining the guilt or innocence of the defendants. The trial proceeded with the DNA evidence being a critical component of the prosecution's case. The defendants' objections to the admissibility of the DNA evidence were overruled, and the trial continued with all available evidence being presented to the jury.

Orders