A DNA likelihood ratio expressing how much more likely it is to obtain a DNA profile if bones come from a particular person's offspring than from a random mating cannot be equated with the probability that the bones are those of the particular person. The likelihood ratio must be translated by reference to the size of the relevant population to determine how many other persons could share the DNA profile, and the significance of the DNA evidence must then be assessed in light of all other evidence. Where proper directions on the prosecutor's fallacy cannot satisfactorily be given, discretionary considerations may arise regarding the admissibility of DNA statistical evidence.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 12 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 12 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.