R v Lomas

CITATION:	R v Lomas [2010] NSWDC 112
HEARING DATE(S):	13/04/10, 14/04/10, 15/04/10, 16/04/10, 19/04/10, 20/04/10, 21/04/10
JUDGMENT DATE:	20 April 2010
JURISDICTION:	CRIMINAL
JUDGMENT OF:	Finnane QC DCJ
DECISION:	I must leave the matter for the jury. I must give them appropriate directions.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW - evidence - identification evidence - DNA - whether direction to jury to acquit appropriate-
CASES CITED:	Forbes v The Queen [2010] HCATrans 45 (12 March 2010)
PARTIES:	The Crown Daniel Anath LOMAS (Accused)
FILE NUMBER(S):	2009/110415
COUNSEL:	Mr H Baker as Crown Prosecutor Mr I Todd for the Accused
SOLICITORS:	Director for Public Prosecutions Legal Aid Commission

JUDGMENT

1. HIS HONOUR: At the conclusion of the Crown case Mr Ian Todd, counsel for the accused submitted that I should direct the jury to acquit. I can do this if taking the Crown case at its highest there is no evidence on which the jury could convict. I cannot do this if I take the view that some of the evidence is not entirely satisfactory or if I personally have doubts about some of the evidence or if I think the case is a rather weak Crown case. In any of those circumstances I am obliged to leave the case for the consideration of the jury.

2. The accused is charged with robbery in company; it being alleged that on 28 July 2007 in company with another person whose identity is unknown he robbed the manager of a Travelex store at the Burwood Westfield Shopping Centre. The evidence in the trial comprises evidence from the witnesses such as the manager of the store, Mrs Manalansan, security guards, someone from a nearby paper shop and CCTV footage. As well as that the Crown case is that the accused is the robber or one of the robbers because one of the robbers when pursued by security guards was seen to drop a scarf in a driveway at the shopping centre used entirely by motor vehicles.

3. The scarf was seen to be dropped near a screwdriver which was also dropped. There was evidence from witnesses that one of the robbers was wearing a scarf and that one of the robbers was carrying a screwdriver and the other perhaps a crowbar or some other implement. In the driveway concerned a screwdriver was located and a scarf. The scarf was submitted for testing for DNA twice as I understand it and a match was established with the DNA of the accused.

4. Yesterday Mr Clinton Cochrane who is a forensic biologist gave a detailed explanation of the processes of testing the DNA, what was tested and what were the results. DNA was located on two sides of a scarf. It was only on a portion of the scarf, not the entire scarf. I would have thought that is something that could reasonably be expected. The scarf was worn around the mouth. Mr Cochrane's evidence was that a fairly significant quantity of DNA was found on both sides of…