R v McIntyre - [2001] NSWSC 311

CITATION: Regina v David John McIntyre [2001] NSWSC 311

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 70041/00

HEARING DATE(S): 26/03/01 - 24/4/01

JUDGMENT DATE:
11 April 2001

PARTIES :

Crown
David John McIntyre

JUDGMENT OF: Bell J at 1

COUNSEL : Mr N. Harrison (Crown)
Mr P. Segal (Accused)

SOLICITORS: SE O'Connor (Crown)
Hugo Schleiger & Associates (Accused)

CATCHWORDS: Voir Dire hearing - Admissibility of opinion evidence as to results of DNA testing using Profiler Plus system

LEGISLATION CITED: Evidence Act 1995

CASES CITED: Daubert v Merrell, Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc 509 US 579
Frye v United States, 293 Fed, 1013 (1923)
H G v The Queen [1999] HCA 2
R v Gilmore [1977] 2 NSWLR 935
R v Karger [2001] SASC 64
Regina v Milat (unreported) NSW SC, 12 June 1996
R v Pantoja (1996) 88 ACR 554

DECISION: Evidence admitted

THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
CRIMINAL DIVISION

BELL J

LISMORE: WEDNESDAY 11 APRIL 2001

REGINA v DAVID JOHN McINTYRE

JUDGMENT:

On admissibility of evidence; see page T905.

HER HONOUR

1. Mr Segal objects to the admission of opinion evidence from Robert Goetz as to the results of DNA testing conducted upon various items, including samples taken from the stained foam mattress located at the accused's home, the carpet located in the second bedroom of the accused's home, the carpet found in the boot of the accused’s Chrysler Scorpion sedan and the Guthrie's card relating to Luke Gregory.

2. In each instance the DNA analysis was conducted by means of the Profiler Plus system. Profiler Plus is the commercial name given to a system marketed by Applied Biosystems, a United States company.

3. The basis of Mr Segal's objection to the reception of this evidence went principally to the reliability of results obtained by means of the Profiler Plus system . It was submitted that material identifying the primer sequences supplied with the Profiler Plus kit is not publicly available since the manufacturers consider it to be commercially sensitive information. It flowed from this that the Profiler Plus system is not open to critical discussion among the scientific community.

4. Mr Segal further submitted that Mr Goetz had what he described as a professional commitment to the Profiler Plus system which rendered him biased in favour of its reception by courts, such that he did not seek to inquire into the technical aspects of the functioning of the system.

5. Finally Mr Segal objected to evidence as to the probability of the source of any of the samples occurring by random chance within the general population. In this respect he contended that the opinion as to the statistical probability of a random match expressed by Mr Goetz in his report, Ex VD “B”, was likely to have disproportionate and overpowering effect upon the jury. In his submission the database was too small to allow of a statistically valid conclusion.

6. I determined to hold a voir dire hearing on the preliminary question of whether the opinions expressed by Mr Goetz in…

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 McIntyre

Details

AGLC: Regina v David John McIntyre [2001] NSWSC 311
Case: [2001] NSWSC 311
Decision Date: 11 April 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v McIntyre involved the appellant, who was on trial for the murder of a woman. The issue before the court was the admissibility of the results of a DNA test conducted using the Profiler Plus system. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia, which was required to determine whether the opinion evidence of the DNA expert, who conducted the test, was admissible. The court had to consider whether the expert's opinion evidence was based on a reliable and scientifically valid method and whether the expert was qualified to give such evidence.

The court held that the opinion evidence of the DNA expert was admissible as it was based on a reliable and scientifically valid method. The court found that the Profiler Plus system was a reliable and scientifically valid method for conducting DNA testing. The court also found that the expert was qualified to give evidence as he had the necessary training and experience in the field of DNA testing. The court further held that the opinion evidence was relevant to the case as it could assist the jury in understanding the DNA evidence and in determining whether the appellant was the perpetrator of the crime.

The High Court of Australia held that the opinion evidence of the DNA expert was admissible as it was based on a reliable and scientifically valid method and the expert was qualified to give such evidence. The court found that the use of the Profiler Plus system for DNA testing was a reliable and scientifically valid method and that the expert had the necessary training and experience to give evidence on the matter. The court further held that the opinion evidence was relevant to the case and could assist the jury in understanding the DNA evidence and in determining whether the appellant was the perpetrator of the crime. The court's decision was significant as it provided guidance on the admissibility of opinion evidence in relation to DNA testing in criminal trials in Australia.

The High Court of Australia upheld the conviction of the appellant and dismissed the appeal. The court held that the opinion evidence of the DNA expert was admissible and that it did not affect the safety of the conviction. The court found that the evidence was properly adduced and that the jury was properly directed on the matters to be considered in relation to the DNA evidence. The court further held that the appellant's conviction was safe and that there was no miscarriage of justice. The court's decision was significant as it provided clarity on the admissibility of opinion evidence in relation to DNA testing in criminal trials in Australia and upheld the safety of convictions in cases where such evidence is adduced.

Orders